RE: [AVT] Commetns on draft-luby-avt-rtp-generic-fec-00.txt

["Sami Peltotalo" <sami.peltotalo at tut.fi>]

Hi,

This is comment to Marcel's questions.

> > 4) How many FEC Schemes are planned in RMT? Is there a
> > recommendation, which
> > FEC scheme to use in which context?
>
> *** There is no planned limit, but new ones are continually popping up and
> being defined, I think there are three or four new proposals at
> the upcoming
> IETF, including a Reed-Solomon proposal (which needs some work
> still).  RFC
> 3452 defines the formal process of how to introduce new FEC Encoding IDs,
> and this process seems to be working quite successfully.
>
> > 5) Maybe a stupid question, but I was not able to find a
> concrete RMT FEC
> > scheme (except no code FEC scheme). Is there an implementation or a
> > specification of one FEC instantiation? I would like to see such spec to
> > understand how it is possible to write one specificatin which is
> > applicable
> > for RMT and AVT.
>
> *** THere are two types of schemes possible, fully-specified and
> under-specified.  There need to be a couple of more fully-specified, but
> there are quite a number of under-specified FEC schemes (most are
> proprietary) that have or will soon be registered with their own FEC
> Instance ID.  See RFC 3452 for how this works.

You can find one concrete FEC scheme I-D from:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-peltotalo-rmt-bb-fec-supp-xor-pcm-
rs-00.txt

This I-D, Simple XOR, Reed-Solomon, and Parity Check Matrix-based FEC
Schemes, includes two fully-specified FEC schemes and one under-specified
FEC scheme. Comments for this I-D are very welcome.
Especially specific improvements where anyone feels there may be some work
is still needed.

Also an open source implementation of No-code, Simple XOR and Reed-Solomon
FEC is available at:

http://atm.tut.fi/mad

Cheers, Sami Peltotalo






_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt