Re: [Fecframe] Working Group Item? was: Re: draft-zixuan-fecframe-source-mi ??

["Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen at cisco.com>]

> The focus of our draft is on backward-compatibility issue. Separate flow is just an
> option. Based on the previous discussion on the draft, now we think defining a generic

What other option(s) do you propose?

Using a separate flow requires additional support on the clients already supporting the framework. Rather than wasting that energy on those modifications, I'd rather prefer making the non-framework clients compatible with the framework if they indeed want to benefit from the framework features.

Ow, I suggest the non-compatible clients to stick with the non-complicated FEC scenarios. This whole stuff is not worth the effort IMO.

-acbegen

> mapping information format for various ways of building source block in practice should be
> the most important issue for backward compatibility. We suggest to make this work
> (defining a generic mapping information format) to be a work item. We can update our draft
> to be the basis of this work.