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

[Greg Shepherd <gjshep at gmail.com>]

I believe we have covered all we can on this discussion. The majority
opinion is that adding complexity to the framework for the sake of
compatibility with non-framework clients is out of scope for the WGs
original objectives.

So I don't feel the WG should take on this work.

Sorry,
Greg

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) <abegen at cisco.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>