RE: [Rmt] Should RS FEC I-D be a working group item?

["Michael Luby" <luby at digitalfountain.com>]

Hi Vincent,
Sorry, not having been at the RMT meeting, it would be good to know a little
more context on the question you asked.

(1) What was submitted as a "Reed-Solomon" code to the current IETF was not
a Reed-Solomon code (not MDS, for example).  Is the plan to prepare and
submit a true Reed-Solomon code proposal?

(2) Is the plan to do a fully-specified FEC Encoding ID? (At some point
there was also a submittal of an Under-Specified FEC Encoding ID for a
Reed-Solomon code.)

(3) If the answer to (1) is yes, then is there also a plan to also go
forward with the proposal that was Reed-Solomon-like but that was not a
Reed-Solomon proposal?

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: rmt-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rmt-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Vincent Roca
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:49 AM
To: rmt at ietf.org
Subject: [Rmt] Should RS FEC I-D be a working group item?

Dear collegues,

Following the recommendation of Lorenzo on monday, during the RMT WG 
session,
we are asking you whether you see any good reason to make the Reed-Solomon
FEC I-D a working group item or not.
Cheers,

    Jérome, Vincent, Sami and Jani.

_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
Rmt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt



_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
Rmt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt