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

[Brian Adamson <adamson at itd.nrl.navy.mil>]

I think it is an important item since one or more 
fully-specified RS schemes can provide for more 
compact FEC Payload ID header fields (and 
corresponding FEC OTI) than the corresponding 
Unspecified schemes ...

On this note, I also think it might be 
appropriate to perhaps document 2 distinct 
fully-specified RS schemes, one for up to GF(8) 
and a separate sheme for up to GF(16) RS codes to 
allow a compact FEC Payload ID format support 
larger objects (providing more bits for "block 
number") in the case of GF(8) codes than if the 
same format were specified for both GF(8) through 
GF(16) codes?



At 7:48 PM +0100 11/9/05, Vincent Roca wrote:
> 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


--
Brian
__________________________________
Brian Adamson
<http://cs.itd.nrl.navy.mil/5522>
<mailto:adamson at itd.nrl.navy.mil>

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