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

[Mark Pullen <mpullen at netlab.gmu.edu>]

Under these terms, I'm in favor.

Mark

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Vincent Roca wrote:

> Hello Mike,
>
> Sorry, I forgot to add the explanations that I gave during the session,
> Monday.
>
> 1- Yes the final I-D aims to be 100% compatible with Luigi's codec,
> version 2, July 1998,
> and this one is MDS. We've been confused by version 1...
>
> 2- Yes, the proposal defines a fully specified FEC Enc ID.
>
> 3- Our plan is to only consider the fully MDS scheme, forgotting
> completely the other one.
>
> Cheers,
>
>   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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> Rmt at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
>
> !DSPAM:43724c41152851364027241!
>

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