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

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

Thanks.  This looks good to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Roca [mailto:vincent.roca at inrialpes.fr] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:20 AM
To: Michael Luby
Cc: rmt at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rmt] Should RS FEC I-D be a working group item?

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