Re: FEB BB changes impacts on FLUTE and NORM

Ok, I agree on (3) below.

...Mark.
-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 05:51:46 
To:<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: FEB BB changes impacts on FLUTE and NORM

Hi Mark
 
 >1) DVB agreed corrected schema yesterday, so you probably do
 >not have the most up-to-date (but for reasons which are
 >obscure to me they did not agree to align with 3GPP/IETF).
 
 ok
 
 >3) So you think the Standards Track docs should not even make
 >*informative* references to the Experimental ones ? Even just
 >to state that they are backwards compatible with them ? The
 >reference would be in the Informative References section. I
 >thought that the ban of referencing Experimental documents was
 >for Normative References only ?
 
 informational ref to EXP is ok in general. However, referencing a (soon
 to be) obsolete version of the RMT RFC family seems strange when in 6
 months (hopefully) the only FLUTE of interest will not be 3926. I think
 passing WGLC will be enough justification for the alg in FEC-BB, it
 does not need to justify itself. From experimental, an implementer will
 see the block removed from standards track FLUTE and the ref to the new
 FEC-BB so at no point will there need to be a reference back to EXP
 FLUTE.
 
 >4) The link between the OTI elements in the FDT and the OTI
 >elements in the EXT-FTI is preserved in the sense that both
 >FDT elements and EXT-FTI elements are defined (semantically)
 >in the FEC BB - i.e. both FDT OTI and EXT-OTI point to FEC BB,
 >rather than FDT OTI pointing to EXT-FTI.
 
 ok - my full review of FEC-BB is even more nigh :)
 
 Cheers, Rod.
 
 
Sent from my BlackBerry.