Hi,
Here are some minor editorial corrections to this draft.
Sub-section 5.4.1.2
Old: The symbol alignment parameter Al ensures that sub-symbols are always a multiple of A bytes.
New: The symbol alignment parameter Al ensures that sub-symbols are always a multiple of Al bytes.
Sub-section 5.5.1
Old_ This process can be can be realized by a Raptor decoding process.
New: This process can be realized by a Raptor decoding process.
Section 5
The phrases "source triples" and "source symbol triples" are used interchangeably.
At other places the phrase "repair symbol triples" is used.
For consistency, please replace the phrase "source triples" with "source symbol triples" everywhere.
Section 5.5.1
Old: Each repair symbol group is associated with an Encoding Symbol ID (ESI) and a number, G, of encoding symbols.
New: Each repair symbol group is associated with an Encoding Symbol ID (ESI) and a number, G, of repair symbols.
Old: The ESI is used to generate a triple of three integers, (d, a, b) for each repair symbol, again using the Trip[] generator as described in Section 5.4.2.
New: The ESI is used to generate a triple of three integers, (d, a, b) for each repair symbol, again using the Trip[] generator as described in Section 5.4.2.2.
Section 5.5.2.3
Old: g[j,k] denote the jth element, j=0, 1, 2, ..., of the subsequence of g[i] whose elements have exactly k non-zero bits in their binary representation.
New: g[j,k] denote the jth element, j=0, 1, 2, ..., of the subsequence of g[j] whose elements have exactly k non-zero bits in their binary representation.
Section 5.3.
Replace "Principle" with "Principal".
Optional: For clarity, you may consider replacing "choose(i,j)" with more familiar "nchoosek(i,j)".
Thank you,
Ramakrishna Vedantham
Nokia Research Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia | Phone +1-972-374-1922
6000 Connection Dr, | Fax +1-972-894-5937
Irving, TX 75039, USA | mailto: [email protected]
www.nokia.com/openness
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of ext
Lorenzo Vicisano
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:54 PM
To: Michael Luby
Cc: Walsh Rod (Nokia-NRC/Tampere); [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rmt] draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02 WG Last Call
Mike,
the two WGLCs are overlapped: both drafts are in
right now and feedback is welcome for both of them,
we jsut moved the deadline for Raptor by one week.
Considering the normal IETF times, this is unlikely to have
an impact in the date of publication of the RFC.
> wglc back by a week, and there are some good reasons why it would be good to
> have the FEC bb and the Raptor wglcs finished by the end of the week of
> September 26. I've never seen another IETF wg that tried to keep the wglcs
please state the reasons.
Note that this is a fairly informal process: if needed we can
delay asking the IESG to review the FEC BB.. in case something
comes up to require another WGLC. Also note that other FEC IDs
are behind and still have to enter WGLC.
thanks,
Lorenzo
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:24:27PM -0700, Michael Luby wrote:
> All,
> I don't understand this. Rod admittedly is going to do his wglc review at
> the last minute on the last day, and for this the Raptor wglc is pushed back
> a week? I don't understand why this is a reasonable argument to push the
> non-overlapped, and if I remember correctly the first time around the FEC
> bb, the LCT bb and the ALC pi were all in wglc at exactly the same time and
> all finished wglc at exactly the same time within the RMT wg.
> Mike
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> > Lorenzo Vicisano
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:31 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Rmt] draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02 WG Last Call
> >
> >
> > Rod,
> >
> > this is reasonable: let's make October 3rd the feedback deadline for
> > draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Lorenzo
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:53:04PM +0300, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Hi Lorenzo et al.
> > >
> > > Is there any chance of shifting the raptor date back one week so we
> > > don't have to do two reviews at the last minute on the same day?
> > >
> > > (Yes I feel ashamed for openly admitting to leaving reviews to the last
> > > minute - I know I'm not the only one though :)
> > >
> > > Cheers, Rod.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> > > >Behalf Of ext Lorenzo Vicisano
> > > >Sent: 12 September, 2005 09:34
> > > >To: [email protected]
> > > >Subject: [Rmt] draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02 WG Last Call
> > > >
> > > >Please be advised that this email starts RMT working group
> > > >last-call for draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-02.
> > > >
> > > >Please provide your comments by Monday September 26th, if any.
> > > >
> > > > thank you,
> > > > Lorenzo Vicisano
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >Rmt mailing list
> > > >[email protected]
> > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
> > > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rmt mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
> >
_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.