Re: Should RS FEC I-D be a working group item?
Brian Adamson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rmt |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <p06230906bf97f76393e0@[10.0.0.131]> |
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 >[email protected] >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt -- Brian __________________________________ Brian Adamson <http://cs.itd.nrl.navy.mil/5522> <mailto:[email protected]>