As said an IETF ago, I'm also in favour. I think taking this exact code
(which has become the de facto in open source university efforts) makes
a lot of sense.
I also think it's worth considering Brian's comments about GF(8) and
GF(16). Whether we should accept also these into RMT as a WG item?
(Obviously we would need someone to start writing them and an individual
submission - would be the right place to start). But for now, is the
proposal only based on accepting the Luigi's/MDS I-D?
Cheers, Rod.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>Behalf Of ext Michael Luby
>Sent: 09 November, 2005 21:35
>To: 'Vincent Roca'
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Rmt] Should RS FEC I-D be a working group item?
>
>Thanks. This looks good to me.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vincent Roca [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:20 AM
>To: Michael Luby
>Cc: [email protected]
>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
>[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.