Re: Should FLUTE File Aggregation I-D be a working group item?

Dear all,
 To start the discussion on the object aggregation draft, I wanted to point
out some issues that I think are in favour of having this as an WG item.
 Physical aggregation scheme is of great advantage to avoid the coupon
collector problem. In the case of a large number of small files, physical
aggregation combined with FEC is the only way to effeciently transport the
content.
Therefore I think it is necessary to have some standardized solution for
that, which could possibly be reused in several use cases with different FEC
schemes...
The draft exaclty addresses this problem.
 I heard that some physical aggragation scheme has also been defined in 3GPP
MBMS, but I'm not really following 3GPP activities and are therefore not
aware of that. Maybe someone has an input here?
 Beside the coupon collector issue, some FEC schemes perform badly with
small files, and aggregating them, seems the only solution in this context
(as it has been mentioned on the slides during the rmt session).
 other comments? Suggestions?
 cheers,
 Christoph
   On 11/9/05, Vincent Roca <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> 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 FLUTE File
> Aggregation
> I-D (draft-neumann-rmt-flute-file-aggregation-02.txt)*** *a working
> group item or not.
>
> Please do not hesitate to comment.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vincent.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
>
>

_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt