Re: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-rs-04 LC comments

Vincent Roca <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.rmt
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hello,

We just received these comments concerning our Reed-Solomon I-D
from Alfred.
Cheers,

  Vincent


Alfred Hoenes wrote:
> Hello,
> after studying the Internet-Draft in IETF LC authored by you,
>                 draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-rs-04,
> I'd like to submit a few comments, pointing out a few textual
> flaws I found in that memo that should be addressed before
> publicaton as an RFC.
> 
> The items below are presented in textual order.
> To give more context, sometimes I quote larger blocks of text
> literally and show the replacement proposed using the shorthand
> notation:
> 
>    <original draft text>
> ---
>    <modified text>
> 
> I use change bars ('|' in column 1) and occasionally
> up/down pointing marker lines ('^^^'/'vvv') to emphasize
> the location of textual issues and/or proposed corrections.
> Modified text has been re-adjusted to match RFC formatting
> rules, where appropriate.
> 
> 
> (1)  Section 1 -- word omission
> 
> In the 4th paragraph, put in the missing verb, "is" :
> 
>        The goal of the present document to specify ...
> ---
>        The goal of the present document is to specify ...
>                                         ^^^
> 
> (2)  Section 4.2.4.2 -- clarification of potentially misleading text
> 
> The last paragraph of Section 4.2.4.2 says:
> 
> |  After Base64 encoding, the 2 bytes of the FEC OTI Scheme Specific
>    Information are transformed into a string of 4 printable characters
> |  (in the 64-character alphabet) and added to the FEC-OTI-Scheme-
>    Specific-Info attribute.
> 
> a) In the first line, "After" is misleading; "During" would be
>    appropriate; I propose to use "Via" for brevity.
> b) In the third line, "and added" does not give the sentence the
>    proper sense; I porpose to use "that is added" instead.
> 
> Taking altogether, the paragraph should say:
> 
> |  Via Base64 encoding, the 2 bytes of the FEC OTI Scheme Specific
>    Information are transformed into a string of 4 printable characters
> |  (in the 64-character alphabet) that is added to the FEC-OTI-Scheme-
>    Specific-Info attribute.
> 
> 
> (3)  Section 5.1 -- typo/grammar
> 
> The last sentence above Figure 5 does not parse; please change
> 
>    This FEC Payload ID refer to ...
> ---                         ^
>    This FEC Payload ID refers to ...
>                             ^^
> 
> (4)  Section 8.1 -- text simplification
> 
> Near the end of the first paragraph of Section 8.1, the draft says:
> 
>                                                           ... the
>    multiplication is the multiplication modulo a given irreducible
> |  polynomial over GF(2) of degree m with coefficients in GF(2).  [...]
>               ^^^^^^^^^^             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Actually, "over GF(2)" and "with coefficients in GF(2)" mean exactly
> the same.  This equivalence is already explaned a few lines above,
> in the same paragraph.
> Hence, this redundancy should be removed, one of the two marked parts
> should be deleted; I leave it to your choice, which to choose!
> 
> 
> (5)  Section 8.1 -- clarification
> 
> The second paragraph of Section 8.1 says:
> 
> |  A finite field GF(2^^m) is completely characterized by the
>    irreducible polynomial.  [...]
> 
> The preceding paragraph already has stated more precisely that this
> is a polynomial *representation* of the structurally unique field.
> The polynomial characterizes this representation.
> For the sake of mathematical precision, I therefore recommend to
> improve the wording of that sentence to say:
> 
> |  The choosen polynomial representation of the finite field GF(2^^m)
>    is completely characterized by the irreducible polynomial.  [...]
> 
> 
> (6)  Section 8.4 -- textual improvement
> 
> The second paragraph of Section 8.4 says:
> 
>    [...]  If some of the source symbols contain less than S elements,
> |  they MUST be virtually padded with zero elements (it can be the
>    case for the last symbol of the last block of the object).
>    [...]
> 
> It should better say:
> 
>    [...]  If some of the source symbols contain less than S elements,
> |  they MUST be virtually padded with zero elements (this can be the
>    case for the last symbol of the last block of the object).
>    [...]                                             ^^^^
> 
> 
> (7)  Section 8.4 -- confusing overloading of the named index 'j'
> 
> Up to and including Figure 7, the index j (from {0..S01}) is used
> to select a particular m-bit element from each source symbol or
> encoding symbol, i.e. it is a column index in the upper and the
> bottom part of Figure 7.
> 
> Confusingly, 'j' is overloaded in the last paragraph of the Section
> with a very different meaning, as a row index in the bottom part
> of Figure 7.  This should be avoided; in that context, 'j' should
> be replaced by another variable name not yet used, e.g. 'i'.
> 
> Hence, the final paragraph of Section 8.4 should be changed to say:
> 
>    Another asset is that the n-k repair symbols can be produced on
>    demand.  For instance, a sender can start by producing a limited
>    number of repair symbols and later on, depending on the observed
>    erasures on the channel, decide to produce additional repair symbols,
> |  up to the n-k upper limit.  Indeed, to produce the repair symbol e_i,
>               v                                                       ^
> |  where k <= i < n, it is sufficient to multiply the S source vectors
> |  with column i of GM.
>                ^
> 
> (8)  Section 12.2 -- outdated reference
> 
> Apparently, ref. [9] has been published as RFC 5053 in September,
> long before the current draft revision has been posted.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
>   Alfred Hoenes.
> 
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
> | Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
> | D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email protected]                     |
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
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.