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] |
> +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+