Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WGLC draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-00

From: Martin Ellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:35:36 +0100

I've read this document, and I had just a couple of comments:

 - The last 2 paragraphs of section 4.2 discuss a max_rt parameter,
which restricts the ADU block size for the real-time constraints of a
particular application. Would it be appropriate to give an example
here? (this also applies to the simple-rs draft).

 - In section 7.1, some specific numbers are given on levels of
overhead required to reduce residual loss rates. Are these results
based on the [Matsuzono10] reference? If so, I think it would be
better to say so explicitly (and briefly mention the assumptions made
in that study; i.e., uniform random packet loss).

Cheers,
Martin

On 14 September 2011 15:17, Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]> wrote:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc/
>
> ..and another WGLC. Please read and provide feedback so we can close
> the group before Taipei and give David something to brag about. ;-)
>
> Thanks!,
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
>

---

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:38:40 +0200

Hello Martin,

> here? (this also applies to the simple-rs draft).

Good idea. We'll do that in next version of both I-Ds.

> in that study; i.e., uniform random packet loss).

No, these results come from an evaluation of the LDPC-Staircase
codes, using a dedicated simulator. However they give an idea of
what performance (in terms of erasure recovery) can be expected
for real use-cases if these codes are correctly used. We'll clarify this.

Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers,

   Vincent