Skip to main content

Simple Low-Density Parity Check (LDPC) Staircase Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for FECFRAME
draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-10-29
04 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2012-10-26
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2012-10-26
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2012-10-25
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2012-10-25
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2012-10-25
04 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2012-10-25
04 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2012-10-25
04 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-10-25
04 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2012-10-25
04 Martin Stiemerling Ballot writeup was changed
2012-10-25
04 Martin Stiemerling State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2012-10-25
04 Martin Stiemerling IPR stuff is cleared: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg01029.html
2012-10-17
04 Martin Stiemerling
The draft is on-hold and not send out for publication, as the current situation of the IPR that has been declared to RFC 5170 (cited …
The draft is on-hold and not send out for publication, as the current situation of the IPR that has been declared to RFC 5170 (cited in this draft) and the potential relationship to this draft draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc is not clear. See also this email: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg01020.html.

The discussion about this has been started with the authors of the draft and also Michael Luby, waiting for the result.
2012-10-11
04 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2012-10-11
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Weis.
2012-10-11
04 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-10-11
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-10-11
04 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]


I'm confused that there's no IPR declaration given that RFC
5170
has a bunch, yet is a normative reference that defines the
actual …
[Ballot discuss]


I'm confused that there's no IPR declaration given that RFC
5170
has a bunch, yet is a normative reference that defines the
actual mechanism used here, yet the writeup says "there is no
IPR." How's that possible? 

Maybe this is really a DISCUSS-DISCUSS about transitive IPR
declarations, but I'm not sure because of the write-up. If its
considered ok that implemeters of this will have to read and
thus be aware of the IPR in 5170, then I guess I'll clear but
I figure its best to ask.
2012-10-11
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2012-10-11
04 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2012-10-10
04 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2012-10-10
04 Pete Resnick
[Ballot discuss]
I plan to clear on the telechat given an appropriate response; this is more for the shepherd than for the authors:

The document …
[Ballot discuss]
I plan to clear on the telechat given an appropriate response; this is more for the shepherd than for the authors:

The document writeup says:

  There is consensus within the FECFrame WG to publish this document.

But this gives no explanation as to why FECFrame wishes to publish this document. No answer in the shepherd report was given to the question of whether there are implementations of this protocol or whether there is interest by potential implementers in this work. The only references appear to be to research in this area, not an actual requirement for interoperability. Is there any interest in actually implementing this protocol, or is this simply another academic publication without community interest?
2012-10-10
04 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2012-10-10
04 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2012-10-09
04 Vincent Roca New version available: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-04.txt
2012-10-08
03 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2012-10-08
03 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2012-10-08
03 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2012-10-08
03 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
  Please consider the comments provided in the Gen-ART Review by
  Meral Shirazipour on 1-Oct-2012.  You can find it here:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07805.html
2012-10-08
03 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2012-10-08
03 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]

  Please consider the comments provided in the Gen-ART Review by
  Meral Shirazipour on 1-Oct-2012.  You can find it here:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07805.html
2012-10-08
03 Russ Housley Ballot comment text updated for Russ Housley
2012-10-08
03 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2012-10-07
03 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2012-10-05
03 Meral Shirazipour Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2012-10-04
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2012-10-04
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2012-10-04
03 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2012-10-04
03 Vincent Roca New version available: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-03.txt
2012-10-03
02 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2012-10-02
02 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to this document, and no blocking comments.  These are non-blocking, but please consider them seriously, and feel free to …
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to this document, and no blocking comments.  These are non-blocking, but please consider them seriously, and feel free to chat with me about them:

Throughout:
All of the "MAY" words in here seem wrong: they're describing conditions that might exist, not specifying directives for making choices (unless I'm mis-reading it).  You MUST consider various things when you construct an ADU block.  One of those various things may or might (but not MAY) be factor A.  I think all the "MAY"s in the document should be lower case (or be replaced by "might"):
  - the target use-case MAY have real-time constraints
  - [the real-time constraints] MAY define a maximum ADU block size
  - a codec MAY impose other limitations on the maximum source block size
  - The source ADU flows MAY have real-time constraints.
  - Reed-Solomon codes or 2D parity check codes MAY be more appropriate.


-- Section 8 --
  Values of FEC Encoding IDs are subject to IANA registration.
  [RFC6363] defines general guidelines on IANA considerations.  In
  particular it defines a registry called FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC
  Encoding IDs whose values are granted on an IETF Consensus basis.

IANA notes that "IETF Review" is the right term and suggests changing this.  I suggest just removing the paragraph; it's not necessary, and it doesn't seem to have any value at all.  You can move the reference to RFC 6363 to the next paragraph, which can otherwise remain as it is.
2012-10-02
02 Barry Leiba Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba
2012-10-02
02 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to this document, and no blocking comments.  These are non-blocking, but please consider them seriously, and feel free to …
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to this document, and no blocking comments.  These are non-blocking, but please consider them seriously, and feel free to chat with me about them:

Throughout:
All of the "MAY" words in here seem wrong: they're describing conditions that might exist, not specifying directives for making choices (unless I'm mis-reading it).  You MUST consider various things when you construct an ADU block.  One of those various things may or might (but not MAY) be factor A.  I think all the "MAY"s in the document should be lower case (or be replaced by "might"):
- the target use-case MAY have real-time constraints
- [the real-time constraints] MAY define a maximum ADU block size
- a codec MAY impose other limitations on the maximum source block size
- The source ADU flows MAY have real-time constraints.
- Reed-Solomon codes or 2D parity check codes MAY be more appropriate.


-- Section 8 --
  Values of FEC Encoding IDs are subject to IANA registration.
  [RFC6363] defines general guidelines on IANA considerations.  In
  particular it defines a registry called FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC
  Encoding IDs whose values are granted on an IETF Consensus basis.

IANA notes that "IETF Review" is the right term and suggests changing this.  I suggest just removing the paragraph; it's not necessary, and it doesn't seem to have any value at all.  You can move the reference to RFC 6363 to the next paragraph, which can otherwise remain as it is.
2012-10-02
02 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2012-10-01
02 Martin Stiemerling Ballot has been issued
2012-10-01
02 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2012-10-01
02 Martin Stiemerling Created "Approve" ballot
2012-10-01
02 Martin Stiemerling Ballot writeup was changed
2012-10-01
02 Martin Stiemerling Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-10-11
2012-10-01
02 Martin Stiemerling State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2012-10-01
02 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2012-09-28
02 Pearl Liang
IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-02 and has the following
comments:

Upon approval of this document IANA will assign a value for the Simple
LDPC-Staircase FEC Scheme …
IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-02 and has the following
comments:

Upon approval of this document IANA will assign a value for the Simple
LDPC-Staircase FEC Scheme for
Arbitrary Packet Flows in the "FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC Encoding IDs"
registry located at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rmt-fec-parameters

Note to Authors: In section 8 of this document, it refers to the registration
procedures being IETF
Consensus. In RFC 6363, it describes the registration procedures as IETF
Review according to RFC 5226.
Although they are the same (as described in RFC 5226) you may want to change
the wording in the
document to match up with what RFC 6363 says.

IANA understands the above to be the only requested actions.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
2012-09-20
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2012-09-20
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2012-09-20
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis
2012-09-20
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis
2012-09-17
02 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Simple LDPC-Staircase Forward Error Correction (FEC) …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Simple LDPC-Staircase Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for FECFRAME) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the FEC Framework WG (fecframe) to
consider the following document:
- 'Simple LDPC-Staircase Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for
  FECFRAME'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-10-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a fully-specified simple FEC scheme for LDPC-
  Staircase codes that can be used to protect media streams along the
  lines defined by the FECFRAME framework.  These codes have many
  interesting properties: they are systematic codes, they perform close
  to ideal codes in many use-cases and they also feature very high
  encoding and decoding throughputs.  LDPC-Staircase codes are
  therefore a good solution to protect a single high bitrate source
  flow, or to protect globally several mid-rate flows within a single
  FECFRAME instance.  They are also a good solution whenever the
  processing load of a software encoder or decoder must be kept to a
  minimum.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2012-09-17
02 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2012-09-17
02 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was generated
2012-09-16
02 Martin Stiemerling Last call was requested
2012-09-16
02 Martin Stiemerling Ballot approval text was generated
2012-09-16
02 Martin Stiemerling Ballot writeup was generated
2012-09-16
02 Martin Stiemerling State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party
2012-09-16
02 Martin Stiemerling milestones are now there, ready to go forward.
2012-09-04
02 Martin Stiemerling Last call announcement was generated
2012-08-17
02 Martin Stiemerling Waiting for the chairs to update the list of milestones, as there is no milestone for this draft.
2012-08-17
02 Martin Stiemerling State changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation
2012-07-23
02 Martin Stiemerling State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2012-07-11
02 Cindy Morgan
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

RFC proposed standard to wg consensus. The title page indicates Standards Track.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document describes a fully-specified simple FEC scheme for
LDPC-Staircase codes that can be used to protect media streams along
the lines defined by the FECFRAME framework.

Working Group Summary

There is consensus within the FECFrame WG to publish this document.
The document has been actively discussed on the wg list and in wg
meetings. There was no controversy with the progression of this
document.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?

Yes:
K. Matsuzono, J. Detchart, M. Cunche, V. Roca, H. Asaeda,
``Performance Analysis of a High-Performance Real-Time Application
with Several AL-FEC Schemes", 35th Annual IEEE Conference on Local
Computer Networks 2010 (LCN 2010), October 2010. (PDF)

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Greg Shepherd is the document shepherd and Martin Stiemerling is the
responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I read the document. The AD read the document. The WG has read the
document. It has been successfully run through idnits. This version of
the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

I have no concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes. There is no IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is solid WG consensus behind the document. It has undergone
thorough review within the AVT and FEC communities. The document has
been actively discussed on the WG mailing list and in WG meetings.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No required formal review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are to completed work.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967
)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No, publication of this document will not change the status of any
existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA considerations are clear and detailed.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No expert review necessary.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable
2012-07-11
02 Cindy Morgan State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching
2012-07-11
02 Cindy Morgan Note added 'Greg Shepherd (gjshep@gmail.com) is the document shepherd'
2012-03-29
02 Martin Stiemerling Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard
2012-03-29
02 Martin Stiemerling IESG process started in state AD is watching
2012-03-08
02 Vincent Roca New version available: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-02.txt
2011-11-29
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-01.txt
2011-09-14
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-00.txt