Skip to main content

Simple Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for FECFRAME
draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-06

Yes

(Martin Stiemerling)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -05) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-12-19 for -05) Unknown
Just one substantive comment (the first one). While I'm not
objecting, I'd like to understand why you haven't put in that
MUST...

- p19, you have m=8 as the default, which is fine, but you only
say that that SHOULD be supported and used. That means that an
imlplementation could claim to conform to this spec that only
supported m=16 or some other value.  It would seem better to
say that m=8 MUST be supported by all implementations, esp.
since you imply that different methods will be used to
implement different m values. Is there a reason to not have
that MUST?

The rest are nits:

- abstract is terminology-rich, would be nicer if simplified.

- p5, "Some of them..." which "them"? (Same on p6)

- p11, it'd be nicer if L[x] was shown twice as wide as F[x] in
the simple FEC encoding diagram

- p12, would it be useful to say that the value of E in an SDP
has to be <2^16?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown