Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes
draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-06

[Ballot discuss]
I'm sure I'm missing some information somewhere else, but the
document says:

> The Transfer Length, Encoding Symbol Length and Maximum Source Block
> length are encoded as unsigned integers, of length 48 bits, 16 bits
> and 32 bits respectivly.

In what units are the length values expressed, bits, bytes, four
octets, etc?

I had to read much further into the document to find out some text
that seemed to indicate symbol lengths were expressed in bytes. So
it would be good to make the format say this explicitly.

Please check the other similar fields in the documents as well.

Secondly, I grepped the document for occurrences of the word "max"
to find out what are the semantics of the Max Source Block Length Field.
All I found was the format, and the explanation that it is a non-
negative integer. Shouldn't its use be described somewhere? Again,
I'm sure I'm missing something, and certainly someone who is not reading
his first RMT RFC would know the answer immediately. And I have
not had any coffee yet this morning.

[Ballot discuss]
I'm sure I'm missing some information somewhere else, but the
document says:

> The Transfer Length, Encoding Symbol Length and Maximum Source Block
> length are encoded as unsigned integers, of length 48 bits, 16 bits
> and 32 bits respectivly.

In what units are the length values expressed, bits, bytes, four
octets, etc?

I had to read much further into the document to find out some text
that seemed to indicate symbol lengths were expressed in bytes. So
it would be good to make the format say this explicitly.

Please check the other similar fields in the documents as well.

Secondly, I grepped the document for occurrences of the word "max"
to find out what are the semantics of the Max Source Block Length Field.
All I found was the format, and the explanation that it is a non-
negative integer. Shouldn't its use be described somewhere? Again,
I'm sure I'm missing something, and certainly someone is not reading
his first RMT RFC would know the answer immediately. And I have
not had any coffee yet this morning.

[Ballot discuss]
I'm sure I'm missing some information somewhere else, but the
document says:

> The Transfer Length, Encoding Symbol Length and Maximum Source Block
> length are encoded as unsigned integers, of length 48 bits, 16 bits
> and 32 bits respectivly.

In what units are the length values expressed, bits, bytes, four
octets, etc?

I had to read much further into the document to find out some text
that seemed to indicate symbol lengths were expressed in bytes. So
it would be good to make the format say this explicitly.

Please check the other similar fields in the documents as well.

Secondly, I grepped the document for occurrences of the word "max"
to find out what the semantics of the Max Source Block Length Field.
All I found was the format, and the explanation that it is a non-
negative integer. Shouldn't its use be described somewhere? Again,
I'm sure I'm missing something, and certainly someone is not reading
his first RMT RFC would know the answer immediately. And I have
not had any coffee yet this morning.

[Ballot discuss]
I'm sure I'm missing some information somewhere else, but the
document says:

> The Transfer Length, Encoding Symbol Length and Maximum Source Block
> length are encoded as unsigned integers, of length 48 bits, 16 bits
>  and 32 bits respectivly.

In what units are the length values expressed, bits, bytes, four
octets, etc?

I had to read much further into the document to find out some text
that seemed to indicate symbol lengths were expressed in bytes. So
it would be good to make the format say this explicitly.

Please check the other similar fields in the documents as well.

Secondly, I grepped the document for occurrences of the word "max"
to find out what the semantics of the Max Source Block Length Field.
All I found was the format, and the explanation that it is a non-
negative integer. Shouldn't its use be described somewhere. Again,
I'm sure I'm missing something, and certainly someone is not reading
his first RMT RFC would know the answer immediately. And I have
not had any coffee yet this morning.

[Ballot discuss]
I'm sure I'm missing some information somewhere else, but the
document says:

> The Transfer Length, Encoding Symbol Length and Maximum Source Block
> length are encoded as unsigned integers, of length 48 bits, 16 bits
>  and 32 bits respectivly.

In what units are these length values expressed, bits, bytes, four
octets, etc?

I had to read much further into the document to find out some text
that seemed to indicate symbol lengths were expressed in bytes. So
it would be good to make the format say this explicitly.

Please check the other similar fields in the documents as well.

[Ballot discuss]
I'm sure I'm missing some information somewhere else, but the
document says:

> The Transfer Length, Encoding Symbol Length and Maximum Source Block
> length are encoded as unsigned integers, of length 48 bits, 16 bits
>  and 32 bits respectivly.

In what units are these length values expressed, bits, bytes, etc?

I had to read much further into the document to find out some text
that seemed to indicate symbol lengths were expressed in bytes. So
it would be good to make the format say this explicitly.

IANA Last Call comments:

QUESTION: should references to this document actually replace
references to [RFC3695] and [RFC3452], rather than supplement
them?

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changes in the "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rmt-fec-parameters

OLD:

Value Description Reference
----- ----------------------------- ---------
0 Compact No-Code [RFC3695]

NEW:

Value Description Reference
----- ---------------------------- ---------
0 Compact No-Code
[RFC3695,RFC-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-05]


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changes in the "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rmt-fec-parameters

OLD

Value Description Reference Section
------- ------------------------------------- -----------
128 Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC Codes [RFC3452] 5.1
129 Small Block Systematic FEC Codes [RFC3452] 5.2
130 Compact FEC [RFC3695]

NEW:

Value Description Reference Section
------- ------------------------------------- -----------
128 Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC Codes
[RFC3452,RFC-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-05]
129 Small Block Systematic FEC Codes
[RFC3452,RFC-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-05]
130 Compact FEC
[RFC3695,RFC-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-05]

draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-04 intended for publication in the "Proposed Standard" category.

This writeup complies with RFC 4858.

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Document Shepherd is Brian Adamson, who has personally
reviewed this version of the document and believes it is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document had adequate review both key WG members and from key non-WG members.
The document provides information in the context of the RMT "FEC Building Blocks"
for a range of expected FEC code variants.  The document provides a reference
framework that non fully-specified FEC codes can use for incorporation in RMT protocols
and has been used for such in working implementations.  It also provides a framework
for "No-Code" FEC types that may be used for testing purposes.
  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

No additional reviews needed.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

There are no specific concerns or known IPR issues with this document.

  (1.e)  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?

This document represent a solid consensus of the RMT WG.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No discontent has been noted.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The ID nits are satisfied.  There _is_ an intentional reference to an earlier
version of FEC Building Block (RFC 5052) and the nit checker misinterprets a
line using brackets "[]" for array notation as a reference.
  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document splits its references into normative and
informative. No Downward References.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA consideration section exists, it is consistent with the rest
of the document and is consistent with the registration guidelines
specified in draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised. No new registry is
defined. This document does update/obsolete some previous FEC descriptions that
have registered code types within in the "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" namespace, but no
new registry entries are requested.
  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

The documents contains no section written in formal language.

  (1.k)  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
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
            example, was there controversy about particular points or
            were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
            rough?

          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?

          Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?


Document Announcement Write-Up follows.

Technical Summary

    This document is an optional Building Block usable to fully define
    an RMT Protocol.  The document describes some "basic" FEC schemes
    in the context of RMT protocols.  It provides FEC Object Transport
    Information (OTI) formats for a couple of expected common FEC forms. 
    A "No-Code" type is also specified that may be used for testing or
    other purpose. This document provides a template for developers that
    may wish to implement non-fully-specified FEC codes (as described in
    RFC5052) in RMT protocols presuming the FEC code matches one of the
    general types (Small Block, Large Block, etc) described in this
    document.

Working Group Summary

    There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents.

Document Quality

    The FEC basic scheme implementation has been used in working RMT NORM
    implementations to described Reed Solomon (RS) code variants until the
    fully-specified standard for RS Encoding was published.

Brian Adamson is the Document Shepherd.
Magnus Westerlund is the Responsible Area Director.