Simple Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for FECFRAME
RFC 6865

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

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-12-19 for -05)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info