Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework Extension to Sliding Window Codes
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, The IESG <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, David Black <email@example.com>, Wesley Eddy <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework Extension to Sliding Window Codes' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-08.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework Extension to Sliding Window Codes' (draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-08.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Transport Area Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Mirja Kühlewind and Magnus Westerlund. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext/
Technical Summary RFC 6363 describes a framework for using Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes to provide protection against packet loss. The framework supports applying FEC to arbitrary packet flows over unreliable transport and is primarily intended for real-time, or streaming, media. However FECFRAME as per RFC 6363 is restricted to block FEC codes. The present document extends FECFRAME to support FEC Codes based on a sliding encoding window, in addition to Block FEC Codes, in a backward compatible way. During multicast/broadcast real-time content delivery, the use of sliding window codes significantly improves robustness in harsh environments, with less repair traffic and lower FEC-related added latency. Working Group Summary RFC 6363 was a product of the former FECFRAME working group, which closed several years ago. FECFRAME was in the TSV area. When several original FECFRAME participants proposed updates/extensions to support new types of codes (with benefits for some real world applications), between the Area Directors and the TSVWG, it was agreed that the work should be done in TSVWG, and two documents including this one were adopted. Several FECFRAME participants are either authors/editors listed on the documents, or participated in reviews. Other than this history, there were no other significant issues or events of interest in the working group process on this document. Document Quality There have been implementations. The implementations were reported to the working group, and the documents benefited from the implementation and testing experience. Personnel The document shepherd is Wesley Eddy (email@example.com), and the responsible AD is Magnus Westerlund.