Joel, We have taken a look at your comments and indeed you have a good point. This will be addressed in the revised version that will be provided after last call is concluded. Thanks, Mike Luby
On 1/27/11 2:35 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-04 > RaptorQ Forward Error Correction Scheme for Object Delivery > Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern > Review Date: 27-January-2011 > IETF LC End Date: 09-Feb-2011 > IESG Telechat date: N/A > > Summary: This document is ready for publicaiton as a Proposed Standard. > > Note: The reviewer did not attempt to verify the actual FEC behaviors, > but did focus on whether he believed an implementor could follow the > instructions to implement the algorithm. The comments below should be > considered if the document is revised. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > It would probably be helpful in section 3.2.3 if there was some comment > as to why the number of source blocks is a 12 bit field when the last > paragraph of 3.2.2 says that the number of source blocks is limited to 256. > The order of presentation of material in section 5.3 is somewhat > confusing. Rather than changing it however, I think it woudl suffice if > a forward reference, in the text early in 5.3.3.3 is added, saying that > the algorithm describes here assumes that the C symobls have been > calculated according to the constraints in section 5.3.3.4. (The > challenge appears to be a matter of providing sufficient clarity without > over-constraining implementors.) > In describing the "First Phase" algorithm in section 5.4.2.2, the > chosing and arranging step seems to ensure that the first row of V has a > 1 in the first column of V. Confusingly, the text then refers to the > chosen row having an entry alpha in the first column of V. It may be > that I misread the steps (in which case we should check if clarification > is needed), it may be that alpha is indeed always 1, in which case we > should say so, or it may be that the "ones" in the earlier selection > criteria is merely supposed to be "non-zeros". > > Nits/editorial comments: > In 4.4.1.2 when defining the symbols IL, IS, JL, and JS, the > formula for JL gets split across a line boundary. It is very easy for a > reader to miss a piece, and get the completely wrong formula. (The > split causes the bind to invert the operator priority, if it does not > completely miss the extra operation.) _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
