On Fri, Jun 12, 2026, at 10:34, Roberto Peon wrote: > This seems like a variant of FEC?
I don't think that the intent is to specify exactly how the sender probes for more capacity. It's just that Luke identified redundant sending as a simple way to ensure that the bytes aren't *completely* wasted. Using full-blown erasure codes might cost more CPU than is justified in this case, but they would work even better.
