Subject: Re: [AVT] WGLC: draft-ietf.avt-ulp-19.txt

From: Qiaobing Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 13:42:10 -0600

Hi, Stephan,

Stephan Wenger wrote:
...
> IMHO, there is little point in evaluating Reed-Solomon or any other 
> "higher" FEC code for an RTP payload format.  If your delay tolerance is 
> such high that you can afford multiple repair packets per FEC block, go 
> use fecframe WG's technology, or use feedback based repair (whatever 
> fits your application better).  When using only a single repair packet 
> per FEC block, there is no difference between XOR FEC and the other FEC 
> schemes.

There is a simple trick that can give you protection against multiple 
packet losses without incurring any FEC delay (especially true for 
pre-recorded media), as described in

http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-xie-avt-rtp-anti-shadow-01.txt.

And there is little computational complexity. Of cause there is overhead 
for redundancy.

regards,
-Qiaobing

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt