Subject: Re: [nwcrg] nwcrg Digest, Vol 69, Issue 6

From: Janus Heide <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 12:50:21 +0200

Hi Salvatore,

Good question.

Let me expand a bit on that from memory. We where working with a use 
case where we identified a symbols size of approximately 100 bytes and a 
total packet size from 1200 bytes and down. From these parameters, up to 
15 symbols permitted the sufficient flexibility in terms of packet size 
e.g. allowing for packets of sizes 100, 200, ..., 1500 bytes (of 
variable packet size) to be changed on the fly.

Of course for some other application this choice might be to limiting, 
but in this case it is possible to include multiple representations into 
a single packet. This would come at the cost of additional overhead (if 
you include 2 representations you get twice the overhead) but to be fair 
I think it will be quiet uncommon to go beyond a few symbols per packet. 
Coupled with the fact that allocating more than 4 bytes would start to 
be problematic for other fields this seemed a good trade-off.

If you can come up with some use cases where this choice would pose a 
problem, I would be interested to know it.

Best Janus

On 11.07.2019 21.00, [email-masked] wrote:
> Send nwcrg mailing list submissions to
> 	[email-masked]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	[email-masked]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	[email-masked]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of nwcrg digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. about the symbols field in draft-heide-nwcrg-rlnc-02
>        (Salvatore Signorello)
>     2. Symbol representation draft updated (Janus Heide)
>
> _______________________________________________
> nwcrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg