Subject: [tsvwg] Protocol Action: 'Sliding Window Random Linear Code (RLC) Forward Erasure Correction (FEC) Schemes for FECFRAME' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme-16.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 07:38:30 -0700

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Sliding Window Random Linear Code (RLC) Forward Erasure Correction
   (FEC) Schemes for FECFRAME'
  (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme-16.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-rlc-fec-scheme/

Technical Summary

   This document describes two fully-specified Forward Erasure
   Correction (FEC) Schemes for Sliding Window Random Linear Codes
   (RLC), one for RLC over GF(2) (binary case), a second one for RLC
   over GF(2^^8), with the possibility of controlling the code density.
   They can protect arbitrary media streams along the lines defined by
   FECFRAME extended to sliding window FEC codes.  These sliding window
   FEC codes rely on an encoding window that slides over the source
   symbols, generating new repair symbols whenever needed.  Compared to
   block FEC codes, these sliding window FEC codes offer key advantages
   with real-time flows in terms of reduced FEC-related latency while
   often providing improved packet erasure recovery capabilities.

Working Group Summary

   This document is a companion to draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext, 
   which is an update to the FECFRAME work in RFC 6363.  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 
   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-masked]), 
   and the responsible AD is Magnus Westerlund.