Dear Mr. Gero and experts,

Thank you very much for your response. But I think there is no difficulty there and ULP is more efficient than interleaving in this aspect.

In your email, you stated that

It is one of the favourable characteristics of our approach to guarantee the recovery within this rules.

^^^^^^^^^

According to the Siemens proposal in APC 1841, if the transmission is hit by errors, some of the *correctly* transmitted data will have to be discarded. It is even after error corretion, because of the way that interleaving is done in the proposal. I would be very curious to know how this is proved with the interleaving scheme.

On the other hand, with the UCLA proposal, because the original stream is transmitted unchanged, it is trival to show that all the correctly transmitted media stream is allright. And the help of the extra ULP packets, we can recover some of the lost packets and get more information.

...

The statement about the grouping rules in the document is describing one important general principles for any efficient forward error correction scheme. It is nice to know that Mr. Gero agrees on the same principle. We are not intending to claim that the grouping rules in APC-1905 absolutely guarantees the property.

Again, I want to reiterate a statement I made in my last email reply to you. The property described by the statement in our document is a general principle for any efficient forward error correction scheme. It does not say that the proposal in the document absolutely guarantees the property under any condition. And you agreed on this. I don't think we have any problem there.

Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further question.

Adam

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com