[Robustness] teleconf for Oct 12

Terry L Anderson tla at LUCENT.COM
Tue Oct 10 14:50:41 EDT 2000

Dear Mr. Li, dear experts,

thank you very much for your response but the question remains unsettled

Your answer is concentrated on the Packet #3. With no doubt this packet is
non-critical. Therefore, our questions was about Packet #2 and the
protection with ULP #2.

Here is the scenario in doubt again:
+ However, when considering your example in Figure 1 on the next page, we
+ a simple loss situation, for which the above statement does not seem to
hold anymore:
+ Let us assume that out of the seven given packets, exactly (information)
packets #2 and #3
+ are lost, but all the others have been received correctly. Since packets
#1-#3 are only
+ protected with one single FEC packet, ULP #1, at level L_0, the leftmost
part of the
+ lost packets #2 and #3 can definitely not be recovered anymore.

+ If we now consider the protection strategy for level L_1, we see that the
second part of
+ packets #1, #2, #4, and #5 are protected via the respective part of FEC
packet, ULP #2.
+ But only the part belonging to packet #2 has been lost (packet #3 is not
related to ULP
+ #2), which should definitely be recoverable then.
+ Thus, we would be able to overcome the loss in packet #2 at protection
level L_1, but
+ not at level L_0, which is a contradiction to the above statement.

> 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

Of course we agree on that. It is one of the favourable characteristics of
our approach to guarantee the recovery within this rules.

> For example, in a interleaving scheme proposed in APC-1841, even correctly

> transmitted data will have to be discarded because of the holes in
> rearranged packets.

In opposition to the UCLA proposal this data are not protected in a special
way(normal regressive profile).
Within the UCLA proposal the packets are first processed completely and then
discarded anyway.

Best Wishes
Gero Baese

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

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list