[Robustness] Some Issues

Terry L Anderson tla at LUCENT.COM
Thu Oct 12 14:26:08 EDT 2000

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

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

> > 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.


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