GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8406

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) B. Adamson Request for Comments: 8406 NRL Category: Informational C. Adjih ISSN: 2070-1721 INRIA

                                                             J. Bilbao
                                                               Ikerlan
                                                             V. Firoiu
                                                           BAE Systems
                                                             F. Fitzek
                                                            TU Dresden
                                                             S. Ghanem
                                                           Independent
                                                             E. Lochin
                                                        ISAE - Supaero
                                                            A. Masucci
                                                                Orange
                                                        M-J. Montpetit
                                                           Independent
                                                           M. Pedersen
                                                    Aalborg University
                                                            G. Peralta
                                                               Ikerlan
                                                          V. Roca, Ed.
                                                                 INRIA
                                                             P. Saxena
                                                    AnsuR Technologies
                                                          S. Sivakumar
                                                                 Cisco
                                                             June 2018
 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques for Efficient Network Communications

Abstract

 This document summarizes recommended terminology for Network Coding
 concepts and constructs.  It provides a comprehensive set of terms in
 order to avoid ambiguities in future IRTF and IETF documents on
 Network Coding.  This document is the product of the Coding for
 Efficient Network Communications Research Group (NWCRG), and it is in
 line with the terminology used by the RFCs produced by the Reliable
 Multicast Transport (RMT) and FEC Framework (FECFRAME) IETF working
 groups.

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
 (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
 and development activities.  These results might not be suitable for
 deployment.  This RFC represents the consensus of the Coding for
 Efficient Network Communications Research Group of the Internet
 Research Task Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by
 the IRSG are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
 Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8406.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 2.  General Definitions and Concepts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 3.  Taxonomy of Code Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
 4.  Coding Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.1.  Coding Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.2.  Coding Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.3.  Coding in Practice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
 5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
 6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

1. Introduction

 This document is the product of and represents the collaborative work
 and consensus of the Coding for Efficient Network Communications
 Research Group (NWCRG); it is not an IETF product and is not a
 standard.  In 2017, the document was discussed during three audio
 conferences, each of them gathering 6 to 8 key experts; it was
 co-edited and subjected to an RG Last Call.  The general feeling was
 that the document was ready.  Additional information about Network
 Coding may be found on these NWCRG pages: <https://irtf.org/nwcrg>
 and <https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/nwcrg/about/>.
 The literature on Network Coding research and system design,
 including IETF documentation, led to a rich set of concepts and
 constructs.  This document collects terminology used in the domain,
 both outside and inside IETF, provides concise definitions, and
 introduces a high-level taxonomy.  Its primary goal is to be useful
 to IETF and IRTF activities.  It is also in line with the terminology
 already used by the RFCs produced by the Reliable Multicast Transport
 (RMT) and FEC Framework (FECFRAME) IETF working groups, in particular
 [RFC5052], [RFC5740], [RFC5775], [RFC6363], and [RFC6726].  This
 document is also related to IETF work being done in the PAYLOAD and
 TSVWG WGs (in particular, the extension of FECFRAME to support
 Sliding Window Codes and the Random Linear Coding (RLC) sliding
 window FEC scheme) and past work in the AVTCORE and MMUSIC WGs.  Note
 that in the definitions, the "(IETF)" tag indicates that the
 associated term is already used in IETF documents (Internet-Drafts
 and RFCs).
 This document focuses on packet transmissions and losses.  These
 losses will typically be triggered by various types of networking
 issues and/or impairments (e.g., congested routers or intermittent
 wireless connectivity).  The notion of "packet" itself is multiform,
 depending on the target use case and the notion of network (e.g., in
 which layer of the protocol stack does the coding middleware
 operate?).  For instance, a "packet" may be a data unit to be carried
 as a UDP payload because the coding middleware is located between the
 application and UDP.  In another configuration, coding may be applied
 within an overlay network and the notion of "packet" will be totally
 different.  In any case, the goals of Network Coding can be to
 improve the network throughput, efficiency, latency, and scalability,
 as well as to provide resilience to partition, attacks, and
 eavesdropping (NWCRG charter).  Both End-to-End Coding and systems
 that also perform recoding within intermediate forwarding nodes are
 considered in this document.

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

 This document does not consider physical-layer transmission issues,
 physical-layer codes, or error detection: if low-layer error codes
 detect but fail to correct bit errors, or if an upper-layer checksum
 (e.g., within IP or UDP) identifies a corrupted packet, then the
 packet is supposed to be dropped.

2. General Definitions and Concepts

 This section provides general definitions and concepts that are used
 throughout this document.
 Packet Erasure Channel:
    A communication path where packets are either dropped or received
    without any error.  This type of packet drop is referred to as an
    "erasure" or "loss".  The term "channel" must be understood as a
    generic term for any type of communication technology (e.g., an
    Ethernet link, a WiFi network, or a full path between two nodes
    over the Internet).  As opposed to the "Erasure" channels, "Error"
    channels are where one or multiple bit errors may happen during a
    packet transmission.  These "Error" channels are out of scope.
 Erasure Correcting Code (ECC) or (IETF) Forward Erasure Correction
    (FEC):
    A code for the Packet Erasure Channel (only).  These codes are
    also called "Application-Level FECs" to highlight that they have
    been designed for use within the higher layers of the protocol
    stack to protect against packet losses.  As opposed to ECCs/FECs,
    "Error" correction codes are capable of identifying the presence
    of bit errors and perhaps correcting them.  The "Error" correction
    codes are out of scope.
 End-to-End Coding:
    A system where coding is performed at the source or (coding)
    middlebox, and decoding is performed at the destination(s) or
    (decoding) middlebox.  There is no recoding operation at
    intermediate nodes.  This is the approach followed in the
    FLUTE/ALC [RFC6726] [RFC5775], NORM [RFC5740], and FECFRAME
    [RFC6363] protocols.
 Network Coding:
    A system where coding can be performed at the source as well as at
    intermediate forwarding nodes (all or a subset of them).  End-to-
    End Coding is regarded as a special case of Network Coding.
    Depending on the use case, additional assumptions can be made: for
    instance, the destination knowing the Coding Nodes' topology and
    coding operations can help during decoding operations.

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

 Packet versus Symbol:
    Generally speaking, a Packet is the unit of data that is sent in
    the Packet Erasure Channel, while a Symbol is the unit of data
    that is manipulated during the encoding and decoding operations.
 Original Payload, Uncoded Payload, Systematic Symbol, or (IETF)
    Source Symbol:
    A unit of data originating from the source that is used as input
    to encoding operations.
 Coded Payload, Coded Symbol, or (IETF) Repair Symbol:
    A unit of data that is the result of a coding operation, applied
    either to Source Symbols or (in case of recoding) Source and/or
    Repair Symbols.  When there is a single Repair Symbol per Repair
    Packet, a Repair Symbol corresponds to a Repair Packet.
 Input Symbol and Output Symbol:
    A unit of data that is used as input to an encoding operation or
    that is generated as output of an encoding operation.  At a
    recoding node, Repair Symbols are also part of the Input Symbols.
    With Systematic Coding, Source Symbols are also part of the Output
    Symbols.
 (IETF) Encoding Symbol:
    A Source or a Repair Symbol.
 (En)coding versus Recoding versus Decoding:
    (En)coding is an operation that takes Source Symbols as input and
    produces Encoding Symbols as output.  Recoding is an operation
    that takes Encoding Symbols as input and produces Encoding Symbols
    as output.  Decoding is an operation takes Encoding Symbols as
    input and produces Source Symbols as output.
 (IETF) Source Packet:
    A packet originating from the source that contributes to one or
    more Source Symbols.  For instance, an RTP packet as a whole can
    constitute a Source Symbol.  In other situations (e.g., to address
    variable size packets), a single RTP packet may contribute to
    various Source Symbols.
 (IETF) Repair Packet:
    A packet containing one or more Repair Symbols.
 Figure 1 illustrates the relationships between packets (what is sent
 in the Packet Erasure Channel) and symbols (what is manipulated
 during encoding and decoding operations) in case of a Systematic

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

 Coding at a Coding Node that performs Encoding (rather than
 Recoding).  FEC decoding procedures are similarly performed in the
 reverse order.
         Source Packet
               |
               | Source Packet to Source Symbols transform
               | (one or more symbols per packet)
               v
         Source Symbols
               |
               v Input Symbols
    +----------------------+
    |     FEC encoding     |
    +----------------------+
       | Output Symbols |
       v                v
 Source Symbols   Repair Symbols
       |                |
       |                | symbol-to-packet transform
       |                | (one or more symbols per packet)
       v                v
 Source Packet    Repair Packet
    Figure 1: Packet and Symbol Relationships at a Coding Node
              That Performs Encoding (Rather Than Recoding)
 Source Node:
    A node that generates one or more Source Flows.
 Coding Node:
    A node that performs FEC Encoding or Recoding operations.  It may
    be an end host or a middlebox (Encoding case), or a forwarding
    node (Recoding case).
 (IETF) Flow:
    A stream of packets logically grouped.
 (IETF) Source Flow:
    A flow of Source Packets coming from an application on a given
    host and to which FEC encoding is to be applied, potentially along
    with other Source Flows.  Depending on the use case, Source Flows
    may come from the same application, from different applications on
    the same host, or from different applications on different hosts.
 (IETF) Repair Flow:
    A flow containing Repair Packets after FEC encoding.

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

3. Taxonomy of Code Uses

 This section discusses the various ways of using coding, without
 going into coding details.
 Source Coding versus Channel Coding:
    (see Figure 2) When both terms are used, "Source Coding" usually
    refers to compression techniques (e.g., audio and video
    compression) within the upper application that generates the
    Source Flow.  "Channel Coding" refers to FEC encoding in order to
    improve transmission robustness, for instance, within the lower
    physical layer (out of scope of this document) or as part of
    Network Coding.  These terms should not be confused with "FEC
    coding within the Source Node" and "FEC recoding within an
    intermediate Coding Node", respectively.
 raw data flow from camera     ^              video flow display
             |                 |                      ^
             v                 | upper                |
 +------------------------+    |           +-------------------------+
 |     source coding      |    | applica-  |  source (de)coding      |
 |(e.g., mpeg compression)|    | tion      |(e.g., mpg decompression)|
 +------------------------+    v           +-------------------------+
             |                                        ^
             v                                        |
 +------------------------+    ^           +-------------------------+
 | network/AL-FEC coding  |    | middle-   | network/AL-FEC coding   |
 |  (e.g., RLC encoding)  |    | ware      |  (e.g., RLC decoding)   |
 +------------------------+    v           +-------------------------+
             |                                        ^
             v                                        |
 +------------------------+    ^           +-------------------------+
 |     packetization      |    |           |    depacketization      |
 |     (e.g., UDP/IP)     |    | communi-  |     (e.g., UDP/IP)      |
 +------------------------+    | cation    +-------------------------+
             |                 |                      ^
             v                 | layers               |
 +-----------------------+     |           +-------------------------+
 |       PHY layer       |     |           |       PHY layer         |
 |    (channel coding)   |     |           |   (channel decoding)    |
 +-----------------------+     v           +-------------------------+
             |                                         ^
             |          source + repair traffic        |
             +-----------------------------------------+
 Figure 2: Example of End-to-End Flow Manipulation with Network Coding

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

    Figure 2 shows Network Coding between the application and UDP
    layers (as with RMT or FECFRAME architectures).  Other
    architectures are possible, for instance, with Network Coding
    below the transport layer to allow recoding within the network.
 Intra-Flow Coding or Single-Source Network Coding:
    Process where incoming packets to the Coding Node belong to the
    same flow.
 Inter-Flow Coding or Multi-Source Network Coding:
    Process where incoming packets to the Coding Node belong to
    different flows.
 Single-Path Coding:
    Network Coding over a route that has a single path from the source
    to each destination(s).  In case of multicast or broadcast
    traffic, this route is a tree.  Coding may be done end to end
    and/or at intermediate forwarding nodes.
 Multi-Path Coding:
    Network Coding over a route that has multiple (at least partially)
    disjoint paths from the source to each given destination.  Coding
    may be done end to end and/or at intermediate forwarding nodes.

4. Coding Details

4.1. Coding Types

 This section provides a high-level taxonomy of coding techniques.
 Technical details are discussed in subsequent sections.
 Linear Coding:
    Linear combination of a set of Input Symbols (i.e., Source and/or
    Repair Symbols) using a given set of coefficients and resulting in
    a Repair Symbol.  Many linear codes exist that differ from the way
    coding coefficients are drawn from a Finite Field of a given size.
 Random Linear Coding (RLC):
    Particular case of Linear Coding using a set of random coding
    coefficients.
 Adaptive Linear Coding:
    Linear Coding that utilizes cross-layer adaptation.  For instance,
    an adaptive coding scheme may adapt the generation and
    transmission of Repair Packets according to the channel variations
    over time, accounting for the predictive loss of degrees of
    freedom due to erasures.

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

 Block Coding:
    Coding technique where the input Flow(s) must first be segmented
    into a sequence of blocks; FEC encoding and decoding are performed
    independently on a per-block basis.  The term "Chunk Coding" is
    sometimes used, where a "Chunk" denotes a block.
 Sliding Window Coding or Convolutional Coding:
    General class of coding techniques that rely on a sliding encoding
    window.  This is an alternative solution to Block Coding.
 Fixed or Elastic Sliding Window Coding:
    Coding technique that generates Repair Symbol(s) on the fly, from
    the set of Source Symbols present in the sliding encoding window
    at that time, usually by using Linear Coding.  The sliding window
    may be either of fixed size or of variable size over the time
    (also known as "Elastic Sliding Window").  For instance, the size
    may depend on acknowledgments sent by the receiver(s) for a
    particular Source Symbol or Source Packet (received, decoded, or
    decodable).
 Systematic Coding:
    A coding technique where Source Symbols are part of the output
    Flow generated by a Coding Node.
 Rateless and Non-rateless Coding:
    Rateless Coding can generate an unlimited number of Repair Symbols
    (in practice, this number can be limited by practical
    considerations or because of use-case requirements) from a given
    set of Source Symbols, meaning that the code rate is null.  RLC
    codes are an example of Rateless Codes.  Alternately, Non-rateless
    Coding usually has a predefined maximum number of Repair Symbols
    that can be generated from a given set of Source Symbols.

4.2. Coding Basics

 This section discusses and defines low-level coding aspects.
 Code Rate:
    In case of a Block Code, the Code Rate is the k/n ratio between
    the number of Source Symbols, k, and the number of Source plus
    Repair Symbols, n.  With a Sliding Window Code, the Code Rate is
    defined similarly over a certain time interval, since the Code
    Rate may change dynamically.  By definition, the Code Rate is such
    that: 0 < Code Rate <= 1.  A Code Rate close to 1 indicates that a
    small number of Repair Symbols have been produced during the
    encoding process and vice versa.

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

 (En)coding Window:
    A set of Source (and Repair in the case of recoding) Symbols used
    as input to the coding operations.  The set of symbols will
    typically change over time, as the Coding Window slides over the
    input Flow(s).
 (En)coding Window Size:
    The number of Source (and Repair in case of recoding) Symbols in
    the current Encoding Window.  This size may change over the time.
 Payload Set:
    The set of Source and Repair Symbols available (i.e., received or
    previously decoded) at the receiver and used during FEC decoding
    operations.
 Decoding Window:
    The set of Source Symbols (only) that are considered in the
    current linear system of a receiver, independently of the fact
    these Source Symbols have been received, decoded, or lost.  The
    Decoding Window will typically change over time, as transmissions
    and decoding progress, and may be different for different
    receivers of a session where content is multicast or broadcast.
 Decoding Window Size:
    The number of Source Symbols (only) in the current Decoding
    Window.  This size may change over time.
 Rank of a Payload Set or Rank of the Linear System:
    At a receiver, number of linearly independent members of a Payload
    Set, or equivalently the number of linearly independent equations
    of the linear system.  It is also known as "Degrees of Freedom".
    The system may be of "full rank" where decoding is possible or
    "partial rank" where only partial decoding is possible.
 Seen Payload or Seen Symbol:
    A Source Symbol is Seen when the receiver can compute a linear
    combination with this symbol and Source Symbols that are strictly
    more recent (i.e., with logically higher Encoding Symbol
    Identifiers).  Otherwise, the Source Symbol is considered as
    "Unseen".
 Generation or (IETF) Block:
    With Block Codes, the set of Source Symbols of the input Flow(s)
    that are logically grouped into a Block, before doing encoding.
 Generation Size, Code Dimension, or (IETF) Block Size:
    With Block Codes, the number of Source Symbols, k, belonging to a
    Block.

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

 Coding Matrix or Generator Matrix:
    A matrix G that transforms the set of Input Symbols X into a set
    of Repair Symbols: Y = X * G.  Defining a Generator Matrix is
    typical with Block Codes.  The set of Input Symbols X can consist
    only of Source Symbols (e.g., with End-to-End Coding) or can
    consist of Source and Repair Symbols (e.g., with recoding in an
    intermediate node).
 Coding Coefficient:
    With Linear Coding, this is a coefficient in a certain Finite
    Field.  This coefficient may be chosen in different ways: for
    instance, randomly, in a predefined table, or using a predefined
    algorithm plus a seed.
 Coding Vector:
    A set of Coding Coefficients used to generate a certain Repair
    Symbol through Linear Coding.  The number of nonzero coefficients
    in the Coding Vector defines its density.
 Finite Field, Galois Field, or Coding Field:
    Finite Fields, used in Linear Codes, have the desired property of
    having all elements (except zero) invertible for the + and *
    operators, and all operations over any elements do not result in
    an overflow or underflow.  Examples of Finite Fields are prime
    fields {0..p^m-1}, where p is prime.  The most used fields use p=2
    and are called binary extension fields {0..2^m-1}, where m often
    equals 1, 4, or 8 for practical reasons.
 Finite Field size or Coding Field size:
    The number of elements in a Finite Field.  For example, the binary
    extension field {0..2^m-1} has size q=2^m.
 Feedback:
    Feedback information sent by a decoding node to a Coding Node (or
    from a receiver to a source in case of End-to-End Coding).  The
    nature of information contained in a feedback packet varies,
    depending on the use case.  It can provide reception and/or FEC
    decoding statistics, the list of available Source Packets received
    or decoded (acknowledgement), the list of lost Source Packets that
    should be retransmitted (negative acknowledgement), or a number of
    additional Repair Symbols needed to have a Full Rank Linear
    System.

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

4.3. Coding in Practice

 This section discusses practical aspects.  Indeed, a practical
 solution must specify the exact manner in which encoding and decoding
 are performed but also detail all the peripheral aspects, for
 instance, how an encoder informs a decoder about the parameters used
 to generate a certain Repair Packet (signaling).
 (IETF) FEC Scheme:
    A specification that defines a particular FEC code as well as the
    additional protocol aspects required to use this FEC code.  In
    particular, the FEC Scheme defines in-band (e.g., information
    contained in Source and Repair Packet header or trailers) and out-
    of-band (e.g., information contained in an SDP description)
    signaling needed to synchronize encoders and decoders.
 Payload Index or (IETF) Encoding Symbol Identifier (ESI):
    An identifier of a Source or Repair Symbol.  With Block Coding,
    each symbol of a given block is identified by a unique ESI value.
    With Sliding Window Coding, a continuous Source Flow and a limited
    field size to hold the ESI, wrapping to zero is unavoidable and
    the same integer value will be reused several times.
 (IETF) FEC Payload ID:
    Information that identifies the contents of a packet with respect
    to the FEC Scheme.  The FEC Payload ID of a packet containing
    Source Symbol(s) is usually different from that of a packet
    containing Repair Symbol(s).  The FEC Payload ID typically
    contains at least an ESI.
 Coding Vector and Encoding Window Signaling:
    With Sliding Window Codes, the FEC Payload ID of a Repair Packet
    contains information needed and sufficient to identify the Coding
    Vector and Coding Window.  Concerning the Coding Vector, this may
    consist of a full list of Coding Coefficients (that may or may not
    be compressed), or a piece of information (e.g., a seed) that can
    be used to generate the list of Coding Coefficients thanks to a
    predefined algorithm known by encoders and decoders (e.g., a
    Pseudorandom Number Generator, or PRNG) or an ESI that points to a
    given entry in a Generator Matrix in case of a Block Code.
    Concerning the Coding Window, this may consist of the full list of
    ESI of symbols in the Coding Window (that may or may not be
    compressed) or the ESI of the first Source Symbol along with their
    number (assuming there is no gap).

5. IANA Considerations

 This document has no IANA actions.

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

6. Security Considerations

 This document introduces a recommended terminology for Network Coding
 and therefore does not contain any security considerations.  This
 does not mean that Network Coding systems do not have any security
 implication.

7. Informative References

 [RFC5052]  Watson, M., Luby, M., and L. Vicisano, "Forward Error
            Correction (FEC) Building Block", RFC 5052,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC5052, August 2007,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5052>.
 [RFC5740]  Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker,
            "NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Transport
            Protocol", RFC 5740, DOI 10.17487/RFC5740, November 2009,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5740>.
 [RFC5775]  Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Asynchronous
            Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", RFC 5775,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC5775, April 2010,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5775>.
 [RFC6363]  Watson, M., Begen, A., and V. Roca, "Forward Error
            Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6363,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6363, October 2011,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6363>.
 [RFC6726]  Paila, T., Walsh, R., Luby, M., Roca, V., and R. Lehtonen,
            "FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport",
            RFC 6726, DOI 10.17487/RFC6726, November 2012,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6726>.

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

Authors' Addresses

 Brian Adamson
 NRL
 United States of America
 Email: brian.adamson@nrl.navy.mil
 Cedric Adjih
 INRIA
 France
 Email: cedric.adjih@inria.fr
 Josu Bilbao
 Ikerlan
 Spain
 Email: jbilbao@ikerlan.es
 Victor Firoiu
 BAE Systems
 United States of America
 Email: victor.firoiu@baesystems.com
 Frank Fitzek
 TU Dresden
 Germany
 Email: frank.fitzek@tu-dresden.de
 Samah A. M. Ghanem
 Independent
 Email: samah.ghanem@gmail.com
 Emmanuel Lochin
 ISAE - Supaero
 France
 Email: emmanuel.lochin@isae-supaero.fr

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 8406 Taxonomy of Coding Techniques June 2018

 Antonia Masucci
 Orange
 France
 Email: antoniamaria.masucci@orange.com
 Marie-Jose Montpetit
 Independent
 United States of America
 Email: marie@mjmontpetit.com
 Morten V. Pedersen
 Aalborg University
 Denmark
 Email: mvp@es.aau.dk
 Goiuri Peralta
 Ikerlan
 Spain
 Email: gperalta@ikerlan.es
 Vincent Roca (editor)
 INRIA
 France
 Email: vincent.roca@inria.fr
 Paresh Saxena
 AnsuR Technologies
 Norway
 Email: paresh.saxena@ansur.es
 Senthil Sivakumar
 Cisco
 United States of America
 Email: ssenthil@cisco.com

Adamson, et al. Informational [Page 15]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8406.txt · Last modified: 2018/06/26 22:31 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki