Closed italobusi closed 10 months ago
Do we want to keep the reed-solomon, hamming-code, and golay FEC types? There is no reference where they are defined.
_Originally posted by @dieterbeller in https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext-RFC9093-bis/pull/70#discussion_r1254687577_
I would suggest to review all the FEC types which have no reference
Call on 09-26-23: We agree to delete the FEC definitions without reference (reed-solomon, hamming-code, and golay FEC types)
Do we want to keep the reed-solomon, hamming-code, and golay FEC types? There is no reference where they are defined.
_Originally posted by @dieterbeller in https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext-RFC9093-bis/pull/70#discussion_r1254687577_
I would suggest to review all the FEC types which have no reference