Hi.

Excuse me for jumping in at this late stage, but I have been away on vacation.
I am catching up on my reading and I can't resist throwing my two cents worth
into this arena ...

> Neil Gandler <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Correct me if I wrong but, this is how I view this error scheme.
>If I send a 32 bit word, and then an identical 32 bit word. The odds
>of those words being corrupted in the EXACT same pattern are
>extroadinarily low.

I agree with you.  However, what about stuck bits?  You may want to send the
32-bit word and then another 32-bit word that is the complement of the first
word.

BTW, I think your concept (and mine) is an overkill.  However, it is simple
to implement, and if you have the bandwidth capability, who cares?

        -Kevin.