Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-16

[Varun Singh <[e-mail]>]

Hi Giri,

Both post-repair loss metrics should be referenced, one provides run-length
perpacket feedback and the other provides loss and repair counters.
Webrtc-stats reports on the latter and can already be used to toggle FEC in
webrtc applications.

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 0.34, Giridhar Mandyam <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> >-Section 8, "an application should avoid sending/receiving FEC repair
> streams if it knows that sending/receiving those FEC repair streams would
> not help at all in recovering the missing packets. It is RECOMMENDED that
> the amount and type (row, column, or both) of FEC protection is adjusted
> dynamically based on the packet loss rate and burst loss length observed by
> the applications."
>
>
>
> >How would the application know that sending/receiving those FEC repair
> streams would not help at all? any rule of thumb to add here?
>
>
>
> The editors propose that the above text be revised as follows:
>
>
>
> “… an application should avoid sending/receiving FEC repair streams if it
> knows that sending/receiving those FEC repair streams would not help at all
> in recovering the missing packets.  *Examples of where FEC would not be
> beneficial are:  (1) if the successful recovery rate as determined by RTCP
> feedback is low (see RFC 5725),  and (2) the application has a smaller
> latency requirement than the repair window adopted by the FEC configuration
> based on the expected burst loss duration and the target FEC overhead.  *It
> is RECOMMENDED that the amount and type (row, column, or both) of FEC
> protection is adjusted  dynamically based on the packet loss rate and burst
> loss length observed by the applications."
>
>
>
> Please let us know if this is acceptable.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> -Giri Mandyam
>
>
>
> *From:* Meral Shirazipour <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 11:50 PM
> *To:* [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Gen-ART Last Call review of
> draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-16
>
>
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization.
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
> the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
>
>
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at <
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
>
>
> Document: draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-16
>
>
>
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
>
> Review Date: 2019-01-31
>
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-01
>
> IESG Telechat date: NA
>
>
>
>
>
> Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC .
>
> Major issues:
>
>
>
> Minor issues:
>
>
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> -Section 1.1.1 Title "One-Dimensionsal "--->"One-Dimensional"
>
>
>
> -[Page 14] 3.2.  , "signficant"--->"significant"
>
>
>
> -[Page 16], 4.2.1.  , "pakcets"--->"packets"
>
>
>
> -[Page 35], 6.3.1.  , "reciever"--->"receiver"
>
>
>
> -[Page 35], 6.3.1.1.  , "signficant"--->"significant"
>
>
>
> -[Page 43], 7., "several Sesssion "--->"several Session "
>
>
>
> -Section 8, "an application should avoid
>
>    sending/receiving FEC repair streams if it knows that sending/
>
>    receiving those FEC repair streams would not help at all in
>
>    recovering the missing packets. It is RECOMMENDED that the amount
>
>    and type (row, column, or both) of FEC protection is adjusted
>
>    dynamically based on the packet loss rate and burst loss length
>
>    observed by the applications."
>
>
>
> How would the application know that sending/receiving those FEC repair
> streams would not help at all? any rule of thumb to add here?
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Meral
>
> ---
>
> Meral Shirazipour
>
> Ericsson
>
> Research
>
> www.ericsson.com
>
-- 
Founder, CEO, callstats.io
http://www.callstats.io

Interested in networking, media quality, and diagnostics.
We are hiring!: www.callstats.io/jobs/