IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Mon, 19 May 2014 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D8F1A016E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QQ29gaha3hEa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-x22f.google.com (mail-yh0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6977F1A0104 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f47.google.com with SMTP id z6so6929080yhz.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hl1EDKgJUq/6dpbYtTPYifuUmc9LMa4m08ewPisl2gE=; b=fKSybeJG0NWftyZfO0Ixr0hs2VWiBgQW5V34TdKpb8ueVUYCVDc67KniqCPIp54wMe sawv80DhYPQuQWb3XZsEZYsN8nhQ8TuZp/Gxxk0pIjcqxNriu5gRRQceOD7uQ8NUiAIZ LwkfqiGCfZSWZtLPTZxJWfbR0B+uoMhc9cqtgm7zjq+AzrrIK4y+Flasp663+RxcbT09 jXHIKGYyRJDTuuSLcl0HImeARnGu33CD2IkwJfo7Fd8eOkb4VzyZFFI1NLAXIUtnvmPF o4LUNIvni6/z9pF/0gk0hqkMGQrRqHPTa0hKniIHlJU9ybhMExKzP0U1TTCMEHHKT1nu 2kYg==
X-Received: by 10.236.128.180 with SMTP id f40mr53412400yhi.71.1400515088824; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.144.131] ([216.239.55.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u21sm25601447yhb.51.2014.05.19.08.58.07 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 19 May 2014 08:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11D201)
In-Reply-To: <537A2461.2020300@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 11:58:06 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CC1C57C1-FBF5-401B-9525-4B99EE098A59@gmail.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-1jZ=TPpc=4w01wh7Sk_Y22Q2s82M=tdBdv72k6bwo8Ow@mail.gmail.com> <537A2461.2020300@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/-fn5jZbilpdpE3s2aqeaT961HNw
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 15:58:10 -0000

> 
> On May 19, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> I think adding ULPFEC in WebRTC is reasonable, however despite what RFC
> 5956 says, we do have a spec issue with the following part of RFC 5109
> that will be required to be overridden:
> 
> Section 7.2:
> 
>   Synchronization Source (SSRC): The SSRC value SHALL be the same as
>   the SSRC value of the media stream it protects.
> 
> Section 14.1:
> 
>   The SSRC of the FEC stream MUST
>   be set to that of the protected payload stream.
> 
>   So the FEC
>   stream and the payload stream SHOULD be sent through two separate RTP
>   session, and multiplexing them by payload type into one single RTP
>   session SHOULD be avoided.  In addition, the FEC and the payload MUST
>   NOT be multiplexed by SSRC into one single RTP session since they
>   always have the same SSRC.
> 
>> From my perspective this override should be done in a separate document
> so that also others can use it and not being RTCWEB specific.

The following draft accomplishes this, no?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lennox-payload-ulp-ssrc-mux

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email