[rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Tue, 19 February 2019 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B108130E91; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 04:51:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, ted.ietf@gmail.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <155058071936.20784.14656321188511454784.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 04:51:59 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/2d1B1R3mvOm8JCVPr48yTxdsySA>
Subject: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:52:00 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I'm not fully sure about the intended status of this document. The shepherd
write-up says "the document has normative requirements for conforming WebRTC
implementations", however, for me it seems this document makes "only"
recommendations and has actually no normative requirements. Therefore
informational status might be more appropriate, however, I will not block
publication as PS.

One mostly minor editorial note:

Sec 3.3: "experiments performed indicate that when Opus FEC is used, the
overhead imposed
   is about 20-30%, depending on the amount of protection needed."
Would it be possible to provide a reference for this number?

Also this section says: "See [RFC6716], Section 2.1.7 for complete details."
However, section 2.1.7 in RFC6716 is very short and actually does not provide
any details...