IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC

Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Tue, 20 May 2014 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <suhasietf@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 6B77F1A0468 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 May 2014 10:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 Xu5E7NVvF_6T for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 May 2014 10:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22c.google.com (mail-wg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9ED51A026B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2014 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id a1so817837wgh.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2014 10:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=CzeoEEsc0U49aNcllb0l99+HCyYZrFZE0AvDE1+x7cQ=; b=ukEwQt1KhWFsd3xF9qxFCoN8ltUhZEy9fp76Yum7wQIkQ8tG9suozDqzctcNQ2Dgum uN6p6Rn+8Mp2yXvLunjXMmOQZ5QJvlK4eB978x4lBhYpup1PGAr0CzLgHbmjliEfAyeZ acBhU1MAE6bw3wGDHVDDLrpbsT4cBQm2K8FeLyQZLJlo+qHbeX7ea+qpOBEpdfY015Rx NMj/SSUae8MFuSZQgwBTe2NwLDsucvZo9rV/rJMqw38f9F/0MSvGfwU/vweTxxU60v8W GwPt5j39ZzAAn4ECG+332xXek0TFrKCsQ69AXMkDiZOxS9Eejots3pvjkgOEN+OLQWFJ ttfg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.206.205 with SMTP id lq13mr5380271wic.11.1400606190931; Tue, 20 May 2014 10:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.13.73 with HTTP; Tue, 20 May 2014 10:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8055E0AC-E091-4A82-B4C2-7C5C30B5B5EE@vidyo.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-1jZ=TPpc=4w01wh7Sk_Y22Q2s82M=tdBdv72k6bwo8Ow@mail.gmail.com> <537A2461.2020300@ericsson.com> <CC1C57C1-FBF5-401B-9525-4B99EE098A59@gmail.com> <537A2AD7.1090209@ericsson.com> <8055E0AC-E091-4A82-B4C2-7C5C30B5B5EE@vidyo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:16:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGRaUrU4F3r1Q_Es1R98m2pBnyet-Kqa7u-zgZgV9xdM=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c382d47b16e504f9d80a64"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/4F8utN6bP2OUGi1TcMtAwdW8_6Y
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: Tue, 20 May 2014 17:16:36 -0000

I support updating the above mentioned draft in this regard

./Suhas


On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> wrote:

>
> On May 19, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Magnus Westerlund <
> magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2014-05-19 11:58, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >
> > Yes, but it needs some updates and polishing before ready for
> > publication. Also, it has not been adopted yet in any WG. But, I think
> > adopting it and getting it moved forward in an expedited fashion would
> > be the right way forward.
>
> Absolutely — it’s a -00 draft, and definitely could use improvement
> (especially now that BUNDLE has matured).
>
> If there’s agreement that this should go forward, I’m happy to revise the
> draft, and if you have specific suggestions, please send them!
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email