[rtcweb] #18: Section 6.2: FEC
"rtcweb issue tracker" <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org> Sat, 20 April 2013 01:37 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F9C21F8842 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A1RY9M+rcEAd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC0B21F8D61 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36168 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1UTMk4-0008LD-D4; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 03:37:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: rtcweb issue tracker <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage@tools.ietf.org, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
X-Trac-Project: rtcweb
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:37:28 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/18
Message-ID: <066.b392c6b846aaf34b02197d493399c8e9@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 18
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage@tools.ietf.org, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: csp@csperkins.org, jorg.ott@aalto.fi, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20130420013731.AAC0B21F8D61@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:37:31 -0700
Resent-From: trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] #18: Section 6.2: FEC
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:37:32 -0000
#18: Section 6.2: FEC
At the time
of this writing there is no consensus on which, if any, of these FEC
schemes is appropriate for use in the WebRTC context. Accordingly,
this memo makes no recommendation on the choice of block-based FEC
for WebRTC use.
[BA] By being vague on both NACK as well as FEC requirements, I think
we've set ourselves up for issues with respect to implementation quality
if not interoperability. In practice, it may be possible to come up with
some advice to FEC implementers (perhaps not at a REQUIRED but a
RECOMMENDED level). So I think we might want to revisit this.
--
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-
bernard_aboba@hotmail.com | usage@tools.ietf.org
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: milestone1
Component: rtp-usage | Version: 1.0
Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/18>
rtcweb <http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/>
- [rtcweb] #18: Section 6.2: FEC rtcweb issue tracker
- Re: [rtcweb] #18: Section 6.2: FEC Colin Perkins