[rtcweb] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08

Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Wed, 13 February 2019 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 F419D130E6E; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:56:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?b?SsO8cmdlbiBTY2jDtm53w6RsZGVy?= <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec.all@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <155004461594.8627.1832684939296277208@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:56:55 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/KATqZM3wbQRfvhbQtQfqAznEuuI>
Subject: [rtcweb] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:56:56 -0000

Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder
Review result: Has Nits

I have reviewed this document and I did not find any issues that are
affect the operations of networks (except that FEC requires more
bandwidth and that it may not help much or even make things worse if
bandwidth is the cause of packet loss, which is explained in the
document).

While reading the document, I wrote down the following notes that the
editor may take into account when revising the document:

- in 3.1, expland SSRC on first usage and say that this is about
  sending streams over RTP somewhere early on (I assume this is
  implied by using the term WebRTC but for outsiders like me it may
  help to be more specific).

- To what extend is this document WebRTC specific? Do the requirements
  also apply if I use RTP without a WebRTC context? If so, should the
  title rather say "RTP Forward Error Correction Requirements"? Well,
  section 6 may be WebRTC specific but that section just says that
  nothing is being recommended, so the recommendations are really all
  about FEC usage over RTP as far as I can tell (as an outsider).

- stylistic: I am not a big fan of using citations like '[RFC2198]' as
  ordinary words or nouns, it makes text difficult to follow unless
  you know the RFC numbers by heart and your brain translates them
  back to something meaningful on the fly. This makes texts more
  difficult to read for outsiders. Example:

     This mechanism is similar to the
     [RFC2198] mechanism described above.

  I prefer this:

     This mechanism is similar to the
     redundant encoding mechanism described above.

  There	are couple of such usages of [RFCXXXX] in the document

- add reference for PCMU