IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-04

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Sat, 22 April 2017 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
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 96FEB12956D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 M-W2qeuZuwUr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B433212955F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id a103so149038302ioj.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uQ31P048YrPWmeZ1nJbajxUJfwWdP0jo5p5F4I42aHM=; b=Rwhiq2DFaQJeLZqZIZ+IvK5uQFWohyu+4zeYK0fimTKve5yIdd16zCJLlxKQVIfcig vAkJdROM8pdhaTCFMK0rV/3pXXax+lRvxjCDJtC8QcoMcmyn2fUHW0Ss0UyEmK7WmIiH nVW5i+7aVdJfL3QyKO9F+hBQswizVPKBvAJFdNWlpcosD4Iz5HU8suFmGn3vB2V5CbhZ DlkXnRHH/mlsAn8KsbJ3gKu/FlJlhThdWKNfJRD8kpagp+xvE1fhymJ5NF4V/pgTqFdm iOZf0JpNuNk8OvMG1f1CqP8jsYx4IGoF7b+hqwCHSCK8+b2yKZfORYXMTpGE5yXOAwLI 3DGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uQ31P048YrPWmeZ1nJbajxUJfwWdP0jo5p5F4I42aHM=; b=Z1RFYae81e2CYWNfFt+tRBPFE1PCidCU5pIjAAteQuaZeqtT3Ebs2nF6PI4Wg3vaxz BGrfks5JDZuvAvSITH4IkD1FvoWbHmu8/Kc0QgA7hmTYLNMGZETHgIFUhbl56aM1hNuG kACl4gEO0UraGlHbVp0Cv6syKAzPeetjT8aDddXRFXJtOepkaEI3a5HqcJ2aa2Gi8C0V Rpq7Cdt220zl95XoSh2wSjkKXVkdWDZfyPhUGatKXOICRPeZSSOaNqcpKCDvXclUmpIF NugCYPQvagOw5CAaW0i/CU03NvXU48o3fhwIfbEuVWJDPd0BAVconN2HAHgwZDCPlEzQ j7iw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6NYlQLu4ydoudmUWtQPEPBcccmtXB10XnmoB+YYDzOCxeLWLCQ 6qZvtB0+Ks4KSoC96SmuFKWYZVRI9Dch
X-Received: by 10.107.142.207 with SMTP id q198mr2797788iod.99.1492890682919; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.138.143 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1ddd77ef-da4a-1a89-e538-aa20742c11a4@gmail.com>
References: <1ddd77ef-da4a-1a89-e538-aa20742c11a4@gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:51:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0-21-dGYHYAuaRhpUzCxBmwj4CazKJtTCqJeZWKcQmSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05b666d8724e054dc6b212"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ORwR4OPKgjVFc83nu1u1Crbm3Sw>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-04
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <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: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:51:26 -0000

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all, Justin,
>
> I have been reviewing current FEC draft and I have a couple of comments:
>
> 1. Usage of RED and in band FEC and header extensions in Sections 3.2, 3.3
> and 4
>
> I think it would be worth noting that neither red/audio nor in-band fec
> allows to recover RTP header extensions from previous packets. The impact
> of loosing the header extensions will be dependent of its meaning as, for
> example, this would cause minor problems to SFUs as client to mixer audio
> level info of previous packets will be lost, but could make it unusable for
> PERC (as it is currently defined) as it requires the OHB header extension.
>

This is a good observation. Can you summarize the issue with the OHB
extension?

https://github.com/juberti/draughts/issues/48


> 2. Adaptive use of FEC for bandwidth probing (section 8)
>
> I think it would be a good addition to recommend FEC usage for bandwidth
> proving instead of other alternatives like RTX or padding only packets.
>

Another good point. Need to think about whether this should go into Section
8, or perhaps be its own section/sub-section.

https://github.com/juberti/draughts/issues/49

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email