Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC
Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Mon, 19 May 2014 13:32 UTC
Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.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 3B3FB1A006E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 PE17lmOPLwue for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F2A71A007B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f798c6d000001521-80-537a07ed9bcf
Received: from ESESSHC011.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2D.CA.05409.DE70A735; Mon, 19 May 2014 15:32:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.28]) by ESESSHC011.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.51]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 19 May 2014 15:32:28 +0200
From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC
Thread-Index: AQHPc2VZWhEt2aWp0EKb2EsU3zY1vg==
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:32:28 +0000
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CFFBA55@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CAOJ7v-1jZ=TPpc=4w01wh7Sk_Y22Q2s82M=tdBdv72k6bwo8Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje5b9qpgg1P/bSy2ThWyWPuvnd2B yWPBplKPJUt+MgUwRXHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlfHjUw1Jwj63i8bbtTA2MZ1i7GDk5JARMJCa8 OsAGYYtJXLi3HswWEjjKKLF4C18XIxeQvRjI/n+TESTBJhAosXXfArAiEQFviZb3E4DiHBzC AhoSnbftQUwRAU2J7qmuEBV6Ep2Pd4NVswioSpzdt5AZxOYV8JV4sbCZEWJVgMTGzutgNYxA J3w/tYYJxGYWEJe49WQ+E8RpAhJL9pxnhrBFJV4+/gd1vqJE+9MGRoh6PYkbU6ewQdjaEssW vobaJShxcuYTlgmMIrOQjJ2FpGUWkpZZSFoWMLKsYhQtTi1Oyk03MtZLLcpMLi7Oz9PLSy3Z xAiMg4NbfqvuYLz8xvEQowAHoxIP74LUymAh1sSy4srcQ4zSHCxK4ry3d5UGCwmkJ5akZqem FqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamBkP7TZ6OHcfWGNu41eGrz79K9n8tIsV9+yh6plqSfm8QUc5ZO7 e+nx/bubdr7lSZvmuXbLRe7yFxsPTTxnFHnJebFxmrnEma6u9Eengrepr+F/a/XGmfee+MoZ EywOr3nxQCR313fb973LFUs3p09PfrGvNvjmK+M79S6rPH6oTi7Y9JmnP/NIgRJLcUaioRZz UXEiACO6b4dkAgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/OcglDwlnlww86gd8hyRV25wRiyY
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: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:32:36 -0000
On 2014-05-19 15:22, Justin Uberti wrote: > RFC 5109 defines a basic XOR-based scheme that should be useful in > certain cases (e.g. high RTT). The concern expressed today about this > not working in BUNDLE situations is addressed in RFC 5956, S 4.3 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5956#section-4.3>, using ssrc-group to > allow SSRC multiplexing, and this is endorsed by Unified Plan, S 3.3 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan-00#page-16>. > > I would like to see ULPFEC/5109 move forward as a baseline FEC mechanism > for 1.0. We can look into other options for future versions of WebRTC. I didn't raise my hand, but after some thinking I agree with Justin. 1.0 should be usable for a big variety of operating condition, and for some of them FEC is useful.
- [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Varun Singh
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Magnus Westerlund