IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Tue, 20 May 2014 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.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 5E8641A01E1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 May 2014 09:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.131
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 juKgqmCavvmY for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 May 2014 09:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server209.appriver.com (server209d.appriver.com [8.31.233.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDDA51A01C2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2014 09:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Note-AR-ScanTimeLocal: 5/20/2014 12:37:53 PM
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
X-Primary: jonathan@vidyo.com
X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide
X-Virus-Scan: V-
X-Note-SnifferID: 0
X-Note: TCH-CT/SI:0-132/SG:2 5/20/2014 12:37:52 PM
X-GBUdb-Analysis: 0, 162.209.16.213, Ugly c=0.848246 p=-0.98403 Source White
X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-4920-c
X-Note-419: 15.6005 ms. Fail:0 Chk:1340 of 1340 total
X-Note: SCH-CT/SI:0-1340/SG:1 5/20/2014 12:37:33 PM
X-Note: Spam Tests Failed:
X-Country-Path: ->UNITED STATES->
X-Note-Sending-IP: 162.209.16.213
X-Note-Reverse-DNS:
X-Note-Return-Path: jonathan@vidyo.com
X-Note: User Rule Hits:
X-Note: Global Rule Hits: G327 G328 G329 G330 G334 G335 G445
X-Note: Encrypt Rule Hits:
X-Note: Mail Class: VALID
X-Note: Headers Injected
Received: from [162.209.16.213] (HELO mail.vidyo.com) by server209.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.2) with ESMTPS id 124848633; Tue, 20 May 2014 12:37:53 -0400
Received: from 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:6b62]) by 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Tue, 20 May 2014 11:37:52 -0500
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC
Thread-Index: AQHPdDvQQirGwC6KtECT8yxU3fxCuZtIWtSAgAAGxACAAADwgIABnICA
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 16:37:52 +0000
Message-ID: <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>
In-Reply-To: <537A2AD7.1090209@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [160.79.219.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <10A11DA084564F4AA94CAA6566D87B45@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/RPXxAo7id94WTwHDQ4-mcqFRzKU
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 16:37:56 -0000

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!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email