[rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC

"rtcweb issue tracker" <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org> Sun, 25 August 2013 23:10 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0DA21F9FDA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bENzqIs1BQ6n for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:10:03 -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 2A81821F9FD7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([]:35185 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 1VDjRY-0001FN-CS; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 01:10:00 +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: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 23:10:00 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/27
Message-ID: <066.f62f1912f660dbc0c28343d2955a2ef5@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 27
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: <20130825231003.2A81821F9FD7@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:10:03 -0700
Resent-From: trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] #27: 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: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 23:10:04 -0000

#27: Section 6.2 FEC

 There are several block-based FEC schemes that are designed for use
    with RTP independent of the chosen RTP payload format.  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] While I realize that it is not easy to decide on which FEC scheme is
 appropriate for WebRTC, including a recommendation on retransmission but
 not FEC is problematic.

 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: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/27>
rtcweb <http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/>