IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Sun, 23 April 2017 18:48 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 E5A7E1294F0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 C4nIgQHOIkxs for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 130851252BA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id p80so44715776iop.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:48:23 -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=h3hMElqwm2wsXji6fbdEQPVXGQrtQZyGS/jkBkHhomg=; b=qtcYpVbqrw46+10u7zMb3w057+m7Ucn1Qytk0ySYYP9+SLnfO98kQbPpnyliU/kxvN IHvrt9stMqakBwrKe5xIgg8cdzcTUiGoB1267zjxI6UIwIguDIBl6uLkxW/P4MPyo3Gx 8ssYaRyWhIjwc/rxiLXJyCrTdgTLOLHkfl4ydgruhHl0K+Y3536k4W21OHlMi3Yuzx6A xvLLpn/6qPD1X6tuFpboP57dhp+FuH3jte7S7J+vE9kEq7ROr+vhwWK5UONc2fXdAGZ0 p+X4kRF1NjDQdvczxSGammEKF3k/Vckc1th6of3f3DS60seoQd9lGSnkNmrCD42AUjWQ +fow==
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=h3hMElqwm2wsXji6fbdEQPVXGQrtQZyGS/jkBkHhomg=; b=Ajul9HbBSuwH2y2f9QmUilQyomnPyLA4iwIV88XkM1UYHgE7kqSzsYO39u2KWYsLaX Y8rgtq10MH8WUYxHEUELbVf+YJ1SbQVon98Jfc6CJ79vjsPX17t8pHQY5yGIV/8jcsE2 0/3rH8RhuAjbY7VesVEMyP3TT//hwXTuriLGtGSJ17XTnrMlqcgPXc/YV2anuqZOFjGv G7f59XCllEuUvDNqSxouFrD9xiRidFsEoRxPWB3p2F3PMPIGpQwF2s/a3rbu2+yHh6dl QNvj5VVJGalO/nGcG0Dl3u+d2GzM6TedJ6rcqlMt4riov/3PJGe6wnqGONL/+MX0mp/O JsbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5Zqw/pJCZaapeBqCooFpZd+pt7P0ZCCPZVknSD2q1zEaaVU4ns 0wbIk892JpVTcPp3QwMrOr06cr8ijrzj
X-Received: by 10.107.85.6 with SMTP id j6mr3572892iob.165.1492973302297; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.138.143 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD7B0714@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <1ddd77ef-da4a-1a89-e538-aa20742c11a4@gmail.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD7B0714@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:48:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3yukU+SLcbAiR1TYqeu54nV+8V-h9hUgFc5JRMRzgx=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>
Cc: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1b7cce583226054dd9ef2d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/U1iWV1Wd1gogZPLwWsC-0uuQbws>
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: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:48:25 -0000

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> Inline
> Roni Even
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sergio Garcia
> > Murillo
> > Sent: יום ו 21 אפריל 2017 12:30
> > To: rtcweb@ietf.org; Justin Uberti
> > Subject: [rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-04
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> [Roni Even] This is not a FEC problem but general RTP header extensions
> reliability discussed in RFC5285 and RC5285-bis draft and in the specific
> RTP header extension.
>

Roni, what would you suggest we say in this document?


> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Sergio
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email