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

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 21 April 2017 09:07 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 A0CD8129A9F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 8rAaBJ1bNW8E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7233A129426 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-7bbff70000005492-c0-58f9cbd4ce0a
Received: from ESESSHC021.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.81]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FE.D2.21650.4DBC9F85; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:07:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.339.0; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:07:31 +0200
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <39c31585-7e15-383d-a534-9efe8888695a@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:07:29 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupmluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbE9UPfK6Z8RBv+7LCy2ThWyWPuvnd2B yWPBplKPJUt+MgUwRXHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlnP8yn6lgLlfFsvWPWRoYezi6GDk5JARMJFb9 PcUMYgsJrGeUuHDApouRC8hezijReGcqK0hCRMBbom/6NjCbTcBC4uaPRrYuRg4OYaDmaWdC QMK8AvYSX76sYgKxWQRUJV6e+cMIYosKxEi0LPnACFEjKHFy5hMWkFZmoPoHW8tAwswC8hLN W2dDnaAt0dDUwTqBkXcWko5ZCB2zkHQsYGRexShanFpcnJtuZKSXWpSZXFycn6eXl1qyiREY RAe3/LbawXjwueMhRgEORiUe3gf7fkQIsSaWFVfmHmKU4GBWEuHt3Q4U4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrN SS0+xCjNwaIkzuuw70KEkEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgdHPIsvm553WDfELCw0vRhVblZeU TP5zyEVyz4RQI4afa80ipuefm+pgGSZ/tfL+5d9LntyR0aj/yub6RvNw5s5O19Xmy7s2erRL G/7aMVMj8vqC9fV1pofDe7P4/u4OCFBNXRLoPyNZbxrX5kdReWWF+25omX+1ijErY7/Xli+4 v+8C+0fmMiWW4oxEQy3mouJEAPfQym0eAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/b6XF6v-GF3XZrApPSlNxBg1buSY>
Subject: [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: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:07:36 -0000

Hi,

I have review the -04 version of the FEC. I think the document is mostly 
done. I only have these few comments that should be addressed before 
going forward.

1. Section 4.2:

    Support for redundant encoding MUST be indicated by offering "red" as
    a supported payload type in the offer.

I think it is unclear what "red" refers to here. This as it is not made 
clear that RFC 2198 has the media type audio/red and text/red. I think 
there are two things that would make this clearer. One would be to 
change "red" into media type "audio/red". The other would be to add the 
reference afterwards.

2. Section 12.1:

It is missing this normative reference: [3GPP.26.114]

3. Section 12.1:

I think that the following references have usages in the text that make 
them normative:

[RFC7587] and [RFC4867]


Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Technologies, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------