IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] FEC for audio?

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Mon, 19 May 2014 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.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 04B7F1A044A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 16:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Pp2SqIlrVbmY for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 16:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-x233.google.com (mail-yh0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BF5B1A0441 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 16:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f73so7428373yha.38 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 16:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aqq/K5VAbxGS/y1TOkKTJR/x1eEi3l81+V2SlKE24UE=; b=KeLv2/bOsA6tsH+W+MYEVuYa8qsRG0Mq+2H7gCMH5HauZKz/s6RsnllaeE1nc5NMJU lbK25GyJITUABdfDCEzO4aLePt2ZXPhIMEzBENB8NBkpdYczqfWnobVTmwcvh7QEhC1X FCSYqMI6KLyPGtt5JTI1zZElodsjAO70TC+a1BOqbSLkxC+vyqERjqlbJsz8KeXKj6Kk N4j8EACHWWgjWPibTdobOVOLUzzOvJTqFIq7K7+xfSJBCXDgqqqcanjrWfqwvG3o8i/m oYUG+LdfJZR+38U0IUrXyOH+1x20phkMDt8pxEklETFHrxDNPYgd2jR/p+bauNsOFBm7 rqag==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.179.69 with SMTP id g45mr56703243yhm.81.1400540714997; Mon, 19 May 2014 16:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.90.193 with HTTP; Mon, 19 May 2014 16:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.90.193 with HTTP; Mon, 19 May 2014 16:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-2mb6DkakaEWMxJwqqLSePb7NrOcF-DSycW-CftBGdmcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-1qEpkWShmw1SQKh4_BLKycF=egu42TS9o9+Smtof36pg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUESUa-xm9y22OAVKAw5z=WnkY4-X6XFZOoXwvkMoDnaoQ@mail.gmail.com> <537A6190.4060709@mozilla.com> <CAOJ7v-2mb6DkakaEWMxJwqqLSePb7NrOcF-DSycW-CftBGdmcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 09:05:14 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=hGb4=_pMuAY_kuYXwgAWT91f4BH2PwrJ1mm_YqJD_tg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf303e9ea8cf9e8904f9c8cb3f"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/dMNZV6R5DN8FOGbqzr-28-UCDPE
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] FEC for audio?
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 23:05:17 -0000

Yes please (from a JS dev)! We often have enough bandwidth even on wireless
but packet loss and get broken audio. It's almost more important to have
this on audio than on video, but I'm keen to get both.

Cheers,
Silvia.
On 20 May 2014 07:36, "Justin Uberti" <juberti@google.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry <
> tterriberry@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Thatcher wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a good reason not to support FEC for audio, if that's what the
>>> application wants?
>>>
>>
>> I can't think of one. I think we should support FEC for audio.
>>
>>  On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com
>>> <mailto:juberti@google.com>> wrote:
>>>     Should we specify generic FEC for audio as well as video? Opus has
>>>     built-in FEC, but it only works for the SILK portion of the payload,
>>>     meaning that in high bitrate situations, it won't do much for you. I
>>>     don't know if it has benefits over generic FEC.
>>>
>>
>> The built-in FEC for the SILK layer was meant to cover the case where you
>> wanted FEC with no more than one extra frame of latency, but did not want
>> to double your bitrate. The reason we did not add built-in FEC for the CELT
>> layer was that at the bitrates where CELT operates, we assumed traditional
>> codec-agnostic FEC would be used, and thought it an adequate solution
>> compared to the extra complexity a codec-specific solution would have
>> required.
>>
>>
> Thanks, that's very helpful. This means that if the app says "do FEC", and
> the remote side supports opus inband FEC, and the data rate is < XX kbps,
> we'll use the inband FEC instead of generic FEC.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email