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

Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com> Sun, 23 April 2017 05:32 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.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 DEC22124D6C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 ELChrwsPAdEw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96C5E12025C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DFI46175; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 05:32:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 06:32:16 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.213) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 13:32:13 +0800
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.133]) by DGGEMM405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.213]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 13:32:12 +0800
From: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-04
Thread-Index: AQHSuoHpGYEeWULjQUGUluwiyHqcVaHScA0w
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 05:32:12 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD7B0714@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <1ddd77ef-da4a-1a89-e538-aa20742c11a4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1ddd77ef-da4a-1a89-e538-aa20742c11a4@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.201.202]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.58FC3C62.007D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.133, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 7e965052135f09db95bd8d63906940d3
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/gD6EggHuZXiOcfGiq5yt99ATX-c>
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 05:32:24 -0000

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.
> 
> 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