Re: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 04:53:21PM -0800, Justin Uberti wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. See below.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:52 AM Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I'm not fully sure about the intended status of this document. The shepherd
> > write-up says "the document has normative requirements for conforming
> > WebRTC
> > implementations", however, for me it seems this document makes "only"
> > recommendations and has actually no normative requirements. Therefore
> > informational status might be more appropriate, however, I will not block
> > publication as PS.
> >
> > One mostly minor editorial note:
> >
> > Sec 3.3: "experiments performed indicate that when Opus FEC is used, the
> > overhead imposed
> >    is about 20-30%, depending on the amount of protection needed."
> > Would it be possible to provide a reference for this number?
> >
> 
> I believe this came from a WG mailing list post (possibly my own), rather
> than an external document that could be linked to. Suggestions?

Informative references to mailarchive.ietf.org URLs are acceptable.

> >
> > Also this section says: "See [RFC6716], Section 2.1.7 for complete
> > details."
> > However, section 2.1.7 in RFC6716 is very short and actually does not
> > provide
> > any details...
> >
> 
> Unfortunately, that was the best RFC reference I could find.

Perhaps it is unwise to refer to it as providing "complete" details, at
least.

-Benjamin