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

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Sat, 23 February 2019 00:53 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 A77A312D4ED for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:53:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable 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 tB89Xz_Pja7T for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x131.google.com (mail-it1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (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 34F8A1200D8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x131.google.com with SMTP id r11so5649618itc.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:53:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wqfH/gIM5k+vdGGAFhzPsMvk1Qtl6y7yYRA9GJv99GM=; b=eQruJqT3W9jiqeD3/gaX/H3HFCKX6rya41WY7e/Wur6tB2PQyGtYRpph81XEPmYGYL 3C82ihSzgog7flAN77yDbVFS4juBpUhR2usWC39rND4dxHu4UXYpJIYprYhjO9Ucedk1 tV6wFVUSiN/cIhNocm8i8+47Vu6cwJBROlTLWh5qK535ktGzKWyoUbGG+6JdsOglT/PL MCZK4NqndCf3tZZOVRyYBJUmI5msq9ld01bFQu4ABogMwprzzhUeyhvmgU9LKKBvxXNy kwlW/1JKEjV2x+V1MD93dhZY1xH16qdy4R3fVhWK4XkV4skApFnnv9LA4ujg7/F5XW0Y LCeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wqfH/gIM5k+vdGGAFhzPsMvk1Qtl6y7yYRA9GJv99GM=; b=OehoGMqogg/I3MS0BNYg1NoztAj1Ko4gvT/E+5RXRR/CXqfg9qoEk/l/qGn7m7nZdd a3PND/3IXPyXI+aYDjluv5M4rHGcX58O8xQ+VWlwCtKw+RI0iBgJTXJ5bHOstbWH/bJd 9XXkgN7qN4SzBOjPR6CbCyCNawmds90JkCTIX1pctmurOWZoo2W4JgSO0uKlAaRTFyud Pi96oEvfl8/Ea+iyoH0D4RighdQp32BnDwKQTQ/15eTW5KFo1yazd/qyqcnOIjHuZde2 C7x2OzgLR3XO4KM2xZgh2DDmHTkN8HJ0K6AAIh/I3DBxT6k5EODncBTRucePHEK5Sde7 sJhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuY0HvbQKww2rDuhI9hciEt5jvngFaBhwnICmpIH5FDb+tlRahiz aTE6xmDcSE5QkT6yjVtu2czZoev9i7dGqAv2+gE3pw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY5RF8ZvUe+tCwct+fAndOJbf8tjKKvYtYeEDd4dP3/v+/PpcIOTm6Ro1j50Vh1wcAU6PKQPm3tZZz/ydV3240=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:1d6:: with SMTP id 83mr3994650jak.29.1550883213551; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:53:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155058071936.20784.14656321188511454784.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155058071936.20784.14656321188511454784.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:53:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0CC4os2d=sGtsw+ckP62v4MQeubYUey0xA55OoQZqsOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000008a2ba05828523c4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/k8Sygll1UpF6Dnk9QuX3hKN_Dzw>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draf?= =?utf-8?q?t-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 00:53:39 -0000

Thanks for your comments. See below.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:52 AM Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>; 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?

>
> 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.