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

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

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?

>
> 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.