[rtcweb] A proposal for FEC
Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Mon, 19 May 2014 13:22 UTC
Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 BF6011A039D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.029
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 wCdn4OHiyXzg for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-x22b.google.com (mail-vc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56C001A03A9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id lc6so9453678vcb.16 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=fPlyndQImUGGVmAbosyEUM7b6QOpGFiy139dHi0kanA=; b=doXogx5NwbTqnqGYrm721CDuMw/6MHZZvSAplG1l1GbejTTnD83y61yWBC0XJGzEr1 FvNhYftYULqCXscpV8cwMUI0O4C3FquC5cBABcd3YUMnM4DRFZoCdj22tOo4WwlXhFx9 hYsXeJV+lARCmHQCbjwtP8CNfwv61n+8HzWf21L7U0KV4e0f9mS2BAVxw25kgj1LOu43 C98zXGe1rSx3J3eJ5WAgL/K0ov43uUUY671oSIfJZCm2fd1GQ2WiUNyDZ3HNMJfuCLty pUAcKzbMScz/8vAcpSX/rN185AyT8YhkpWynQfoG81A2pUjYHOfDW8bf70+Gh9922pOd V0dQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=fPlyndQImUGGVmAbosyEUM7b6QOpGFiy139dHi0kanA=; b=PZhVY9pMioVjGlXw0XcJYSbhGYhHtk1aWSMfNmy977MJkjy+LVSHD0ym53ApLbuyUv RQLhey9+acPcO9/HOJxbdj5Nu9VzJP/G4UoC9GjzosC8ECoGWR3R3luD6+9NQWDZNe1+ 8wt7YORI9OfSyHuOEpaCOz9CHRaRd41tgmLvowkoGa3dJGyXIiUuDw0q+kRHRNv5vyNd tkVa0NkKufaro9eRzbmfYycB3jjzBLMzObOJRdXfJn8RPo+3Ihs/99st+/b7E2NaicA9 WdUDpt+OuwHkcBm23y/1Wc2r6DnOH6mDy6zHazbyzg+T/z0I6ZGmkrvchl39EaLYu4tD F16Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlplDQgM9spTDlFCkm7TuQoH7FaDsv63RcM4tG+WzGHvvYTzP01uRnVKAIz2zHcqunDQjEh
X-Received: by 10.58.228.163 with SMTP id sj3mr18723130vec.28.1400505726406; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.145.105 with HTTP; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 06:21:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1jZ=TPpc=4w01wh7Sk_Y22Q2s82M=tdBdv72k6bwo8Ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd6b332542d4c04f9c0a60f"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/u2i0z1yGUWPrfhw22gXyk31u1Sk
Subject: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC
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 13:22:08 -0000
RFC 5109 defines a basic XOR-based scheme that should be useful in certain cases (e.g. high RTT). The concern expressed today about this not working in BUNDLE situations is addressed in RFC 5956, S 4.3<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5956#section-4.3>, using ssrc-group to allow SSRC multiplexing, and this is endorsed by Unified Plan, S 3.3<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan-00#page-16> . I would like to see ULPFEC/5109 move forward as a baseline FEC mechanism for 1.0. We can look into other options for future versions of WebRTC.
- [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Varun Singh
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [rtcweb] A proposal for FEC Magnus Westerlund