Re: [rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC
Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Mon, 26 August 2013 23:41 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 EE36E21E804E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bjne-QEmXx6j for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s9.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s9.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F7111E8262 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-W29 ([65.55.111.73]) by blu0-omc2-s9.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:40:51 -0700
X-TMN: [snMTIdc9C/ss3sItxb0FDkkBBFG+oD2M]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W29D69E17E5A2E3469054BC93490@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_16cb6074-193a-4857-9559-bd8c41b996be_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, 'Colin Perkins' <csp@csperkins.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:40:50 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <024501cea28c$e11194b0$a334be10$@gmail.com>
References: <066.f62f1912f660dbc0c28343d2955a2ef5@trac.tools.ietf.org> <081.60ad42bfcba9b4972ad06bf3f62ca73e@trac.tools.ietf.org>, <5A2C089B-BBFF-42D1-949A-AD2984EE3E90@csperkins.org>, <024501cea28c$e11194b0$a334be10$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2013 23:40:51.0075 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2AC7530:01CEA2B5]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 26 Aug 2013 23:41:02 -0000
Roni said: > So for FEC need to support RFC5956 and RFC6364 for signaling but no specific FEC scheme [BA] Those are the relevant RFCs I would gather from the "Unified Plan" doc, but of course it makes no sense to define an API to control FEC without knowing what specific FEC schemes are going to be supported. Such an API wouldn't just potentially differ in specifics between browser implementations, it might not potentially interoperate over the wire.
- [rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC rtcweb issue tracker
- Re: [rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC rtcweb issue tracker
- Re: [rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC Roni Even
- Re: [rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] #27: Section 6.2 FEC Magnus Westerlund