IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-04

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Fri, 21 April 2017 09:30 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.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 3A963129B37 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 HZB-VEyX4zgk for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22a.google.com (mail-wr0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22a]) (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 EF1001287A5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id z109so51083924wrb.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TH1qnhWAOd4Dfm5OSzRosKTMariIOSgoPonoyG7GxmY=; b=O9apyhgjaOe5sAxuRunrcbUFkhBdjhS08KLAUQxYUVIAgQjSA3UgSFdaZwyrHc2Elz DpJcdTXiDwrbkL2hJTWiQJgPruBRZLB3F7WDSaT6i55bhZng9BEIgXOl4qykwW4BWR2q Yeuv3XoBwO12VMbKMz8W8XjqF+XbLaQGud06fTVTwiEvDXt4imBjiN2ElFWQj7owpbfO Dghmhk0AxzazQewgLp1W8MjOIoyHDUjBZYgRq3INZO9gtaZX3R3X5wuOBADClBWssScO dhSYTSiUG/1ghx626Ew18cuTNu4gXJlTVE4NJiBVcEVRLIiiLMo6IBfYg7Q0XkvFZnTO Kj8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TH1qnhWAOd4Dfm5OSzRosKTMariIOSgoPonoyG7GxmY=; b=G6NAU6v2QDsKjTVk/a37VRAaHvBTs2fBsmvuT5la0zr9ANBhbY2tos6jEV7ESlrhPS K1AQY2SdWtkGgxQtKwz5lkHJXamCA6aD724QrRjgHpK7AO+1brX7euJT07UejOnuWG6c EwLzrjRR9inrGFy2j9C2pO376GghY/eNKuJiK5LrTU18qpMXfTLCIJk/N/0OKWN6fvYr kEpDob31vbsPFRL/2JbS5R6Ya9ekOfW91DliL4xnUM16xRrLtYTg4r84vk0KTRsO56wG zRo5Xe3WJ7hbZKFycCF/DLHzfh7HAQCXNtgUfbJQsui6/846/AwZn/y4sAH3xGaUqs3v YxjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7dv6u4ouBsf8ozaevMsWuQGZc4YTZdTWsFNHAN0nCf5MW0Sdcn RLCJ5oHSVVlvgw==
X-Received: by 10.223.162.197 with SMTP id t5mr10534307wra.183.1492767010482; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.37] (148.red-79-153-126.dynamicip.rima-tde.net. [79.153.126.148]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id d25sm4113463wrd.54.2017.04.21.02.30.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ddd77ef-da4a-1a89-e538-aa20742c11a4@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:30:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/uevfynQAQNCNiW1xCLNXS6Y9fBE>
Subject: [rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-04
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:30:13 -0000

Hi all, Justin,

I have been reviewing current FEC draft and I have a couple of comments:

1. Usage of RED and in band FEC and header extensions in Sections 3.2, 
3.3 and 4

I think it would be worth noting that neither red/audio nor in-band fec 
allows to recover RTP header extensions from previous packets. The 
impact of loosing the header extensions will be dependent of its meaning 
as, for example, this would cause minor problems to SFUs as client to 
mixer audio level info of previous packets will be lost, but could make 
it unusable for PERC (as it is currently defined) as it requires the OHB 
header extension.

2. Adaptive use of FEC for bandwidth probing (section 8)

I think it would be a good addition to recommend FEC usage for bandwidth 
proving instead of other alternatives like RTX or padding only packets.

Best regards

Sergio

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email