Re: [rtcweb] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08

Justin Uberti <> Sat, 23 February 2019 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4E4130EDB for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:46:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
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=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PrkBhEKFR-B9 for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:46:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67B29130ECA for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:46:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p18so3258232ioh.5 for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:46:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wEiyvU8A7jWYsoiAugsl4RFw5rjeaXKwpFqqVheENRs=; b=KmzK6P0VPp3L+gJsn/zQxUntcaB0guRC6+yzw0g7X6WcnQDtqDx+fMHn3RNa+7r5jC b0BkANAJJ2VeexgmzPODCDkNt36awMkZyQe1GQOOn6Tkvg+2PFGl7OSXm2Ex5WQ6oFo0 7Rc7z5NK84mmPiA9HwbqW3xE63EpojXILmF9v6kD1M2YPbXPMP/1PdybdhoMg3mKcC4/ 8hgK50+S47oLMhBwpjMFqnbY/i1YuC6GK2bYoYQ57rz966CH+RZoli2Ob1Lip1wGmYZy wQO6zEq8xCAQ5zCDdJYJURKHR7/EihO7SEsNKd6VVwnMFoCdzK1EXCYMQhu1HaSZ0ZaX nkeQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wEiyvU8A7jWYsoiAugsl4RFw5rjeaXKwpFqqVheENRs=; b=TId5MD7SFfW1AnCLl64W93zLhNuq8wBCq6j1vCweUOiaqpiJdrcC0wcef6mcKrUyFN 4bneIsKIYoxMt+FwGT3MqTrpHZ8M4u1aG3X1hKA0E82GXmEbC1gs/wegelRUdOgQr4F7 st/4LA+7krTncDU3q8pSLp8T/79TMpLJzNo8/BN1N8jNdLe6VVZt0o1c+FDhKFvQIiJk d5D3djTFrfmTnAYEC6Ggrx6qQ3fj6OlU1jhD25BK/RPUx8IyW3T855e9BOO8U9R8lpVr oAbICzg/tiI+ajowBRG3iJFDF2PBUFqBZ1axDAvkJGPqkVwfzs0lSBoD4XGT9KubYwDW 8W/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZCx0D85WAW0SdZqy1MN1sz+06zcayNPrV42imqwK6m17fZ9XPV L60IoNht4ZHf7u/5YdGt8hlScumkvOarHXJA+x+XCA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbEKEPEJiYqdJthuWQk7hPm2yQoPiIq1wtJYhqlqQb1z5x8Z87X6nvj3Nqh9QJQfSijc7Or9Ejeo0lTsLExYPU=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ef02:: with SMTP id k2mr3529507ioh.95.1550882766752; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:46:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Justin Uberti <>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:45:55 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Jürgen Schönwälder <>
Cc:,, RTCWeb IETF <>, IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000066ec010582850898"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 00:46:12 -0000

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:57 PM Jürgen Schönwälder <> wrote:

> Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder
> Review result: Has Nits
> I have reviewed this document and I did not find any issues that are
> affect the operations of networks (except that FEC requires more
> bandwidth and that it may not help much or even make things worse if
> bandwidth is the cause of packet loss, which is explained in the
> document).
> While reading the document, I wrote down the following notes that the
> editor may take into account when revising the document:
> - in 3.1, expland SSRC on first usage and say that this is about
>   sending streams over RTP somewhere early on (I assume this is
>   implied by using the term WebRTC but for outsiders like me it may
>   help to be more specific).


> - To what extend is this document WebRTC specific? Do the requirements
>   also apply if I use RTP without a WebRTC context? If so, should the
>   title rather say "RTP Forward Error Correction Requirements"? Well,
>   section 6 may be WebRTC specific but that section just says that
>   nothing is being recommended, so the recommendations are really all
>   about FEC usage over RTP as far as I can tell (as an outsider).

This document indicates what mechanisms WebRTC implementations should
support, so while the recommendations could also be applied to non-WebRTC
endpoints, that is not the focus of the document.

> - stylistic: I am not a big fan of using citations like '[RFC2198]' as
>   ordinary words or nouns, it makes text difficult to follow unless
>   you know the RFC numbers by heart and your brain translates them
>   back to something meaningful on the fly. This makes texts more
>   difficult to read for outsiders. Example:
>      This mechanism is similar to the
>      [RFC2198] mechanism described above.
>   I prefer this:
>      This mechanism is similar to the
>      redundant encoding mechanism described above.
>   There are couple of such usages of [RFCXXXX] in the document


- add reference for PCMU

OK. Reminder to self, RFC 5391.