Subject: [rtcweb] #18: Section 6.2: FEC

From: "rtcweb issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:37:28 -0000

#18: Section 6.2: FEC

 At the time
    of this writing there is no consensus on which, if any, of these FEC
    schemes is appropriate for use in the WebRTC context.  Accordingly,
    this memo makes no recommendation on the choice of block-based FEC
    for WebRTC use.

 [BA] By being vague on both NACK as well as FEC requirements, I think
 we've set ourselves up for issues with respect to implementation quality
 if not interoperability.  In practice, it may be possible to come up with
 some advice to FEC implementers (perhaps not at a REQUIRED but a
 RECOMMENDED level).  So I think we might want to revisit this.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-
  [email-masked]          |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  rtp-usage                |    Version:  1.0
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/18>
rtcweb <http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/>