Subject: [rtcweb] Call for WG adoption of draft-uberti-rtcweb-fec

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 18:57:22 +0000

At the last meeting there was strong support for adopting draft-uberti-rtcweb-fec as a WG draft. Unless we hear significant objections to this, the chairs plan to more forward with adopting this. If you have objection to this, please reply to this thread before Jan 15.

Thanks, 

Cullen, Sean, & Ted

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:05:20 -0800

This draft is now referenced normatively in draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
Section 6.2, so it is needed and we might as well get on with it.

6.2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-21#section-6.2>.
Forward Error Correction (FEC)

   The use of Forward Error Correction (FEC) can provide an effective
   protection against some degree of packet loss, at the cost of steady
   bandwidth overhead.  There are several FEC schemes that are defined
   for use with RTP.  Some of these schemes are specific to a particular
   RTP payload format, others operate across RTP packets and can be used
   with any payload format.  It needs to be noted that using redundant
   encoding or FEC will lead to increased play out delay, which needs to
   be considered when choosing FEC schemes and their parameters.

   WebRTC endpoints MUST follow the recommendations for FEC use given in
   [I-D.uberti-rtcweb-fec
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-21#ref-I-D.uberti-rtcweb-fec>].
WebRTC endpoints MAY support other types of
   FEC, but these MUST be negotiated before they are used.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> At the last meeting there was strong support for adopting
> draft-uberti-rtcweb-fec as a WG draft. Unless we hear significant
> objections to this, the chairs plan to more forward with adopting this. If
> you have objection to this, please reply to this thread before Jan 15.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cullen, Sean, & Ted
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:10:09 +0100

Hi,

I support this. Considering that the deadline is passed. Is this now
adopted?

/Magnus

On 2015-01-08 19:57, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> objections to this, the chairs plan to more forward with adopting
> this. If you have objection to this, please reply to this thread
> before Jan 15.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cullen, Sean, & Ted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:19:06 +0000

Yes, we should have been clearer. 

There is WG consensus to adopt this. We will now work with the AD to see if we can get a milestone and after that request the authors to submit a WG version of the draft. 

Cullen with my chair hat on 

> On Jan 30, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Varun Singh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 20:21:52 +0200

I support this too.  The corresponding RTP payload draft was recently
adopted as well.
On 30-Jan-2015 6:10 pm, "Magnus Westerlund" <[email-masked]>