Subject: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 04:51:59 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not fully sure about the intended status of this document. The shepherd
write-up says "the document has normative requirements for conforming WebRTC
implementations", however, for me it seems this document makes "only"
recommendations and has actually no normative requirements. Therefore
informational status might be more appropriate, however, I will not block
publication as PS.

One mostly minor editorial note:

Sec 3.3: "experiments performed indicate that when Opus FEC is used, the
overhead imposed
   is about 20-30%, depending on the amount of protection needed."
Would it be possible to provide a reference for this number?

Also this section says: "See [RFC6716], Section 2.1.7 for complete details."
However, section 2.1.7 in RFC6716 is very short and actually does not provide
any details...

---

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:53:21 -0800

Thanks for your comments. See below.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec/

I believe this came from a WG mailing list post (possibly my own), rather
than an external document that could be linked to. Suggestions?

> However, section 2.1.7 in RFC6716 is very short and actually does not

Unfortunately, that was the best RFC reference I could find.

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 18:25:28 -0600

> than an external document that could be linked to. Suggestions?

Informative references to mailarchive.ietf.org URLs are acceptable.

> Unfortunately, that was the best RFC reference I could find.

Perhaps it is unwise to refer to it as providing "complete" details, at
least.

-Benjamin