Subject: [codec] #29: Packet loss concealment?

From: "codec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 16:11:02 -0000

#29: Packet loss concealment?
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hoene@…                 |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  requirements            |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                       |    Keywords:     
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Any thoughts about the packet loss concealment?

 Extrapolation? Interpolation? Content specific? Mandatory or optional?
 Partial Redundancy? Combine Time stretching/loss concealment?
 Do we need adaptive loss resilience, packet loss robustness, and/or FEC?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/29>
codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>

---

From: "codec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 14:52:19 -0000

Comment(by hoene@…):

 Comments from ticket #11
 Will PLC be a mandatory component of the codec? Will the codec provide an
 implementation of PLC, but with the hooks to allow different and
 potentially improved (or network condition specific) implementations of
 PLC to be substituted in the codec?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/29#comment:1>
codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>