Subject: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-06

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:40:27 +0200

Hi,

I was reviewing -06 to ensure that all issues are resolved. I did notice 
the following issues.

1. Section 4.2, makes a normative refernces to TS.26114, which is listed 
as informative refences in the reference list. Please move it to the 
normative part.

2. Section 8. I am missing the statement that primary encoding + FEC 
needs to keep within the available bandwidth as determined by the 
congestion control or other bitrate adaptation mechnisms. Thus, likely 
resulting in that the primary encoding bitrate needs to be reduced to 
fit the FEC.

Otherwise the document looks good.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Technologies, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 23:25:51 -0700

Thanks for your comments. Regarding #2, the document currently says the
following:

   Since use of FEC always causes redundant data to be transmitted, this
   will lead to less bandwidth available for the primary encoding when
   in a bandwidth-constrained environment.

Do you think this is insufficient?

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> 2. Section 8. I am missing the statement that primary encoding + FEC needs
> to keep within the available bandwidth as determined by the congestion
> control or other bitrate adaptation mechnisms. Thus, likely resulting in
> that the primary encoding bitrate needs to be reduced to fit the FEC.
>

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:51:22 +0200

Den 2017-07-20 kl. 08:25, skrev Justin Uberti:
> Thanks for your comments. Regarding #2, the document currently says 
> the following:
>

Yes, I think it should be more explicit that primary + repair need to be 
within the bandwidth limits set by congestion control, etc.

/Magnus

>
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Magnus Westerlund 
> <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I was reviewing -06 to ensure that all issues are resolved. I did
>     notice the following issues.
>
>
>     1. Section 4.2, makes a normative refernces to TS.26114, which is
>     listed as informative refences in the reference list. Please move
>     it to the normative part.
>
>     2. Section 8. I am missing the statement that primary encoding +
>     FEC needs to keep within the available bandwidth as determined by
>     the congestion control or other bitrate adaptation mechnisms.
>     Thus, likely resulting in that the primary encoding bitrate needs
>     to be reduced to fit the FEC.
>
>     <tel:%2B46%2010%207148287>
>     <tel:%2B46%2073%200949079>
>     SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto:
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

-- 

Magnus Westerlund