Subject: [nwcrg] Fwd: Protocol Action: 'WebRTC Forward Error Correction Requirements' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-10.txt)

From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 14:26:23 -0700

Of interest to our group

Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.
Research Affiliate, MIT Media Laboratory
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 14:12
> Subject: Protocol Action: 'WebRTC Forward Error Correction Requirements'
> to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-10.txt)
> To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>
> CC: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <
> [email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <
> [email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>
>
> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'WebRTC Forward Error Correction Requirements'
>   (draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-10.txt) as Proposed Standard
>
> This document is the product of the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers
> Working Group.
>
> The IESG contact persons are Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov and Barry Leiba.
>
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec/
>
>
>
>
> Technical Summary
>
>    In situations where packet loss is high or perfect media quality is
>    essential, Forward Error Correction (FEC) can be used to proactively
>    recover from packet losses.  This specification provides guidance on
>    which FEC mechanisms to use, and how to use them, for WebRTC
>    implementations.
>
> Working Group Summary
>
>   The working group support for the document was generally high.  One
>   issued was raised in working group last call regarding the
>   effectiveness of the Opus internal FEC mechanism.  The document
>   currently states that it is RECOMMENDED for protection against
>   individual packet loss and that other methods are needed for
>   multi-packet protection.  This mirrors text in RFC 6716 and
>   accurately captures a limitation of the in-band FEC mechanism.  The
>   question of effectiveness is thus tightly tied to the loss pattern.
>   While data on this was presented, there was no evident consensus to
>   update the requirement, so the recommendation from RFC 6716 was
>   retained.
>
> Document Quality
>
>   This document appears to have the support of the relevant development
>   community and will likely be implemented and deployed.  Reviews by Mo
>   Zanaty, Magnus Westerlund, and Bernard Aboba were particularly helpful.
>
> Personnel
>
>   Ted Hardie is the Document Shepherd. Adam Roach is the Responsible Area
>   Director.
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>