Hi Giri, Both post-repair loss metrics should be referenced, one provides run-length perpacket feedback and the other provides loss and repair counters. Webrtc-stats reports on the latter and can already be used to toggle FEC in webrtc applications.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 0.34, Giridhar Mandyam <[email protected]> wrote: > >-Section 8, "an application should avoid sending/receiving FEC repair > streams if it knows that sending/receiving those FEC repair streams would > not help at all in recovering the missing packets. It is RECOMMENDED that > the amount and type (row, column, or both) of FEC protection is adjusted > dynamically based on the packet loss rate and burst loss length observed by > the applications." > > > > >How would the application know that sending/receiving those FEC repair > streams would not help at all? any rule of thumb to add here? > > > > The editors propose that the above text be revised as follows: > > > > “… an application should avoid sending/receiving FEC repair streams if it > knows that sending/receiving those FEC repair streams would not help at all > in recovering the missing packets. *Examples of where FEC would not be > beneficial are: (1) if the successful recovery rate as determined by RTCP > feedback is low (see RFC 5725), and (2) the application has a smaller > latency requirement than the repair window adopted by the FEC configuration > based on the expected burst loss duration and the target FEC overhead. *It > is RECOMMENDED that the amount and type (row, column, or both) of FEC > protection is adjusted dynamically based on the packet loss rate and burst > loss length observed by the applications." > > > > Please let us know if this is acceptable. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -Giri Mandyam > > > > *From:* Meral Shirazipour <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 11:50 PM > *To:* [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Gen-ART Last Call review of > draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-16 > > > > *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for > the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > > > For more information, please see the FAQ at < > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-16 > > > > Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour > > Review Date: 2019-01-31 > > IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-01 > > IESG Telechat date: NA > > > > > > Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC . > > Major issues: > > > > Minor issues: > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > -Section 1.1.1 Title "One-Dimensionsal "--->"One-Dimensional" > > > > -[Page 14] 3.2. , "signficant"--->"significant" > > > > -[Page 16], 4.2.1. , "pakcets"--->"packets" > > > > -[Page 35], 6.3.1. , "reciever"--->"receiver" > > > > -[Page 35], 6.3.1.1. , "signficant"--->"significant" > > > > -[Page 43], 7., "several Sesssion "--->"several Session " > > > > -Section 8, "an application should avoid > > sending/receiving FEC repair streams if it knows that sending/ > > receiving those FEC repair streams would not help at all in > > recovering the missing packets. It is RECOMMENDED that the amount > > and type (row, column, or both) of FEC protection is adjusted > > dynamically based on the packet loss rate and burst loss length > > observed by the applications." > > > > How would the application know that sending/receiving those FEC repair > streams would not help at all? any rule of thumb to add here? > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Meral > > --- > > Meral Shirazipour > > Ericsson > > Research > > www.ericsson.com > -- Founder, CEO, callstats.io http://www.callstats.io Interested in networking, media quality, and diagnostics. We are hiring!: www.callstats.io/jobs/
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
