WebRTC Forward Error Correction Requirements
draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-10

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ted.ietf@gmail.com, adam@nostrum.com, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'WebRTC Forward Error Correction Requirements' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-10.txt)

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/

Ballot Text

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.

RFC Editor Note