On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:57 PM Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder
Review result: Has Nits
I have reviewed this document and I did not find any issues that are
affect the operations of networks (except that FEC requires more
bandwidth and that it may not help much or even make things worse if
bandwidth is the cause of packet loss, which is explained in the
document).
While reading the document, I wrote down the following notes that the
editor may take into account when revising the document:
- in 3.1, expland SSRC on first usage and say that this is about
sending streams over RTP somewhere early on (I assume this is
implied by using the term WebRTC but for outsiders like me it may
help to be more specific).
Acknowledged.
- To what extend is this document WebRTC specific? Do the requirements
also apply if I use RTP without a WebRTC context? If so, should the
title rather say "RTP Forward Error Correction Requirements"? Well,
section 6 may be WebRTC specific but that section just says that
nothing is being recommended, so the recommendations are really all
about FEC usage over RTP as far as I can tell (as an outsider).
This document indicates what mechanisms WebRTC implementations should support, so while the recommendations could also be applied to non-WebRTC endpoints, that is not the focus of the document.
- stylistic: I am not a big fan of using citations like '[RFC2198]' as
ordinary words or nouns, it makes text difficult to follow unless
you know the RFC numbers by heart and your brain translates them
back to something meaningful on the fly. This makes texts more
difficult to read for outsiders. Example:
This mechanism is similar to the
[RFC2198] mechanism described above.
I prefer this:
This mechanism is similar to the
redundant encoding mechanism described above.
There are couple of such usages of [RFCXXXX] in the document
OK.
- add reference for PCMU
OK. Reminder to self, RFC 5391.
