Subject: [payload] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:46:50 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do have one question - the IESG has approved
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext/, which updates
RFC 6363 to support sliding encoding window codes, in addition to block codes,
and it seems like that would be useful for real-time payload FEC here. Is that
something that people have looked at?

---

From: "Ali C. Begen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:15:48 +0300

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 4:46 AM, Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

FEC framework does not have to use RTP as it offers a generic framework. The flexfec here is, though, built for a specific purpose.