IETF
payload@jabber.ietf.org
Tuesday, March 28, 2017< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[13:37:05] Meetecho joins the room
[14:10:59] craigt joins the room
[15:23:00] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[15:24:09] <Jonathan Lennox> Meetecho: do we need to do anything to change the room to PAYLOAD from AVTCORE?
[15:24:51] <Meetecho> considering there was enough time for a change, they're in seoarate meetecho rooms
[15:24:57] <Meetecho> *separate
[15:25:06] <Meetecho> so the PAYLOAD session will be bridged here
[15:25:10] Tobia Castaldi joins the room
[15:25:21] <Jonathan Lennox> Okay, good.  And it looks like the room display is showing this room — thanks!
[15:25:23] Magnus Westerlund joins the room
[15:26:32] Tobia Castaldi leaves the room
[15:28:13] Thomas Edwards joins the room
[15:29:29] <Thomas Edwards> Roni & Ali, I am in the Meetecho room.
[15:30:42] Ross Finlayson joins the room
[15:31:18] <Jonathan Lennox> Hi, I am Jabber scribe.
[15:31:20] Colin Perkins joins the room
[15:31:39] ben joins the room
[15:31:43] <Jonathan Lennox> Use the Meetecho virtual queue if you can, otherwise prefix any comments for the room with "mic:".
[15:31:53] <Jonathan Lennox> If there's a hum, please say what you're humming for or against.
[15:34:54] <Jonathan Lennox> me, off-mic: "It's not supposed to mean 48 months."
[15:38:09] Andrew Hutton joins the room
[15:40:39] <Jonathan Lennox> craigt: discussing vc2hq right now.
[15:40:46] <Jonathan Lennox> It's in WGLC, needs more reviews to finish the work.
[15:42:51] <Jonathan Lennox> (That's all, it was a very quick comment.)
[15:42:54] <craigt> Thank you; were there any takers in the room?
[15:43:05] <Jonathan Lennox> No one volunteered, no.
[15:43:21] <Thomas Edwards> I'll volunteer to look at vc2hq
[15:43:38] <craigt> Thank you Thomas
[15:47:33] <Colin Perkins> Does this let you send FEC for packets with a CSRC list?
[15:51:29] <Jonathan Lennox> Colin: did that answer your question adequately?
[15:52:38] <Colin Perkins> Yes, thanks.
[15:57:14] <Colin Perkins> I'm perhaps misunderstanding, but isn't a FEC packet that just protects one SSRC a retransmission? Why need to signal separately?
[15:58:05] <Jonathan Lennox> You can have a true FEC that protects multiple packets of a single SSRC.
[15:58:28] <Jonathan Lennox> Which is different than a retransmisison.
[15:58:40] <Colin Perkins> Sure - but you can also have one that protects only a single packet, which is a retransmission.
[15:59:07] <Jonathan Lennox> Right, which is where this started, but in that case you can restructure the payload headers to have less overhead.
[15:59:41] <Colin Perkins> At the expense of additional implementation complexity, yes.
[16:01:40] <Jonathan Lennox> Right — I think the WG thought the reducted overhead was worth the additional complexity. It's not that much complexity compared to FEC processing.
[16:02:31] <Colin Perkins> It's a potential interop failure, since there's additional code. The other way is higher overhead, but guaranteed to work, since it's just FEC.
[16:03:07] <Colin Perkins> Not a big deal, I guess. - optimising for different things
[16:07:04] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[16:07:05] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[16:07:19] <Jonathan Lennox> Sorry for dropping off, power cord came disconnected.
[16:07:27] Ross Finlayson leaves the room
[16:14:35] ben leaves the room
[16:14:44] ben joins the room
[16:18:39] Thomas Edwards leaves the room
[16:19:02] Colin Perkins leaves the room
[16:19:28] Andrew Hutton leaves the room
[16:20:45] craigt leaves the room
[16:21:33] ben leaves the room
[16:23:04] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[16:32:32] Meetecho leaves the room
[16:39:17] Magnus Westerlund leaves the room
[17:55:45] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[17:57:48] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[18:08:12] Magnus Westerlund joins the room
[18:09:52] Magnus Westerlund leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[18:09:52] Magnus Westerlund joins the room
[18:16:05] Magnus Westerlund leaves the room
[20:10:45] ben joins the room
[20:11:02] ben leaves the room