From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 3 04:30:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F283A69A6; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 04:30:02 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@ietf.org Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 1DBCA3A6AF4; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 04:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081103123002.1DBCA3A6AF4@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 04:30:02 -0800 (PST) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] I-D Action:draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-01.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the FEC Framework Working Group of the IETF. Title : Methods to convey FEC Framework Configuration Information Author(s) : R. Asati Filename : draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-01.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2008-11-03 FEC Framework document [FECARCH] defines the FEC Framework Configuration Information necessary for the FEC framework operation. This document describes how to use existing signaling protocols to determine and dynamically communicate the Configuration information between sender(s) and receiver(s). Conventions used in this document In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and server respectively. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-03042528.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --NextPart-- From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 3 06:31:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E373A6B8B; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 06:31:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3F23A6B8E for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 06:31:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.277, BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I4+2bQgW2QiW for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 06:31:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtxmxout7.matrox.com (mtxmxout7.matrox.com [138.11.2.97]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5253A6B8B for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 06:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mars.matrox.com (mars.matrox.com [192.168.1.29]) by mtxmxout7.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39DD1C6AB9; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ssmsp@localhost) by mars.matrox.com (8.13.2/8.13.2) id mA3EVPrh023557; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:31:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mars.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7524A9C6FE; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:31:25 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-MTX-Scanned: by Matrox Virus scanner at mars.matrox.com Received: from mars.matrox.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mars.matrox.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id MNRrD4sYV-ug; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:31:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from pluton.matrox.com (pluton.matrox.com [192.168.8.7]) by mars.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB769C6CC; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:31:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from swoptvoip (dyn-66-134.matrox.com [192.168.66.134]) by pluton.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC0D7F480; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:31:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Guy Bonneau" To: "'Ali C. Begen \(abegen\)'" , References: <61848B5FD47E421A87E4C69F089AB330@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C4AD1@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:31:12 -0500 Message-ID: <067B5671C00244E8AD4D5B8A11869D69@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C4AD1@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Index: Ack7fHfNSC/ZgEzmSZW8knHdwIIK6QAAnULgAJAS68A= Subject: Re: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC scheme X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org > > I believe you are referring to: > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00.txt Yes > > D and L values determine the source block size, which is > required for both interleaved and non-interleaved FEC. So the draft requires that both interleave and non-interleave FEC streams be tied to a source block size of L x D. Would this means that the block size needs to be a square aligned block size? For example the Annex B of SMPTE 2022-1 2007 (a close relative of this draft) shows a case of Non-Block aligned FEC arrangement. Does this draft also allows this king of Arrangement ? Thanks Guy Bonneau _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 3 15:14:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99A728C2D2; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:14:01 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B0828C1C9 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:14:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJh0BvWggV6f for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:14:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C27728C2D2 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:14:00 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,536,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="187918637" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2008 23:13:58 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mA3NDw4X025026; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:13:58 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA3NDwNv025873; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 23:13:58 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:13:58 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:13:45 -0800 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C52BD@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <067B5671C00244E8AD4D5B8A11869D69@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC scheme Thread-Index: Ack7fHfNSC/ZgEzmSZW8knHdwIIK6QAAnULgAJAS68AAEkgiQA== References: <61848B5FD47E421A87E4C69F089AB330@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C4AD1@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <067B5671C00244E8AD4D5B8A11869D69@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com> From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" To: "Guy Bonneau" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2008 23:13:58.0046 (UTC) FILETIME=[D97103E0:01C93E09] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1347; t=1225754038; x=1226618038; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20C.=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20D=20parameter=20of=20Non-I nterleaved=20Parity=20FEC=20scheme |Sender:=20; bh=pw7t8sy2puOHYSMlfDY5+PRt/0ZquQCvkrTMs6AqMOE=; b=Rml4+NT/PjBsP29tF7FjhtrG8PW0alIWndwY+pLqi5G+zdzTebFDpe5rhx ZfirnmbUYPJO2QGwX/fxO8DtPAP89pbEPr10oJwtahxOgNa/uaI4ypFWz6IL na0tgK+l+phO2AQCuNTOji1WGiVj8mCuGwu2o40bYad1uNNa/Tk5A=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC scheme X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org > > D and L values determine the source block size, which is > > required for both interleaved and non-interleaved FEC. > > So the draft requires that both interleave and non-interleave > FEC streams be tied to a source block size of L x D. Would I am not sure what you mean here. Whatever sending arrangement or block we choose, there will always be a D and L value for that block. It can be 5x5, 3x5, 1x5 or 100x1... In interleaved FEC, it is important which value is L and which one is D. In non-interleaved, Nx1 is exactly the same thing as 1xN. > this means that the block size needs to be a square aligned > block size? For example the Annex B of SMPTE 2022-1 2007 > (a close relative of this draft) shows a case of Non-Block > aligned FEC arrangement. Does this draft also allows this king > of Arrangement ? We have not defined sending arrangements as it is out of the scope of our rtp payload format draft. But, regardless, if you wanna use Annex B, that is possible in our draft, too. It should be clear that in the arrangement you mention, SMPTE 2022-1 still uses specific L and D values. With our draft, you should use the same values. Note that the base SN plus the L&D values uniquely identify the source packets protected by any given FEC packet. BR, -acbegen > Thanks > Guy Bonneau _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 3 15:45:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2508B28C416; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:45:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@ietf.org Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 65B3F28C3F5; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:45:00 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081103234501.65B3F28C3F5@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:45:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] I-D Action:draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements-02.txt X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the FEC Framework Working Group of the IETF. Title : SDP Elements for FEC Framework Author(s) : A. Begen Filename : draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements-02.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2008-11-03 This document specifies the use of Session Description Protocol (SDP) to describe the parameters required to signal the Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework Configuration Information between the sender(s) and receiver(s). This document also provides examples that show the semantics for grouping multiple source and repair flows together for the applications that simultaneously use multiple instances of the FEC Framework. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-03153846.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --NextPart-- From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 5 21:45:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D2A3A6836; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 21:45:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38123A6836 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 21:45:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GR3c-MawlES9 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 21:45:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090253A6803 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 21:45:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so321590qwe.31 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:44:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=g9hJWpRCPt2FEAtSVykW75LsQEA0WY39/KwtWw52V/c=; b=q4ti/TUkkSpYb7QaH5RNwHHUQ+qobfjF6dpsIy77e8c9gzCGH3kg+w7A/GaKKAkqK5 v4dAWmP5P7+me1ipVbkH0wzGPBnDkus6zPAFcEjFneR5WA/xZjUx+AV8kZZWVCzH9ZPv 9okrVW43cOHI/uff7tzaEyhYwFanKGeEDo6BY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=wk0+deN+D9GxFDHu1PtQQHegjP1NYNGbaDbHx4DmKHv6bf4ZCJLQajhti2SwuCv6rg XZiTB3NcxJ/ypHm3JRO/t34snUkUWAzALVJD8o0zNjOyCLdW3xIquECM52duqLBKrUsN Y1z4UZsMQpdGNUlwrDOQl0rQV6hCAwZ7jCTjs= Received: by 10.214.181.7 with SMTP id d7mr1788069qaf.377.1225950295178; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:44:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.214.78.10 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 21:44:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540811052144q185393dexd96cc6b04a93873d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 21:44:55 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: fecframe@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Here's a quick stab at an agenda. I'm sure there are other issues to discuss so please send them to me ASAP and I'll update the list. I know we need to discuss feedback as Magnus has urged. I can add a time-slot for that discussion just after the update on the framework. IETF 73, FECFrame WG Agenda Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5 min Chairs draft-ietf-fecframe-framework - 10 mins Mark Watson draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme - 10 mins Ali Begen draft-begen-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme - 10 mins Ali Begen draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements - 10 mins Ali Begen draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec - 10 mins Ali Begen Thanks!, Greg _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 7 05:52:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4033A6A4C; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 05:52:06 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA273A69FE for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 05:52:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.231 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.768, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hsdWXT0DJeep for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 05:52:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtxmxout2.matrox.com (mtxmxout2.matrox.com [138.11.2.92]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC013A698E for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 05:52:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from venus.matrox.com (venus.matrox.com [192.168.1.30]) by mtxmxout2.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31C98523 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ssmsp@localhost) by venus.matrox.com (8.13.2/8.13.2) id mA7Dp9qc002881 for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:51:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by venus.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC5B4C2EA for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:51:09 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-MTX-Scanned: by Matrox Virus scanner at venus.matrox.com Received: from venus.matrox.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (venus.matrox.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id nvw1HM3aMn3G for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from pluton.matrox.com (pluton.matrox.com [192.168.8.7]) by venus.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F604C27C for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from swoptvoip (dyn-66-134.matrox.com [192.168.66.134]) by pluton.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386117F480 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:51:12 -0500 (EST) From: "Guy Bonneau" To: References: <61848B5FD47E421A87E4C69F089AB330@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C4AD1@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <067B5671C00244E8AD4D5B8A11869D69@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C52BD@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:50:59 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C52BD@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Index: Ack7fHfNSC/ZgEzmSZW8knHdwIIK6QAAnULgAJAS68AAEkgiQAC1PHjA Subject: Re: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC scheme X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thanks Ali for your explanations! These clarity my understanding of the specification. I have 2 more questions! I am still refering to : http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00.txt So please bear with me. In section 7.2. The specification provides an example of SDP session. Since the FEC streams are grouped with a video media type I would have expected the media type of both FEC streams to be a video media type. Yet the FEC streams are tagged as application. Shouldn't it be video? I'm trying to understand the usefulness of the Top parameter. I can deduce that value with the help of the a=group parameters as well as the media subtype interleaved-parityfec and non-interleaved-parityfec of the grouped media streams. Thanks Guy Bonneau > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali C. Begen (abegen) [mailto:abegen@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:14 PM > To: Guy Bonneau; fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity > FEC scheme > > > > D and L values determine the source block size, which is required > > > for both interleaved and non-interleaved FEC. > > > > So the draft requires that both interleave and non-interleave FEC > > streams be tied to a source block size of L x D. Would > > I am not sure what you mean here. Whatever sending > arrangement or block we choose, there will always be a D and > L value for that block. It can be 5x5, 3x5, 1x5 or 100x1... > > In interleaved FEC, it is important which value is L and > which one is D. > In non-interleaved, Nx1 is exactly the same thing as 1xN. > > > this means that the block size needs to be a square aligned block > > size? For example the Annex B of SMPTE 2022-1 2007 (a close > relative > > of this draft) shows a case of Non-Block aligned FEC > arrangement. Does > > this draft also allows this king of Arrangement ? > > We have not defined sending arrangements as it is out of the > scope of our rtp payload format draft. But, regardless, if > you wanna use Annex B, that is possible in our draft, too. It > should be clear that in the arrangement you mention, SMPTE > 2022-1 still uses specific L and D values. With our draft, > you should use the same values. > > Note that the base SN plus the L&D values uniquely identify > the source packets protected by any given FEC packet. > > BR, > -acbegen > > > Thanks > > Guy Bonneau > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 7 06:10:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E516F3A6B3C; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:10:44 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665A83A6B3C for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:10:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.382 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cGKNCjz+A2Fa for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:10:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378CC3A67A1 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:10:42 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,564,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="27085479" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2008 14:10:31 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mA7EAUlf019280; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:10:30 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA7EAUTF017128; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:10:30 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:10:30 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:10:27 -0500 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6067BBD1D@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <38c19b540811052144q185393dexd96cc6b04a93873d@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 Thread-Index: Ack/0u4ucFtoz/HXQ0iJ9ACf9jTZrQAVa/NQ References: <38c19b540811052144q185393dexd96cc6b04a93873d@mail.gmail.com> From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Greg Shepherd" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2008 14:10:30.0355 (UTC) FILETIME=[97653A30:01C940E2] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1233; t=1226067030; x=1226931030; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20FECFrame=20WG=20Agenda=20- =20IETF=2073 |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Greg=20Shepherd=22=20,=20; bh=JkcqU+v2wK7oLhK8vH+M0DeKtb8JUZLAM47AQwv2p+A=; b=Kri4/fULrHnfqyVBThizIoZrtw/1C05GcMysRgqiXqAeJi97bsCxZiA7Uh blbbJS6E4mV8Q+SjusZUGp3FknGg41rfxnqZr41USk+B+Nnf1s8RAP3AEWei DmzA76VX+S; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Greg, Do we plan to start the WGLC on some of the drafts immediately after the meeting? Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Greg Shepherd > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:45 AM > To: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 > > Here's a quick stab at an agenda. I'm sure there are other issues to > discuss so please send them to me ASAP and I'll update the list. I > know we need to discuss feedback as Magnus has urged. I can add a > time-slot for that discussion just after the update on the framework. > > IETF 73, FECFrame WG Agenda > > Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5 min Chairs > > draft-ietf-fecframe-framework - 10 mins Mark Watson > draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme - 10 mins Ali Begen > draft-begen-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme - 10 mins Ali Begen > draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements - 10 mins Ali Begen > draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec - 10 mins Ali Begen > > Thanks!, > Greg > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 7 06:13:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE613A690A; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:13:34 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4A93A67A1 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:13:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VSdlxHjuWN6M for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:13:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7023A690A for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:13:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so876400qwe.31 for ; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:13:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=/817ZRJxxHdNBuoBzfWXBLIrckxaCYsly70Cy01a0+c=; b=DfmPaResExPNMAHalcTVpHJSM6WDG3+KOzqEBt8RfYBZ27UiDvCoo1EI9MspfSpTw2 1fz6Ui+pNGCCXbSPrEv7YjNGEbgg1519xXO3JzXcEFlKNj7YQrdeQALZkeFajXviXQLE qw8xVi8l9+u0i/kG8N23x08n7KzIpchldFBH0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=L5SYTHJ4HOH8/YTXEBsfUDoqicDSHKpG+ULIsBgoHGjuGqUSfQC8H7d99nWP9OieAB IbNmqZzd4NtpUJau54kXrT7RBEhQ/SubjDoIJ6kFdk7aK/LT4KLKSVRRJ4pk3FY+O8xF iUSmYpK18Dgdim9pioPZHqc3wFc5WyQrvqnnk= Received: by 10.214.114.4 with SMTP id m4mr4021638qac.349.1226067208951; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:13:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.214.78.10 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:13:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540811070613i307391f2o93c32c8b0bc5f66@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:13:28 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" In-Reply-To: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6067BBD1D@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <38c19b540811052144q185393dexd96cc6b04a93873d@mail.gmail.com> <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6067BBD1D@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Yes, I think we are at that point with some of them. Let's see how the meeting goes. Greg On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Do we plan to start the WGLC on some of the drafts immediately after the > meeting? > > Cheers, > Rajiv > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Greg Shepherd >> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:45 AM >> To: fecframe@ietf.org >> Subject: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 >> >> Here's a quick stab at an agenda. I'm sure there are other issues to >> discuss so please send them to me ASAP and I'll update the list. I >> know we need to discuss feedback as Magnus has urged. I can add a >> time-slot for that discussion just after the update on the framework. >> >> IETF 73, FECFrame WG Agenda >> >> Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5 min Chairs >> >> draft-ietf-fecframe-framework - 10 mins > Mark Watson >> draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme - 10 mins Ali > Begen >> draft-begen-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme - 10 mins Ali Begen >> draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements - 10 mins Ali > Begen >> draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec - 10 mins > Ali Begen >> >> Thanks!, >> Greg >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 7 06:34:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DA43A6972; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:34:12 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B453A68D7 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:34:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.406 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.193, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7DbRRMSlrmqR for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:34:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C3BC3A6833 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:34:09 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,564,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="27055314" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2008 14:33:34 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mA7EXY2O000369; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:33:34 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA7EXYwF024110; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:33:34 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:33:34 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:33:30 -0500 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6067BBD47@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <38c19b540811070613i307391f2o93c32c8b0bc5f66@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 Thread-Index: AclA4wiamFOM3Eq9RVqY/tQkcilXjgAAnwaQ References: <38c19b540811052144q185393dexd96cc6b04a93873d@mail.gmail.com> <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6067BBD1D@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <38c19b540811070613i307391f2o93c32c8b0bc5f66@mail.gmail.com> From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Greg Shepherd" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2008 14:33:34.0718 (UTC) FILETIME=[D08A41E0:01C940E5] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2003; t=1226068414; x=1226932414; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20FECFrame=20WG=20Agenda=20- =20IETF=2073 |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Greg=20Shepherd=22=20; bh=xch1G3qT2LgU7MSdApAI1/EORJR88CShcMtV1lYgHqQ=; b=pAvgkO9w6b8i5E6XyKqKnQpnk32KMT//osheyRrHyvG0Xco+TsxLgrnhYd 8f1i6YUieO+a4SwTUKJfAK9J2kkK6LeMqqEUKuwgAoi5Y/gd5YuyoYk2DX6P yT2UeZvLJ0; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Greg, Please include 5 mins for 'draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-01' in the discussion as well, as we push it for the WGLC with the framework doc. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 9:13 AM > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > Cc: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 > > Yes, I think we are at that point with some of them. Let's see how the > meeting goes. > > Greg > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Do we plan to start the WGLC on some of the drafts immediately after > the > > meeting? > > > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] > On > >> Behalf Of Greg Shepherd > >> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:45 AM > >> To: fecframe@ietf.org > >> Subject: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 > >> > >> Here's a quick stab at an agenda. I'm sure there are other issues to > >> discuss so please send them to me ASAP and I'll update the list. I > >> know we need to discuss feedback as Magnus has urged. I can add a > >> time-slot for that discussion just after the update on the > framework. > >> > >> IETF 73, FECFrame WG Agenda > >> > >> Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5 min Chairs > >> > >> draft-ietf-fecframe-framework - 10 mins > > Mark Watson > >> draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme - 10 mins Ali > > Begen > >> draft-begen-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme - 10 mins Ali Begen > >> draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements - 10 mins Ali > > Begen > >> draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec - 10 mins > > Ali Begen > >> > >> Thanks!, > >> Greg > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Fecframe mailing list > >> Fecframe@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 7 06:47:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0AA3A696D; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:47:15 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D867B3A698E for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:47:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZTFciwr4V9jG for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:47:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14F33A696D for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:47:12 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,564,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="190440624" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2008 14:47:10 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mA7ElARU026075; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:47:10 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA7ElAfB001133; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:47:10 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:47:08 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:44:51 -0800 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5408138F4F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC scheme Thread-Index: Ack7fHfNSC/ZgEzmSZW8knHdwIIK6QAAnULgAJAS68AAEkgiQAC1PHjAAAGdk/A= References: <61848B5FD47E421A87E4C69F089AB330@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C4AD1@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><067B5671C00244E8AD4D5B8A11869D69@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C52BD@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" To: "Guy Bonneau" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2008 14:47:08.0551 (UTC) FILETIME=[B59F5170:01C940E7] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3597; t=1226069230; x=1226933230; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20C.=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20D=20parameter=20of=20Non-I nterleaved=20Parity=20FEC=20scheme |Sender:=20; bh=H4gE/+vgJshDMb35L0Wjoc0iwlRJhZMH29KCvg2XpTI=; b=j0gRn7rcXaWhi7dBj9psvUXl7OdVFSmQqtlYObbzrEaZUWGe/2icDAV0xZ NjaF2wd3FMhV7FSDptNs5iK0Tj28b/RK9MGiTH2H+OyEWRxClF6ok0vXcRp4 tFbjId8cyNsSdmc2/u1IlqiiJFrynCeImO3FvVsj3jDcxZWXYTj28=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC scheme X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Guy, > Thanks Ali for your explanations! > > These clarity my understanding of the specification. Cool. > I have 2 more questions! I am still refering to : > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00.txt > > So please bear with me. > > In section 7.2. The specification provides an example of SDP session. > Since the FEC streams are grouped with a video media type I > would have expected the media type of both FEC streams to be > a video media type. > Yet the FEC streams are tagged as application. Shouldn't it be video? This was a little confusing to me at the beginning as well. The source is video. However, the FEC we produce from this source is not a video media, it cannot be treated like it were video. For example, it cannot be decoded by a video decoder. Other folks on the list may explain this better than me. > I'm trying to understand the usefulness of the Top parameter. Type of protection (ToP) can be used by the receiver or another 3rd party entity to control the FEC operations at the sender, i.e., it may be used to make the sender (or fec encoder) generate the desired FEC stream(s). Normally, the receiver only needs to check the media types in the "m" lines to find the stream(s) it is looking for. BR, -acbegen > I can deduce that value with the help of the a=group > parameters as well as the media subtype interleaved-parityfec > and non-interleaved-parityfec of the grouped media streams. > > Thanks > Guy Bonneau > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ali C. Begen (abegen) [mailto:abegen@cisco.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:14 PM > > To: Guy Bonneau; fecframe@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC > > scheme > > > > > > D and L values determine the source block size, which > is required > > > > for both interleaved and non-interleaved FEC. > > > > > > So the draft requires that both interleave and non-interleave FEC > > > streams be tied to a source block size of L x D. Would > > > > I am not sure what you mean here. Whatever sending arrangement or > > block we choose, there will always be a D and L value for > that block. > > It can be 5x5, 3x5, 1x5 or 100x1... > > > > In interleaved FEC, it is important which value is L and > which one is > > D. > > In non-interleaved, Nx1 is exactly the same thing as 1xN. > > > > > this means that the block size needs to be a square aligned block > > > size? For example the Annex B of SMPTE 2022-1 2007 (a close > > relative > > > of this draft) shows a case of Non-Block aligned FEC > > arrangement. Does > > > this draft also allows this king of Arrangement ? > > > > We have not defined sending arrangements as it is out of > the scope of > > our rtp payload format draft. But, regardless, if you wanna > use Annex > > B, that is possible in our draft, too. It should be clear > that in the > > arrangement you mention, SMPTE > > 2022-1 still uses specific L and D values. With our draft, > you should > > use the same values. > > > > Note that the base SN plus the L&D values uniquely identify > the source > > packets protected by any given FEC packet. > > > > BR, > > -acbegen > > > > > Thanks > > > Guy Bonneau > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 7 07:31:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2253A67C1; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:31:25 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9274B28C0F8 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:31:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.787 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.787 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.812, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A1rDCRqLF-6s for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtxmxout2.matrox.com (mtxmxout2.matrox.com [138.11.2.92]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7863A67C1 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:31:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mars.matrox.com (mars.matrox.com [192.168.1.29]) by mtxmxout2.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17BE8531 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ssmsp@localhost) by mars.matrox.com (8.13.2/8.13.2) id mA7FUV95028370 for fecframe@ietf.org; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:30:31 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mars.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4F09C6CB for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:30:28 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-MTX-Scanned: by Matrox Virus scanner at mars.matrox.com Received: from mars.matrox.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mars.matrox.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id pZTSWm5S4Gep for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:30:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from pluton.matrox.com (pluton.matrox.com [192.168.8.7]) by mars.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871039C77C for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:30:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from swoptvoip (dyn-66-134.matrox.com [192.168.66.134]) by pluton.matrox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8642B7F480 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:30:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Guy Bonneau" To: References: <61848B5FD47E421A87E4C69F089AB330@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C4AD1@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><067B5671C00244E8AD4D5B8A11869D69@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C52BD@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5408138F4F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:30:19 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5408138F4F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Index: Ack7fHfNSC/ZgEzmSZW8knHdwIIK6QAAnULgAJAS68AAEkgiQAC1PHjAAAGdk/AAAh+YoA== Subject: Re: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC scheme X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Ali, > ...However, the FEC we produce from this > source is not a video media, it cannot be treated like it > were video. For example, it cannot be decoded by a video > decoder. Other folks on the list may explain this better than me. Please bear with me again. I have implemented the draft of this specification in a feasibility study to better understand the technical issue of implementing FEC with video. So this is somewhat a practical issue for me. So why having section 5.1.2 to define a registration of video/non-interleaved-parityfec? My understanding from your previous comment is that this is not possible! May be some other folk on this list could clarify this. Thanks again Guy Bonneau _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 10 18:20:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98753A6810; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:20:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A60F3A6810 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:20:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mBYKLun+AVNO for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743483A6767 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:20:03 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,581,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="192347908" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2008 02:20:00 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mAB2K0pY025277; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:20:00 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAB2K0WF028159; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:20:00 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:20:00 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:19:57 -0800 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540819A793@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC scheme Thread-Index: Ack7fHfNSC/ZgEzmSZW8knHdwIIK6QAAnULgAJAS68AAEkgiQAC1PHjAAAGdk/AAAh+YoAAArwMw References: <61848B5FD47E421A87E4C69F089AB330@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C4AD1@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><067B5671C00244E8AD4D5B8A11869D69@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C52BD@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5408138F4F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" To: "Guy Bonneau" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2008 02:20:00.0448 (UTC) FILETIME=[FFA4A400:01C943A3] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1547; t=1226370000; x=1227234000; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20C.=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20D=20parameter=20of=20Non-I nterleaved=20Parity=20FEC=20scheme |Sender:=20; bh=iNNZKSLXi02ADOjLYIHWpW6QPHtNVaUt7+My6v/w8Q4=; b=klbk2RCwDIwhS3/I54XIbiHUpC1fHe8H9C8q3md05V5oX4rt/QC3KYh2ID eN3YWCwz6znNk1Y704LNqu2dErkWfISfE30JitAT57TNOv3bsP2ChQ759mfR xPHj6+83E3; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC scheme X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Well, there is some history behind this... But I am not in a position to explain that. My understanding is that registration as a subtype of audio, video, text and application is required because the FEC we generate may relate to such sessions. -acbegen > -----Original Message----- > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Guy Bonneau > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 7:30 AM > To: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity > FEC scheme > > Hi Ali, > > > ...However, the FEC we produce from this > source is not > > a video media, it cannot be treated like it were video. For > example, > > it cannot be decoded by a video decoder. Other folks on the > list may > > explain this better than me. > > Please bear with me again. I have implemented the draft of > this specification in a feasibility study to better > understand the technical issue of implementing FEC with > video. So this is somewhat a practical issue for me. > > So why having section 5.1.2 to define a registration of > video/non-interleaved-parityfec? My understanding from your > previous comment is that this is not possible! May be some > other folk on this list could clarify this. > > Thanks again > Guy Bonneau > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 11 00:24:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500C128C119; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:24:12 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8013A6AF5 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:24:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MFYCx0yrqy5D for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:24:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892083A6AF4 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:24:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 54C0C204A8; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:24:09 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-aff88bb00000537b-0f-49194129829d Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 418B420174; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:24:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:24:09 +0100 Received: from [147.214.183.48] ([147.214.183.48]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:24:08 +0100 Message-ID: <49194128.7000504@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:24:08 +0100 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" References: <61848B5FD47E421A87E4C69F089AB330@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C4AD1@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><067B5671C00244E8AD4D5B8A11869D69@dorvalmatrox.matrox.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D54080C52BD@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5408138F4F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540819A793@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540819A793@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2008 08:24:08.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[DE486AC0:01C943D6] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] D parameter of Non-Interleaved Parity FEC scheme X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Ali C. Begen (abegen) skrev: > Well, there is some history behind this... But I am not in a position to > explain that. > = > My understanding is that registration as a subtype of audio, video, text > and application is required because the FEC we generate may relate to > such sessions. If the FEC packets are going to be sent in the same RTP session as source data, then SDP and its scheme to identify the RTP payload type requires one to have the same main media type, i.e. video, audio, application etc. Thus for generic mechanism one ends up registering it in all the main media type for which there exist RTP payload formats. Cheers Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 F=E4r=F6gatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 12 10:33:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6EC53A67F5; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:33:32 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC4B3A67F5 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:33:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9l3+J48Q52Ja for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from server515.appriver.com (server515f.exghost.com [72.32.253.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696B13A63EC for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.2.7) with PIPE id 99422660; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:33:22 -0600 Received: from FE1.exchange.rackspace.com ([72.32.49.5] verified) by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with ESMTP id 99422651; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:33:21 -0600 Received: from 34093-C4-EVS1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.91]) by FE1.exchange.rackspace.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:33:30 -0600 Received: from 76.222.192.62 ([76.222.192.62]) by 34093-C4-EVS1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.101]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.mailseat.com ([192.168.1.81]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:33:29 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:58:44 -0800 From: Mark Watson To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" , Greg Shepherd Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 Thread-Index: AclA4wiamFOM3Eq9RVqY/tQkcilXjgAAnwaQAQKyNNI= In-Reply-To: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6067BBD47@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Mime-version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Nov 2008 18:33:30.0061 (UTC) FILETIME=[28E607D0:01C944F5] X-Policy: GLOBAL - UNKNOWN X-Policy: GLOBAL - UNKNOWN X-Policy: GLOBAL - UNKNOWN X-Primary: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide X-Virus-Scan: V- X-Note: FCH-SI:0/SG:0 X-GBUdb-Analysis: 1, 192.168.1.91, Ugly c=0.866037 p=-0.965062 Source White X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-6023-c X-Note: Spam Tests Failed: X-Country-Path: UNITED STATES->PRIVATE->UNITED STATES->UNITED STATES X-Note-Sending-IP: 72.32.49.5 X-Note-Reverse-DNS: fe1.exchange.rackspace.com X-Note-WHTLIST: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: User Rule Hits: X-Note: Global Rule Hits: 90 91 92 93 97 98 166 X-Note: Mail Class: VALID Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Greg, Also could we have time for draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-00 and draft-watson-fecframe-rtp-raptor-00. Thanks! ...Mark On 11/7/08 6:33 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Please include 5 mins for 'draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-01' in > the discussion as well, as we push it for the WGLC with the framework > doc. > > Cheers, > Rajiv > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 9:13 AM >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) >> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 >> >> Yes, I think we are at that point with some of them. Let's see how the >> meeting goes. >> >> Greg >> >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > >> wrote: >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> Do we plan to start the WGLC on some of the drafts immediately after >> the >>> meeting? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Rajiv >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Greg Shepherd >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:45 AM >>>> To: fecframe@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 >>>> >>>> Here's a quick stab at an agenda. I'm sure there are other issues > to >>>> discuss so please send them to me ASAP and I'll update the list. I >>>> know we need to discuss feedback as Magnus has urged. I can add a >>>> time-slot for that discussion just after the update on the >> framework. >>>> >>>> IETF 73, FECFrame WG Agenda >>>> >>>> Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5 min > Chairs >>>> >>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-framework - 10 mins >>> Mark Watson >>>> draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme - 10 mins Ali >>> Begen >>>> draft-begen-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme - 10 mins Ali Begen >>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements - 10 mins Ali >>> Begen >>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec - 10 mins >>> Ali Begen >>>> >>>> Thanks!, >>>> Greg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Fecframe mailing list >>>> Fecframe@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >>> > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 12 10:38:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6023A691E; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:38:27 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D615F3A691E for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:38:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EtuiLzzTMw4Z for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D116D3A67D2 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:38:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so356381qwe.31 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:38:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=45zEz4jkqayEFqDCl2BNYg9t9E2KZN2aLEl29fI2FOA=; b=e6AQ//bygGcRDazoM6Pktalt0hifq/uHxs0R6qtKmlQGNbGnslIDdkmElHTTTaF6fL 3Vm66FWbAz3zaqcIfWU4tQWhFmb6iFT8W7egp7Eb3ed7TFVd9uxUrieAn0/peRcJlX6W JNeHET3GhLtgos9znfsJYCfiPIQYpe8o3/G/c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=UfL2sS8FuvqUaQZXTcus6SnBocCe+EinlBFsB8pIVosrCduuOjRIUu5odb7Vq5Z0Xw 57wAnihHGIzoPJkyYxFp5QiYWhSoTUHShtiTpDsPt3cG33kssejURMmvwW6Qmx6Vikw8 bp6TCJIDkplQrv2/2aWVJh6Ie8sHSf0SEH76E= Received: by 10.214.11.12 with SMTP id 12mr10062884qak.117.1226515104001; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:38:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.214.78.10 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:38:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540811121038w53c0f800gbff47d9d5fbcf5f4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:38:23 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Mark Watson" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6067BBD47@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org I'll add them. How much time would you like? Greg On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Also could we have time for draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-00 and > draft-watson-fecframe-rtp-raptor-00. > > Thanks! > > ...Mark > > > On 11/7/08 6:33 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> Please include 5 mins for 'draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-01' in >> the discussion as well, as we push it for the WGLC with the framework >> doc. >> >> Cheers, >> Rajiv >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 9:13 AM >>> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) >>> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 >>> >>> Yes, I think we are at that point with some of them. Let's see how the >>> meeting goes. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) >> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Greg, >>>> >>>> Do we plan to start the WGLC on some of the drafts immediately after >>> the >>>> meeting? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Rajiv >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] >>> On >>>>> Behalf Of Greg Shepherd >>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:45 AM >>>>> To: fecframe@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: [Fecframe] FECFrame WG Agenda - IETF 73 >>>>> >>>>> Here's a quick stab at an agenda. I'm sure there are other issues >> to >>>>> discuss so please send them to me ASAP and I'll update the list. I >>>>> know we need to discuss feedback as Magnus has urged. I can add a >>>>> time-slot for that discussion just after the update on the >>> framework. >>>>> >>>>> IETF 73, FECFrame WG Agenda >>>>> >>>>> Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5 min >> Chairs >>>>> >>>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-framework - 10 mins >>>> Mark Watson >>>>> draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme - 10 mins Ali >>>> Begen >>>>> draft-begen-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme - 10 mins Ali Begen >>>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements - 10 mins Ali >>>> Begen >>>>> draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec - 10 mins >>>> Ali Begen >>>>> >>>>> Thanks!, >>>>> Greg >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Fecframe mailing list >>>>> Fecframe@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 17 07:31:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525DB28C11C; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:31:10 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF7A28C114 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:31:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.865 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WMvo6CgLKrGH for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:31:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from server515.appriver.com (server515f.exghost.com [72.32.253.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA953A6984 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:30:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.2.7) with PIPE id 100749939; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:30:28 -0600 Received: from FE1.exchange.rackspace.com ([72.32.49.5] verified) by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with ESMTP id 100749834 for fecframe@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:30:25 -0600 Received: from 34093-C4-EVS1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.91]) by FE1.exchange.rackspace.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:30:30 -0600 Received: from 130.129.29.214 ([130.129.29.214]) by 34093-C4-EVS1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.101]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.mailseat.com ([192.168.1.62]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:30:30 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:30:28 -0600 From: Mark Watson To: "fecframe@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Framework draft section on feedback Thread-Index: AclIyWslqe6OLrS8Ed2I8AAX8sJN9g== Mime-version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2008 15:30:30.0975 (UTC) FILETIME=[6CEB34F0:01C948C9] X-Policy: GLOBAL - UNKNOWN X-Primary: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide X-Virus-Scan: V- X-Note: FCH-SI:0/SG:0 X-GBUdb-Analysis: 1, 192.168.1.91, Ugly c=0.837166 p=-0.985774 Source White X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-8394-c X-Note: Spam Tests Failed: X-Country-Path: UNITED STATES->PRIVATE->UNITED STATES->UNITED STATES X-Note-Sending-IP: 72.32.49.5 X-Note-Reverse-DNS: fe1.exchange.rackspace.com X-Note-WHTLIST: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: User Rule Hits: X-Note: Global Rule Hits: 90 91 92 93 97 98 166 X-Note: Mail Class: VALID Subject: [Fecframe] Framework draft section on feedback X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0400900210==" Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --===============0400900210== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3309759029_739527" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3309759029_739527 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Here=B9s what I suggest for the section on feedback in the framework draft: Many applications require some kind of feedback on transport performance= : how much data arrived at the receiver, at what rate, when etc. When FEC is added to such applications, feedback mechanisms may also need to be enhance= d to report on the performance of the FEC (for example how much lost data was recovered by the FEC). When used to provide instrumentation for engineering purposes, it is important to remember that FEC is generally applied to relatively small blocks of data (in time) and so feedback information averaged over longer periods of time than the FEC block size will likely not provide sufficient information for engineering purposes. For example see . Applications which used feedback for congestion control purposes MUST calculate such feedback on the basis of packets received before FEC recover= y is applied. If this requirement conflicts with other uses of the feedback information then the application MUST be enhanced to support both information calculated pre- and post- FEC recovery. This is to ensure that congestion control mechanisms operate correctly based on congestion indications recieved from the network, rather than on post-FEC recovery information which would give an inaccuate picture of congestion conditions. New applications which require such feedback SHOULD use RTP/RTCP . ...Mark --B_3309759029_739527 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Framework draft section on feedback Here&= #8217;s what I suggest for the section on feedback in the framework draft:
<t>Many applications require some kind of feedback on transport perfo= rmance: how much data arrived at the receiver, at what rate, when etc. When = FEC is added to such applications, feedback mechanisms may also need to be e= nhanced to report on the performance of the FEC (for example how much lost d= ata was recovered by the FEC).</t>
<t>When used to provide instrumentation for engineering purposes, it = is important to remember that FEC is generally applied to relatively small b= locks of data (in time) and so feedback information averaged over longer per= iods of time than the FEC block size will likely not provide sufficient info= rmation for engineering purposes. For example see <xref target=3D"I-D.= ietf-avt-post-repair-rtcp-xr"></xref>.</t>
<t>Applications which used feedback for congestion control purposes M= UST calculate such feedback on the basis of packets received before FEC reco= very is applied. If this requirement conflicts with other uses of the feedba= ck information then the application MUST be enhanced to support both informa= tion calculated pre- and post- FEC recovery. This is to ensure that congesti= on control mechanisms operate correctly based on congestion indications reci= eved from the network, rather than on post-FEC recovery information which wo= uld give an inaccuate picture of congestion conditions.</t>
<t>New applications which require such feedback SHOULD use RTP/RTCP &= lt;xref target=3D"RFC3550"></xref>.</t>

...Mark --B_3309759029_739527-- --===============0400900210== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --===============0400900210==-- From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 17 10:22:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42BE28C0D0; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:22:20 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DEF3A68F7; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:22:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.365 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_111=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A2ghS0N3L47s; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from server515.appriver.com (server515f.exghost.com [72.32.253.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB663A6835; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.2.7) with PIPE id 100854025; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:21:57 -0600 Received: from FE1.exchange.rackspace.com ([72.32.49.5] verified) by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with ESMTP id 100853680; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:21:42 -0600 Received: from 34093-C4-EVS1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.91]) by FE1.exchange.rackspace.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:21:34 -0600 Received: from 130.129.29.214 ([130.129.29.214]) by 34093-C4-EVS1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.101]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.mailseat.com ([192.168.1.62]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:21:32 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:21:30 -0600 From: Mark Watson To: "fecframe@ietf.org" , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Question from FECFRAME about RTP Payload Format Parameters Thread-Index: AclI4U/GjoRU2rTUEd2I8AAX8sJN9g== Mime-version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2008 18:21:34.0659 (UTC) FILETIME=[528D1930:01C948E1] X-Policy: GLOBAL - UNKNOWN X-Policy: GLOBAL - UNKNOWN X-Primary: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide X-Virus-Scan: V- X-Note: FCH-SI:0/SG:0 X-GBUdb-Analysis: 1, 192.168.1.91, Ugly c=0.850605 p=-0.986993 Source White X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-13411-c X-Note: Spam Tests Failed: X-Country-Path: UNITED STATES->PRIVATE->UNITED STATES->UNITED STATES X-Note-Sending-IP: 72.32.49.5 X-Note-Reverse-DNS: fe1.exchange.rackspace.com X-Note-WHTLIST: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: User Rule Hits: X-Note: Global Rule Hits: 90 91 92 93 97 98 166 X-Note: Mail Class: VALID Subject: [Fecframe] Question from FECFRAME about RTP Payload Format Parameters X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0261758427==" Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --===============0261758427== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3309769291_1106625" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3309769291_1106625 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable All, The following question was discussed at FECFRAME and it was suggested to take this to AVT as well. FECFRAME has defined an SDP attribute to carry information about FEC repair flows which is specific to the particular FEC Scheme being used. This attribute contains an =8Copaque=B9 container which contains FEC-Scheme-specific information that is supposed to be handled by the FEC scheme. This is a generic mechanism which could be applied whether the FEC repair data is carried over RTP or directly over UDP. In the case that RTP is used for repair data, then RTP Payload Format must be defined for the FEC Scheme in the usual way. In this context we have the possibility to define RTP Payload Format parameters which would then be carried in the a=3Dfmtp SDP parameter. The question under discussion is whether we should define RTP Payload Forma= t parameters at all, or whether we can use the FEC Framework SDP attribute in the RTP context just as it is used for repair data carried over UDP. The advantage of defining RTP Payload Format Parameters is that this is the standard and recognised way of communicating parameters which are needed to process data carried in an RTP Payload. The disadvantage of defining RTP Payload Format Parameters is that we essentially end up with two mechanisms for carrying the same information an= d this causes additional implementation work and potential for confusion abou= t which mechanism should be used when. An example of SDP using the FECFRAME attribute would be: v=3D0 o=3Dali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 fec.example.com t=3D0 0 a=3Dgroup:FEC S1 R1 m=3Dvideo 30000 RTP/AVP 100 c=3DIN IP4 224.1.1.1/127 a=3Drtpmap:100 MP2T/90000 a=3Dmid:S1 m=3Dapplication 30000 RTP/AVP 110 c=3DIN IP4 224.1.2.1/127 a=3Drtpmap:110 raptorfec/90000 a=3Dfec-repair-flow: encoding-id=3D0; fssi=3D4W5S6X a=3Drepair-window: 200 ms a=3Dmid:R1 And an example using RTP Payload Format Parameters would be: v=3D0 o=3Dali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 fec.example.com t=3D0 0 a=3Dgroup:FEC S1 R1 m=3Dvideo 30000 RTP/AVP 100 c=3DIN IP4 224.1.1.1/127 a=3Drtpmap:100 MP2T/90000 a=3Dmid:S1 m=3Dapplication 30000 RTP/AVP 110 c=3DIN IP4 224.1.2.1/127 a=3Drtpmap:110 raptorfec/90000 a=3Dfmtp:110 sbl=3D1231; symbol-size=3D96; repair-window=3D200ms a=3Dmid:R1 FECFRAME would like to hear opinions from AVT on this question. Regards, Mark Watson --B_3309769291_1106625 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Question from FECFRAME about RTP Payload Format Parameters All,<= BR>
The following question was discussed at FECFRAME and it was suggested to ta= ke this to AVT as well.

FECFRAME has defined an SDP attribute to carry information about FEC repair= flows which is specific to the particular FEC Scheme being used. This attri= bute contains an ‘opaque’ container which contains FEC-Scheme-sp= ecific information that is supposed to be handled by the FEC scheme. This is= a generic mechanism which could be applied whether the FEC repair data is c= arried over RTP or directly over UDP.

In the case that RTP is used for repair data, then RTP Payload Format must = be defined for the FEC Scheme in the usual way. In this context we have the = possibility to define RTP Payload Format parameters which would then be carr= ied in the a=3Dfmtp SDP parameter.

The question under discussion is whether we should define RTP Payload Forma= t parameters at all, or whether we can use the FEC Framework SDP attribute i= n the RTP context just as it is used for repair data carried over UDP.

The advantage of defining RTP Payload Format Parameters is that this is the= standard and recognised way of communicating parameters which are needed to= process data carried in an RTP Payload.

The disadvantage of defining RTP Payload Format Parameters is that we essen= tially end up with two mechanisms for carrying the same information and this= causes additional implementation work and potential for confusion about whi= ch mechanism should be used when.

An example of SDP using the FECFRAME attribute would be:

        v=3D0
        o=3Dali 1122334455 1122334466= IN IP4 fec.example.com
        t=3D0 0
        a=3Dgroup:FEC S1 R1
        m=3Dvideo 30000 RTP/AVP 100         c=3DIN IP4 224.1.1.1/127
        a=3Drtpmap:100 MP2T/90000
        a=3Dmid:S1
        m=3Dapplication 30000 RTP/AVP= 110
        c=3DIN IP4 224.1.2.1/127
        a=3Drtpmap:110 raptorfec/9000= 0
        a=3Dfec-repair-flow: encoding= -id=3D0; fssi=3D4W5S6X
        a=3Drepair-window: 200 ms
        a=3Dmid:R1

And an example using RTP Payload Format Parameters would be:

        v=3D0
        o=3Dali 1122334455 1122334466= IN IP4 fec.example.com
        t=3D0 0
        a=3Dgroup:FEC S1 R1
        m=3Dvideo 30000 RTP/AVP 100         c=3DIN IP4 224.1.1.1/127
        a=3Drtpmap:100 MP2T/90000
        a=3Dmid:S1
        m=3Dapplication 30000 RTP/AVP= 110
        c=3DIN IP4 224.1.2.1/127
        a=3Drtpmap:110 raptorfec/9000= 0
        a=3Dfmtp:110 sbl=3D1231; symbol= -size=3D96; repair-window=3D200ms
        a=3Dmid:R1

FECFRAME would like to hear opinions from AVT on this question.

Regards,

Mark Watson --B_3309769291_1106625-- --===============0261758427== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --===============0261758427==-- From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 17 15:06:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1973A6A89; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:06:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FBF3A6A89 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:06:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0186kNrAswVB for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:06:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22503A6A73 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:06:44 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,620,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="196479820" Received: from sjc12-sbr-sw3-3f5.cisco.com (HELO imail.cisco.com) ([172.19.96.182]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Nov 2008 23:06:44 +0000 Received: from [130.129.95.245] ([10.21.86.161]) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id mAHMamc7031007; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:36:49 -0800 Message-Id: <0491AF77-9D48-49F6-A875-8DDDF35C4363@cisco.com> From: David R Oran To: Mark Watson In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:06:41 -0500 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1934; t=1226961409; x=1227825409; c=relaxed/simple; s=oregon; h=To:Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=oran@cisco.com; z=From:=20David=20R=20Oran=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Fecframe]=20Framework=20draft=20sectio n=20on=20feedback |Sender:=20 |To:=20Mark=20Watson=20; bh=VlObl7h4cQMQ/toACZlLXCbeC4yvdUgSYd5LhDDiE+Q=; b=jvH+iCIDOxpsPCOLgFXcE9wj3qxTt3QxivqYQJyBSMG/KHxe3Hv44PdgD/ Lig6dZ+WfAv13cIOYBwEQyN5/di4dF5fsnOh/HnFEns4AIDE22FFUHzz9ZIM MWd5RninZL; Authentication-Results: imail.cisco.com; header.From=oran@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/oregon verified; ); Cc: "fecframe@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Framework draft section on feedback X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org this WFM. DaveO. On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > Here=92s what I suggest for the section on feedback in the framework = > draft: > > Many applications require some kind of feedback on transport = > performance: how much data arrived at the receiver, at what rate, = > when etc. When FEC is added to such applications, feedback = > mechanisms may also need to be enhanced to report on the performance = > of the FEC (for example how much lost data was recovered by the = > FEC). > When used to provide instrumentation for engineering purposes, it = > is important to remember that FEC is generally applied to relatively = > small blocks of data (in time) and so feedback information averaged = > over longer periods of time than the FEC block size will likely not = > provide sufficient information for engineering purposes. For example = > see . > Applications which used feedback for congestion control purposes = > MUST calculate such feedback on the basis of packets received before = > FEC recovery is applied. If this requirement conflicts with other = > uses of the feedback information then the application MUST be = > enhanced to support both information calculated pre- and post- FEC = > recovery. This is to ensure that congestion control mechanisms = > operate correctly based on congestion indications recieved from the = > network, rather than on post-FEC recovery information which would = > give an inaccuate picture of congestion conditions. > New applications which require such feedback SHOULD use RTP/RTCP = > . > > ...Mark > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 17 16:25:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345EB3A6A74; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:25:56 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13383A6A74 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:25:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L5X6dER-csfr for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:25:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B6B3A6844 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:25:46 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,621,1220227200"; d="scan'208,217";a="196519377" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2008 00:25:43 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mAI0Ph6P021609; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:25:43 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAI0PhnS027627; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:25:43 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:25:42 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:24:13 -0800 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540827820D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Framework draft section on feedback Thread-Index: AclIyWslqe6OLrS8Ed2I8AAX8sJN9gASn2lg References: From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" To: "Mark Watson" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2008 00:25:42.0822 (UTC) FILETIME=[31123460:01C94914] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5513; t=1226967943; x=1227831943; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20C.=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20Framework=20draft=20sectio n=20on=20feedback |Sender:=20; bh=QjW6My5VhaIJWC99SPn7s0H1md1ji6ZKS/h1Gzz/gkM=; b=0WAplA4GnH8ihGINTG0WUo1bXhregGkrdA3ZlHXOb5ISPGR0CvzkyAcX05 0S+W5s/1XS5cyqI0nXVC94/nx/H+7Vjd0Fyo1dg1BA1zHijaWz1TiUwg0plX lOQ815NMYx; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Framework draft section on feedback X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0309060232==" Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0309060232== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C94914.20677AF9" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C94914.20677AF9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am OK with this text as well. There are just a couple of typos in the text :) =20 -acbegen ________________________________ From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Watson Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 7:30 AM To: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] Framework draft section on feedback =09 =09 Here's what I suggest for the section on feedback in the framework draft: =09 Many applications require some kind of feedback on transport performance: how much data arrived at the receiver, at what rate, when etc. When FEC is added to such applications, feedback mechanisms may also need to be enhanced to report on the performance of the FEC (for example how much lost data was recovered by the FEC). When used to provide instrumentation for engineering purposes, it is important to remember that FEC is generally applied to relatively small blocks of data (in time) and so feedback information averaged over longer periods of time than the FEC block size will likely not provide sufficient information for engineering purposes. For example see . Applications which used feedback for congestion control purposes MUST calculate such feedback on the basis of packets received before FEC recovery is applied. If this requirement conflicts with other uses of the feedback information then the application MUST be enhanced to support both information calculated pre- and post- FEC recovery. This is to ensure that congestion control mechanisms operate correctly based on congestion indications recieved from the network, rather than on post-FEC recovery information which would give an inaccuate picture of congestion conditions. New applications which require such feedback SHOULD use RTP/RTCP . =09 ...Mark=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C94914.20677AF9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Framework draft section on feedback
I am OK with this text as well. There are just = a couple of=20 typos in the text :)
 
-acbegen

From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark=20 Watson
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 7:30 AM
To: = fecframe@ietf.org
Subject: [Fecframe] Framework draft = section on=20 feedback

Here’s what I suggest for the section = on feedback in=20 the framework draft:

<t>Many applications require some = kind of=20 feedback on transport performance: how much data arrived at the = receiver, at=20 what rate, when etc. When FEC is added to such applications, feedback=20 mechanisms may also need to be enhanced to report on the performance = of the=20 FEC (for example how much lost data was recovered by the=20 FEC).</t>
<t>When used to provide instrumentation for=20 engineering purposes, it is important to remember that FEC is = generally=20 applied to relatively small blocks of data (in time) and so feedback=20 information averaged over longer periods of time than the FEC block = size will=20 likely not provide sufficient information for engineering purposes. = For=20 example see <xref=20 = target=3D"I-D.ietf-avt-post-repair-rtcp-xr"></xref>.</t><t>Applications=20 which used feedback for congestion control purposes MUST calculate = such=20 feedback on the basis of packets received before FEC recovery is = applied. If=20 this requirement conflicts with other uses of the feedback information = then=20 the application MUST be enhanced to support both information = calculated pre-=20 and post- FEC recovery. This is to ensure that congestion control = mechanisms=20 operate correctly based on congestion indications recieved from the = network,=20 rather than on post-FEC recovery information which would give an = inaccuate=20 picture of congestion conditions.</t>
<t>New = applications which=20 require such feedback SHOULD use RTP/RTCP <xref=20 = target=3D"RFC3550"></xref>.</t>

...Mark=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C94914.20677AF9-- --===============0309060232== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --===============0309060232==-- From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 17 16:49:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2B03A6A94; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:49:08 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F4B3A6A94 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:49:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y0IaFV5GZj5l for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:49:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from multicasttech.com (lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56963A67F3 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:49:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 13745972; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:49:06 -0500 Message-Id: From: Marshall Eubanks To: David R Oran In-Reply-To: <0491AF77-9D48-49F6-A875-8DDDF35C4363@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:49:05 -0500 References: <0491AF77-9D48-49F6-A875-8DDDF35C4363@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Cc: "fecframe@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Framework draft section on feedback X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On Nov 17, 2008, at 6:06 PM, David R Oran wrote: > this WFM. > DaveO. > > On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > >> Here=92s what I suggest for the section on feedback in the framework = >> draft: >> >> Many applications require some kind of feedback on transport = >> performance: how much data arrived at the receiver, at what rate, = >> when etc. When FEC is added to such applications, feedback = >> mechanisms may also need to be enhanced to report on the = >> performance of the FEC (for example how much lost data was = >> recovered by the FEC). >> When used to provide instrumentation for engineering purposes, = >> it is important to remember that FEC is generally applied to = >> relatively small blocks of data (in time) and so feedback = >> information averaged over longer periods of time than the FEC block = >> size will likely not provide sufficient information for engineering = >> purposes. s/engineering purposes/FEC engineering purposes/ I am not sure that this sentence wouldn't be better as it is important to remember that FEC is generally applied to = relatively small blocks of data (in time) and so FEC feedback = information may need to be averaged over longer periods of time than = the FEC block size for other purposes. Regards Marshall >> For example see > xref>. >> Applications which used feedback for congestion control purposes = >> MUST calculate such feedback on the basis of packets received = >> before FEC recovery is applied. If this requirement conflicts with = >> other uses of the feedback information then the application MUST be = >> enhanced to support both information calculated pre- and post- FEC = >> recovery. This is to ensure that congestion control mechanisms = >> operate correctly based on congestion indications recieved from the = >> network, rather than on post-FEC recovery information which would = >> give an inaccuate picture of congestion conditions. >> New applications which require such feedback SHOULD use RTP/RTCP = >> . >> >> ...Mark >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 18 14:41:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: fecframe-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8514B3A685C; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:41:22 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2DD53A6819 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:41:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aECsNjytYAGZ for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:41:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4977D3A685C for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:41:20 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,627,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="106696819" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2008 22:34:32 +0000 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mAIMYV11010583 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:34:31 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAIMYVLB027129 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:34:31 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:34:30 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:34:01 -0800 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5408278753@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Update on 4756bis Thread-Index: AclJzcDIXFh0kE1OQDuYavJuSEBodg== From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2008 22:34:31.0010 (UTC) FILETIME=[D2C63C20:01C949CD] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=428; t=1227047671; x=1227911671; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20C.=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20Update=20on=204756bis |Sender:=20; bh=2zscHY16qiR+lMlL2uZlahTd1YlBS/PP8TvI9tLKqvo=; b=b8hfoPEMeDr2hvwVEMv2Tlmb1oxJX/1spXfLK2aQMqB7nlkOT/BJkCLpHY 44jqjrfBkMoM8kiCKDApIruh/6sLPmNK4GawBjk/6AvzffY2xwomuWVHt+o7 nHNXVseCHt; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Fecframe] Update on 4756bis X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org For those who could not make the mmusic session yesterday: 4756bis draft was adopted by the wg. I will update the draft and submit it. We should be able to complete this work pretty quickly. Note that we are dropping off the prioritization stuff from this draft. We are only adding the additivity feature. The only remaining question is whether we will update or obsolete 4756. Comments are welcome. -acbegen _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe