[AVT] replying to a question on timed text in the AVT minutes
Dave Singer <singer@apple.com> Mon, 05 April 2004 18:33 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23343 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:33:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAYuO-0007tT-TN for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:33:23 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i35IXKIP030335 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:33:20 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAYu5-0007gl-9U; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:33:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BAYtU-0007ZB-13 for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:32:24 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23308 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:32:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAYtR-0001BZ-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:32:21 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BAYdu-0006bU-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:16:19 -0400
Received: from mail-out3.apple.com ([17.254.13.22]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BAYI7-00042P-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:53:47 -0400
Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i35HrH2u007678 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay1.apple.com (relay1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.6) with ESMTP id <T68c6b5bbe6118064e13c8@mailgate1.apple.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:53:17 -0700
Received: from [17.255.104.192] (singda.apple.com [17.202.35.52]) by relay1.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i35Hr0O6002994; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:53:01 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: singer@mail.apple.com (Unverified)
Message-Id: <p06020438bc975a22bdc6@[17.255.104.192]>
In-Reply-To: <406C072B.2070606@ericsson.com>
References: <406C072B.2070606@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 10:51:23 -0800
To: IETF AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>
From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [AVT] replying to a question on timed text in the AVT minutes
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Hi, this question: Another issue is the ability to repeat modifier fragments and sample descriptions: it was asked if this feature should be retained, or disallowed in favour of external methods like FEC or retransmission? No suggestions were made. I think that many text streams will be very low-bandwidth, and that therefore though the cost of duplication seems expensive in terms of the multiplier on the stream (i.e. 100% overhead if everything is repeated once) and that FEC could achieve better resilience with a lower multiplier, nonetheless the overall effect on the session may be negligible as we are doubling a very small number. It may well be the most cost-effective solution from a system point of view, rather than implementing a more complex FEC algorithm to save very small amounts of bandwidth. So, I think it is fine to say it is allowed; it's really easy for a terminal to detect and discard duplicates. And the sender/systems analysis can work out the trade-off (and use FEC instead if in fact it is available and appropriate). Requiring the decoder to detect and handle duplicates drops out almost free, so seems worth having. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] IETF 59 AVT minutes Magnus Westerlund
- [AVT] replying to a question on timed text in theā¦ Dave Singer