[AVT] RE: (Stephen Botzko's email)
"Botzko, Stephen" <Stephen.Botzko@polycom.com> Thu, 30 November 2006 17:35 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpppC-00040b-Gv; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:35:54 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpppB-00040T-Cx for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:35:53 -0500
Received: from andmail00.andover.polycom.com ([140.242.250.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpppA-0003Q1-0S for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:35:53 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:35:51 -0500
Message-ID: <80DB81DBE7FFEA4182F6E114C05C695C027A91F3@ANDMAIL00.andover.polycom.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: (Stephen Botzko's email)
Thread-Index: AccUm9YisM1nc9/XT2mTOmaNFsw0RQAADp+Q
From: "Botzko, Stephen" <Stephen.Botzko@polycom.com>
To: Adam Li <adamli@hyervision.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8c5db863102a3ada84e0cd52a81a79e
Cc: "Even, Roni" <roni.even@polycom.co.il>, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, avt@ietf.org
Subject: [AVT] RE: (Stephen Botzko's email)
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Adam >>> (1) Using FEC group of size 2 or 4 for an error rate of 1% is definitely not how the FEC performance is discussed and measured, obviously. >>> I'm not sure I understand this. If you have a better example to suggest, I'd be interested in hearing it (either on or off the list). >>> (2) The concept of using unequal error protection is based on that the codec is somewhat error tolerant and not all data are of the same importance. Using "complete recover rate" as a metric here is definitely not suitable. >>> The argument was more that the alternative equal-protection mode (with one level of protection) was more effective than ULP at protecting the critical data. I could have computed the unrecovered packet loss rate for L0 and L1 and compared that to the alternate coding, though I don't think it would have changed the conclusion. >>> (3) Yes, one can always do multilevel protection with one level FEC by dividing data into multiple packets, and apply different FEC to different packets. However, that involves too much protocol overhead. >>> I wasn't meaning to imply that ULP should be changed to do that. I guess there are two ways of looking at ULP. One way is that it simply reduces the FEC overhead associated with RFC 2733 in situations where you don't need to protect all the data in the stream to the same degree. I'd say it does accomplish that. The second way (which I've been taking) is to compare ULP with systematic code performance, where I don't think it fares so well. If my approach is more appropriate to future FecFrame discussions, I can certainly table it for now. Stephen -----Original Message----- From: Adam Li [mailto:adamli@hyervision.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:23 AM To: Botzko, Stephen Cc: Stephan Wenger; Colin Perkins; Even, Roni; avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: (Stephen Botzko's email) Hi Stephen Botzko, I am afraid I can not agree on your conclusion. I have the following comments. (1) Using FEC group of size 2 or 4 for an error rate of 1% is definitely not how the FEC performance is discussed and measured, obviously. (2) The concept of using unequal error protection is based on that the codec is somewhat error tolerant and not all data are of the same importance. Using "complete recover rate" as a metric here is definitely not suitable. (3) Yes, one can always do multilevel protection with one level FEC by dividing data into multiple packets, and apply different FEC to different packets. However, that involves too much protocol overhead. That's in additional to the complexity of disassembling and reassembling the data into packets at both end. Multilevel FEC is a much more elegant and simple solution. Adam Botzko, Stephen wrote: > Hi Stephan > > Of course, I agree that if you are using a single repair packet per > FEC block that XOR is the way to go. In fact it is optimal, since it > is a systematic code in that case. > > I think we might disagree on the utility of multiple repair packets > per FEC block. > > In the ULP draft example (figure 1), we are sending two repair packets > for every 4 data packets. ULP FEC packet #1 is of course smaller than > ULP FEC packet #2. > > Assume (for purposes of illustration) that the L0 data is 33% of the > flow, and L1 is an additional 33%, and that the packet loss rate is 1%. > > The probability of recovering all the L0 data intact (across the two > L0 groups in the figure) is about 0.9994. The odds of recovering all > the > L1 data across the larger L1 group is about 0.9990 (fairly close to L0). > The probability of receiving all the remaining unprotected data intact > is 0.9606. > > Alternatively, we could re-packetize the original 4 data packets into > 12 smaller packets, and add 3 FEC packets using a systematic code. > The payload overhead of this is the same as the ULP example (though of > course there is somewhat more IP overhead), and the latency matches > the > L1 latency. The probability of recovering all the data in the group > intact is 0.9999875 (according to Excel). > > So the alternative method protects the entire stream more effectively > than the ULP example protects L0. The computational complexity is > undoubtly higher, and we are assuming that the L1 protection latency > is acceptable. > > All this is not to say ULP offers no value. Just that the utility > (IMHO) is quite limited, esp. given that we already have 2733. I'd > love to hear a counter-example. > > > Stephen Botzko > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephan Wenger [mailto:stewe@stewe.org] > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:39 AM > To: Colin Perkins > Cc: Adam Li; Even, Roni; Botzko, Stephen; avt@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [AVT] WGLC: draft-ietf.avt-ulp-19.txt > > Hi Colin, all, > > On Nov 28, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Colin Perkins wrote: > > >> [...] >> No - given the advances since RFC 2733 was published, I think it >> worthwhile to include further justification and explanation of where >> this fits in with other FEC schemes. >> > > Some fairly advanced media formats offer tricks that in our view allow > to employ simple XOR FEC (only) without significant delay increase. > We > (Nokia) have proposed such tricks in 3GPP SA4. There, we protect two > important media packets (whatever that means for the > specific media codec) with one FEC packet. I don't want to re- > create ongoing discussions in SA4 here, where the usefulness of our > trick is challenged, but I can provide pointers to documents for those > interested. (Please contact me in private. We also have academic > work in preparation, which should be available in the foreseeable future). > > IMHO, there is little point in evaluating Reed-Solomon or any other > "higher" FEC code for an RTP payload format. If your delay tolerance > is such high that you can afford multiple repair packets per FEC > block, go use fecframe WG's technology, or use feedback based repair > (whatever fits your application better). When using only a single > repair packet per FEC block, there is no difference between XOR FEC > and the other FEC schemes. > > With respect to the uneven protection feature, and in response to > Stephen: yes, there are media formats that could employ uneven > protection. Examples include G.723.1 with Annex C enabled, H.263 with > Annex V enabled, H.264 in extended profile or in baseline when > RFC3984 aggregation packets are used, and these packets are populated > in a smart way. Yes, no one is using any of these in the way they > could be used, but are we all sure that's not a chicken-and-egg problem? > > In consequence, let me speak in favor of moving the ULP draft finally > forward. Yes, there is value in adding some discussion why Reed- > Solomon (or any higher FEC code) does not make much sense, perhaps > along the lines of point 1 above. But then, PLEASE, let's call it a > day. 18 revisions are enough. > > Regards, > Stephan > > > > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] RE: (Stephen Botzko's email) Botzko, Stephen
- [AVT] Re: (Stephen Botzko's email) Adam Li
- [AVT] RE: (Stephen Botzko's email) Botzko, Stephen