RE: [AVT] RE: [MMUSIC] questions about grouping media streams in RTP andSDP (RFC3388 etc), advice needed

["Thomas Schierl" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roni,

Then it would be something like we call 'mdc'. But I would like to put that
into an extra dependency type, since the characteristics of the streams are
different, even if they could be used exchangeable. But there is one main
stream, let us say. And that one should be identifiable.

Thomas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Even, Roni [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:07 PM
> To: Thomas Schierl; Dave Singer; mmusic; IETF AVT WG
> Cc: [e-mail]; Clinton Priddle (KI/EAB)
> Subject: RE: [AVT] RE: [MMUSIC] questions about grouping media streams in
> RTP andSDP (RFC3388 etc), advice needed
> 
> Hi,
> My view is that you have similarity in the need for dependencies between
> streams but the grouping logic is different.
> In the layered codec the grouping is for a group that you can use all or
> part of while in the repair case you may take one or the other.
> 
> Roni Even
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Schierl [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:46 PM
> > To: 'Dave Singer'; Even, Roni; 'mmusic'; 'IETF AVT WG'
> > Cc: [e-mail]; 'Clinton Priddle (KI/EAB)'
> > Subject: RE: [AVT] RE: [MMUSIC] questions about grouping media streams
> in
> > RTP andSDP (RFC3388 etc), advice needed
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > I think there is a strong relation of your problem and the
> >
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mmusic/draft-schierl-mmusic-layered-codec-03.tx
> t
> > In this draft, we described media dependency in general, not only for
> > scalable video. Currently, two types of dependencies are defined:
> layered
> > and mdc assuming the media is partially transported in different RTP
> > sessions. There is not requirement, that the part of the media is
> > independently decodable. It would be easy to integrate your needs, if
> they
> > should not be already covered.
> >
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dave Singer [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 8:34 AM
> > > To: Even, Roni; mmusic; IETF AVT WG
> > > Cc: Clinton Priddle (KI/EAB)
> > > Subject: [AVT] RE: [MMUSIC] questions about grouping media streams
> in
> > RTP
> > > andSDP (RFC3388 etc), advice needed
> > >
> > > At 10:03  +0300 5/06/07, Even, Roni wrote:
> > > >Dave,
> > > >For layered encoding there is a proposal for a new grouping
> attribute
> > in
> > > >http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mmusic/draft-schierl-mmusic-layered-codec-
> > 03.tx
> > > >t
> > >
> > > I don't think this is a layered coding issue, either, alas.
> > >
> > > >I looked at RFC3388 and I think that FID is not the answer to your
> > > >requirement as you mentioned
> > > >
> > > >To me it looks like what you are looking for is a way to specify
> > > >alternate offers.
> > >
> > > No, these streams are not alternatives to each other in the regular
> > > sense.  Nor is this really used in offer/answer;  it's more an issue
> > > for multicast.  In multicast, you open the tune-in stream and the
> > > base stream, grab the first I-frame that arrives (in either) and
> then
> > > drop the tune-in stream.
> > >
> > > Yes, we're aware that the recipient needs to be able to tell which
> is
> > > the base and which is the tune-in.
> > >
> > > >If this is the case I have similar requirements and
> > > >would be happy to support such work.
> > > >
> > > >You also need a way to give semantics to the "repair" stream, this
> can
> > > >be done based on the content attribute from RFC 4796 or using a
> > > >dependency attribute see in Schierl's draft. The mid tag is not
> enough
> > > >for the receiver to know what you meant by this offer and which
> stream
> > > >is the repair.
> > > >
> > > >Here is an example for a solution using a new Alternatives grouping
> > > >attribute and giving semantics to the repair stream
> > > >
> > > >By using the grouping attribute in the offer you can know if the
> > > >answerer understood the grouping since if he does not than he will
> send
> > > >an answer with no a=group
> > > >
> > > >v=0
> > > >o=bob 280744730 28977631 IN IP4 host.example.com
> > > >s=
> > > >t=0 0
> > > >
> > > >a=group:ALTS 1 2
> > > >a=group:ALTS 1 3
> > > >
> > > >m=audio 6886 RTP/AVP 0
> > > >c=IN IP6 2001:0600::1
> > > >a=mid:1
> > > >
> > > >m=video 9000 RTP/AVP 100
> > > >c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
> > > >a=rtpmap:100 H263-1998
> > > >a=mid:2
> > > >
> > > >m=video 9002 RTP/AVP 101
> > > >c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
> > > >a=rtpmap:101 H263-1998
> > > >a=mid:3
> > > >a=content:repair=2 or a=depend:repair=2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Roni Even
> > > >
> > > >>  -----Original Message-----
> > > >>  From: Dave Singer [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > >>  Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 7:19 PM
> > > >>  To: mmusic; IETF AVT WG
> > > >>  Cc: Clinton Priddle (KI/EAB)
> > > >>  Subject: [MMUSIC] questions about grouping media streams in RTP
> and
> > > >SDP
> > > >>  (RFC3388 etc), advice needed
> > > >>
> > > >>  Hi
> > > >>
> > > >>  we have a need to group together two media streams, in the style
> of
> > > >RFC
> > > >>  3388 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3388.txt> but we're unsure
> whether
> > an
> > > >>  existing group type is suitable or not, and if it's not, we'd
> like
> > to
> > > >>  agree on a new one, and document it (presumably in an RFC).
> > > >>
> > > >>  What we have is a normal media stream, and a separate 'repair'
> or
> > > >>  'entry' stream, that can be used when tuning in, or after loss,
> but
> > is
> > > >>  otherwise un-needed.  An example might be a video stream with a
> low
> > > >>  I-frame interval (say every 15 seconds), with a repair stream
> which
> > > >has
> > > >>  only I-frames that are equivalent to the time-parallel non-I
> frame,
> > at
> > > >a
> > > >>  frequency of say 1 per second.
> > > >>
> > > >>  It's not clear to us whether this is "one media flow" in the
> sense
> > of
> > > >>  FID, or not.  The example offers AMR and GSM audio, which are
> > > >>  alternatives, and DTMF tones along with audio, which are
> > supplementary
> > > >>  to each other.  Perhaps we fall afoul of this restriction:
> > > >>
> > > >>  "An application that encodes the same media using different
> codecs
> > > >>  simultaneously MUST NOT use FID to group those media lines."
> > > >>
> > > >>  or this one, for layered encoding:
> > > >>
> > > >>  "FID MUST NOT be used to group "m" lines that do not represent
> the
> > > >same
> > > >>  information."  (Though how DTMF tones and their associated audio
> > pass
> > > >>  this test is not clear).
> > > >>
> > > >>  Nor is it clear that the FEC group of RFC 4756 is right, either.
> > For
> > > >a
> > > >>  start, we may wish to use this new ID in combination with FEC,
> and
> > > >>  secondly this tune-in stream has different characteristics.  For
> > > >>  example, one can typically ignore all FEC and (as long as there
> are
> > no
> > > >>  errors) decode the stream correctly.  Ignoring the tune-in
> stream
> > > >  > entirely may mean that you will never find a tune-in point,
> making
> > > the
> > > >>  normal stream useless.
> > > >>
> > > >>  So, can we use FID for associating a repair stream with its base
> (we
> > > >tag
> > > >>  the streams so we know which is which, of course)?
> > > >>
> > > >>  p.s. RFC 4756 claims in the IANA section that the FEC group is
> > > >>  registered under SDP characteristics, but actually I can find no
> > > >>  registry anywhere in IANA of group types.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  --
> > > >>  David Singer
> > > >>  Apple/QuickTime
> > > >>
> > > >>  _______________________________________________
> > > >>  mmusic mailing list
> > > >>  [e-mail]
> > > >>  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Singer
> > > Apple/QuickTime
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt


_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt