[AVT] timed text RTP payload
philippe.gentric@philips.com Mon, 23 June 2003 09:49 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14183 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 05:49:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N9mof04530 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 05:48:50 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UNvc-0001AM-UQ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 05:48:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UNvH-00019x-4v for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 05:47:39 -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 FAA14099 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 05:47:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: philippe.gentric@philips.com
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UNuy-0000tT-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 05:47:20 -0400
Received: from gw-nl5.philips.com ([212.153.235.109] ident=postfix) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UNuj-0000tL-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 05:47:10 -0400
Received: from smtpscan-nl2.philips.com (smtpscan-nl2.philips.com [130.139.36.22]) by gw-nl5.philips.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B1B552CB for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:46:40 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from smtprelay-nl2.philips.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtpscan-nl2.philips.com (8.9.3-p1/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id LAA27388 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:46:39 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from hbg001soh.diamond.philips.com (e1soh01.diamond.philips.com [130.143.165.45]) by smtprelay-nl2.philips.com (8.9.3-p1/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id LAA00012 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:46:38 +0200 (MEST)
To: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.9a January 7, 2002
Message-ID: <OF41A4DBB1.AF8BE2D0-ONC1256D4E.0030AF31-C1256D4E.0035D9C0@diamond.philips.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:36:36 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on hbg001soh/H/SERVER/PHILIPS(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 23/06/2003 11:47:42
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [AVT] timed text RTP payload
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>
Remarks & questions
[
2. Transmit the text sample size, sample duration and sample
description index in-band. In 3GP format this information is
included in the header part. In RTP it is important to transmit it
in-band because this information might change from sample to sample.
]
I think you should explicit that it is not a dangerous thing to do because
this information affects only the data in the packet
so when you loose a packet you do not loose the context...
it is rather obviously true for size and duration,
but less obvious for description index, i.e. as you
mention it in the section 1.2 a timed text stream
may transport samples using several different "descriptions"
(i.e. configurations) and it is therefore required
to indicate for each sample the "number" (index) of the
corresponding description.
BTW the sentence "In 3GP format this information is
included in the header part" is misleading in this respect...
**************
[
4. Enable the multiplexing of text samples in one single RTP
packet. In a mobile communication environment a typical text sample
size is around 100 bytes. Thus, multiplexing several text samples
makes the transport over RTP more efficient.
]
I think you should replace "multiplex" with "aggregation",
multiplex hints at something much more "drastic" than what you
want to achieve i.e. mixing several different streams together,
which comes with a whole lot of difficult issues etc :-)
**************
Questions
* How does a receiver know if the first element of the payload is a FHDR or a THDR ?
* Figure 3.2 has two cases, both are 32 bits aligned, is it a requirement ?
otherwise how is the header aligned (with padding ?)
* section 4 *recommends* redundancy, I would leave that more open ...
anyway would you consider the possibility that the payload format itself
would enable redundancy by simply allowing "repeat"
(of, say some highly valuable "sentences" ?)
regards,
Philippe Gentric
Software Architect
Philips MP4Net
philippe.gentric@philips.com
http://www.platform4.philips.com
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] timed text RTP payload philippe.gentric
- RE: [AVT] timed text RTP payload Jose Rey