Re: [AVTCORE] [Phishing Risk] Re: [External] Re: Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05.txt

[Ye-Kui Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephan, Martin, Mo, All,

 

Regarding Stephan’s question on frame marking in general. It’s a great question. I don’t know an answer, but I look forward to learning from responses.

 

Regarding Martin’s response on scenarios where it would be useful to allow a GDR picture as a response to a FIR message: 

1.	As a co-author of JVET-N0114 <http://phenix.it-sudparis.eu/jvet/doc_end_user/documents/14_Geneva/wg11/JVET-N0114-v1.zip> , I certainly agree that GDR can help reduce end-to-end delay although the initial join delay in general can be higher compared to IRAP pictures; that makes GDR good to use in applications desperately desiring ultralow end-to-end delay like wireless display and certain online gaming. But I am not sure that feedback based mechanism like FIR would be used in those type of applications. 
2.	In a multiparty call or in an online teaching scenario, to be prepared for people joining from time to time, periodic RAPs are needed anyway. Thus the need of sending FIR message for joining IMHO is not that high, unless the joining delay facilitated by the periodic RAPs is considered too long. On the other hand, as seen in item 1 above, using GDR would result in longer joining delay than using IDR. Furthermore, whether sending/encoding an IDR would result a visible artifact (intra pulsing or glitch) depends on how rate control etc. is implemented as part of the encoder, and IMHO encoders reasonably well implemented won’t. Therefore, personally I am not convinced that this is a scenario where it would be useful to allow a GDR picture as a response to a FIR message.
3.	In scenarios where the bandwidth sufficiency is an issue, then using GDR would be more problematic than using IDR as overall for providing the same random access period using GDR cause more bandwidth than using IDR. I personally did a lot of such experiments in AVC times when developing the GDR scheme based on motion-constrained shaping-evolving slice groups, and from those overall using GDR replacing IDR results in 15% higher bit rate (but when packet loss rates are relatively high then GDR showed better error resilience performance; that’s it was still relevant then).

Finally, regarding Mo’s comments: So it seems that the intent of the I bit was indeed for marking a random access point or refresh point (i.e., you not only care about the current picture, but also pictures later in decoding order) instead of for marking an intra-coded picture (i.e., you only care about the current picture, not pictures later in decoding order)? As this is relevant for both drafts regardless of whether GDR is to be considered. Currently the semantics in the frame-marking draft indicates the former while the use of the I bit in the VVC payload format indicates the latter. Could you please confirm?

 

BR, YK

 

From: Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:21
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Martin Pettersson M <[e-mail]>; Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <[e-mail]>; Ye-Kui Wang <[e-mail]>; 'Sanchez de la Fuente, Yago' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [Phishing Risk] Re: [External] Re: Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05.txt

 

All:

 

Regarding framemarking, I wonder (again) whether we are adding/improving on a mechanism that does not see deployment.  So let’s discuss that first, before talking about extensions.

 

At IETF 106, a year ago, we decided that new video RTP payload drafts should have a framemarking section.

At IETF 108, this summer, Shuai and I asked (in the context of the EVC payload format) if there’s really a desire for that section.  No one voiced a specific need, but we agreed to query the mailing list for application scenarios, and I volunteered to do so.  That never happened (as I sent the email to avt-bounces@ietf instead of avt@ietf.  Stupid.)  So let’s do this now...

 

Frame marking has been a hot topic in the context of rtcweb/webrtc.  However, recently there has not been a lot of activity around that topic.  In the 7/30/2020 AVTCORE section, it was mentioned that frame marking has been removed from mandatory implementation (?) in webrtc.  This may go hand in hand with the, in my perception, decreasing relevance of SRTP in the real world.  Framemarking is designed with SRTP in mind, and does not work in most other forms of sending encryopted media, specifically not with those that encrypt the RTP header.

 

We had previously an agreement that future video coding formats should (or must?) include a section on mapping the parameters of the frame marking draft to the new payload.  I don’t recall the level of mandation, and I doubt that there is currently an RFC that requires such a mapping, so formally I guess we could skip over frame marking mapping sections in video payload specs.   OTOH, frame marking was previously considered useful by the standardizers here in AVT.

 

So: where are we with this?  Does anyone care anymore?  Is anyone aware of real-world products that would need frame marking support for interop?

 

Thanks,

Stephan

 

 

 

From: Martin Pettersson M <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 06:04
To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, Ye-Kui Wang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, "'Sanchez de la Fuente, Yago'" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Stephan Wenger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> " <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: [AVTCORE] [Phishing Risk] Re: [External] Re: Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05.txt

 

Hi Mo, Ye-Kui, All,

 

I think it sounds like a good idea to add proper frame marking for general GDR. GDR together with decoding units (DUs) are two of the main enablers for low-delay video, which is becoming increasingly important in the emerging 5G landscape. Your idea of how the frame marking can be specified for GDR makes sense to me.

 

Regarding using GDR for FIR response, I think there are scenarios where it would be useful to allow a GDR picture as a response to a FIR message. Below are a few examples: 

1.	In (5G) scenarios where it would be of interest to keep the E2E delay as low as possible, e.g. in remote controlling of robots, vehicles, etc. Although the initial join delay in general is higher when using GDR pictures compared to IRAP pictures, the E2E delay of the stream is significantly lower. See for example the analysis made by Huawei in JVET-N0114 <http://phenix.it-sudparis.eu/jvet/doc_end_user/documents/14_Geneva/wg11/JVET-N0114-v1.zip>  where the E2E delay when using GDR pictures is about a third compared to when IRAP pictures are used. 
2.	In scenarios where there are multiple receivers of the same low-delay stream, e.g. in a multiparty call or in an online teaching scenario. In the case where a new receiver would like to tune in to the stream, it sends a FIR message. If the response to the FIR message is to send an IDR picture in the stream to all receivers, this could cause a visible artifact (intra pulsing or glitch) for all other receivers. If instead a GDR picture is sent in the stream, the joining receiver can tune in without the quality being compromised for the other receivers.
3.	In scenarios where the bandwidth would not be sufficient to send an IRAP picture. In this case an IRAP picture could of cause be encoded with reduced number of bits which on the other hand may significantly degrade the quality in the beginning of the stream. The IRAP picture could also be signaled over a longer duration, however this would cause a longer E2E delay.

Best regards,

Martin

 

 

From: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Sent: den 10 november 2020 07:33
To: Ye-Kui Wang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Martin Pettersson M <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; 'Sanchez de la Fuente, Yago' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: 'Stephan Wenger' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [Phishing Risk] Re: [External] Re: Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05.txt

 

Hi Ye-Kui, Martin, all,

 

I recall GDR discussions during early versions of frame marking. This was before GDR was elevated to a normative part of VVC. GDR implementations at that time were highly implementation specific, often not even using the SEI messages defined in AVC/HEVC. There was also a related intra refresh technique arguably identical to GDR but spanning many more frames, more for error resilience than switching points, and again not using SEI and highly implementation specific. Accommodating these GDR flavors in consistent and compact frame marking signaling was not pushed for in frame marking at that time.

 

Now that GDR is a normative part of VVC, it may be more important to signal it properly in frame marking. The single I bit is clearly insufficient. Additional bits are needed to signal GDR info (e.g. start, middle, end). If the WG wants to add GDR info at this late stage, I can propose some changes. This would certainly need yet another WGLC. So I would first like to hear from the WG and chairs about adding GDR info, then we can figure out the changes needed.

 

To be clear, this is to signal general GDR, not the special degenerate case of a single frame (count=0) GDR which is essentially an IDR. If folks only care about the latter, that is a much simpler editorial fix similar to what YK suggests below with additional restrictions about count=0. But signaling general GDR requires substantive changes.

 

Best regards,

Mo

 

 

From: Ye-Kui Wang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Date: Monday, November 9, 2020 at 1:30 AM
To: 'Martin Pettersson M' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, "'Sanchez de la Fuente, Yago'" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Stephan Wenger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> " <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: [AVTCORE] [Phishing Risk] Re: [External] Re: Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05.txt

 

Hi Martin, All,

 

[Explicitly adding Mo, for at least the question on draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking.]

 

Regarding FIR response: The key point on whether we should allow GDR as a response, I think, is whether additionally allowing it would be an improvement compared to not allow it. In other words, is there a scenario wherein responding with a GDR picture is better than responding with an IDR picture? If yes, then what you suggested (to allow a receiver to request whether the Decoder Refresh Point needs to be an IDR picture, a GDR picture or any of the two) sounds like a right approach.

 

Regarding frame marking of the I bit: To me, in the phrase “can be decoded” in the semantics mean “can be correctly decoded”, similarly as the use of “decodable” in VVC text itself, wherein often “decodable” without being preceded by “correctly” actually refer to “correctly decodable”. And indeed, with this interpretation, all intra coded pictures, including a GDR picture with recovery_poc_cnt equal to 0, but also including an intra picture that is not any of the following: VPX keyframe, H.264 IDR, H.265 IRAP, H.266 IRAP/GDR. … Hmm, but then the setting of the bit in the VVC RTP payload format draft is not correct: “The I bit MUST be 1 when the NAL unit type is 7-9 (inclusive), otherwise it MUST be 0.”

 

Maybe the authors (e.g., Mo) of draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking can help comment on the intention? I.e., in the following text:

 

   o  I: Independent Frame (1 bit) - MUST be 1 for frames that can be

      decoded independent of temporally prior frames, e.g. intra-frame,

      VPX keyframe, H.264 IDR [RFC6184 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6184> ], H.265 IDR/CRA/BLA/IRAP

      [RFC7798 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7798> ]; otherwise MUST be 0.

 

Is the phrase “can be decoded” intended to mean “can be correctly decoded”, or is this bit intended to mark a random access point? If the latter, then the wording should be changed to be something like the following: 

 

   o  R: Random-accessible Picture (1 bit) - MUST be 1 for picture that can be used as a random access point, e.g., VPX keyframe, H.264 IDR picture or picture associated with a recovery point SEI message [RFC6184 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6184> ], H.265 IRAP picture or picture associated with a recovery point SEI message [RFC7798 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7798> ]; otherwise MUST be 0.

 

BTW, I replaced “IDR/CRA/BLA/IRAP” above with “IRAP”, as IRAP can be any of IDR/CRA/BLA.

 

In any case, either draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05 or draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking needs to be changed to be aligned with each other.

 

BR, YK

 

From: Martin Pettersson M <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 6:53
To: Ye-Kui Wang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; 'Sanchez de la Fuente, Yago' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: 'Stephan Wenger' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: [AVTCORE] [Phishing Risk] Re: [External] Re: Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05.txt

 

Thanks Ye-Kui, Yago and Stephan for all the good comments. Please see my responses below.

 

FIR message for CRA pictures

 

Thanks Ye-Kui for clarifying why CRA pictures were not allowed as a response to a FIR message for HEVC. I agree that it would not be necessary for a sender to send a CRA picture instead of an IDR picture as a response to a FIR message (although I don’t see the harm in allowing it). 

 

FIR message for VVC GDR pictures

 

> Firstly, regarding the suggestion of changing “Upon reception of a FIR, a sender must send an IDR picture.” to “Upon reception of a FIR, a sender must 

> send an IDR, a CRA or a GDR picture.” Herein, my hesitation is because that a FIR, as the name indicates, requests a full intra picture that immediately 

> stop any prediction from earlier pictures, hoping that once this is received by the receiver, all pictures and all picture areas are correct. GDR won’t do 

> that. And note that we are also in a low delay environment, using GDR would need the receiver to wait much longer (than using IDR) to have correct full 

> pictures. Note that rfc5104 also mentions that using GDR the user experience would not be as good. My personal opinion is, if using GDR were really 

> acceptable, we would have added that in RFC 7798 (the HEVC RTP payload format), even though in HEVC GDR is indicated by the recovery point SEI 

> message instead of by a NAL unit type as in VVC.

 

I think that the key aspect for GDR in VVC compared to the previous standards is that the GDR picture is now normative and fully specified in VVC as pointed out by Stephan. Thus, every VVC decoder would be required to tune in at a GDR picture, which is far from guaranteed for HEVC and AVC where a non-normative SEI message is used. Moreover, when tuning into a GDR picture in VVC, the recovery point picture and the following pictures are guaranteed to be an exact match to as if the decoding had started at an IRAP picture prior to the GDR picture. For HEVC and AVC, the exact match is not guaranteed. Thus, I would expect the user experience to be much better for VVC than for HEVC and AVC.

 

I agree with you Ye-Kui, that there may be an expectation in some circumstances from the receiver sending the FIR message that the response from the sender should be a picture that may be directly decoded and displayed. As a suggestion to address the expectations of the receiver, an option could be to allow a receiver to request whether the Decoder Refresh Point needs to be an IDR picture, a GDR picture or any of the two. This may be either specified as a parameter in the FIR message or as a new request message, e.g. a refresh request message. 

 

Frame marking for GDR pictures

 

Ye-Kui:

> Thirdly, including GDR to the I bit constraint confuses both the name and the semantics of the bit, “independent of temporally prior frames”. To me, if 

> an indication of GDR is important, that should be included in draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking, preferrable using a separate indication, and if so, it should 

> also include GDR in AVC and HEVC indicated by the recovery point SEI message, and then in this draft carries that over in the same way as carrying over 

> the I bit. (BTW, Shuai, we should update the status of the [FrameMarking] reference.)

 

Yago:

> As for the I bit I agree with Ye-Kui that it seems cleaner to me that if an indication of GDR is desirable, a separate indication could be included in 

> draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking instead of reusing  the existing one that states that a frame is independent. However, should we allow or disallow GDR

> pictures with ph_recovery_poc_cnt equal to 0 for this case? 

 

I agree that it may cause confusion and that it would make sense to have a separate indication for GDR pictures in draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking as suggested. 

 

But if we decide to not mark GDR pictures with the I-bit, then I think the semantics for the I-bit in draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking need to be rephrased as I think it would otherwise cause confusion the other way. 

 

“I: Independent Frame (1 bit) - MUST be 1 for frames that can be decoded independent of temporally prior frames”

 

As it is stated now, in my interpretation, it suggests that GDR pictures must have the I-bit set since a GDR picture can be decoded (i.e. the decoding could be started) without using any temporally prior frames. In particular, for a GDR picture with recovery_poc_cnt equal to 0, the GDR picture can be fully decoded without dependency on any other frame.

 

BR, Martin

 

 

From: avt <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Ye-Kui Wang
Sent: den 6 november 2020 00:42
To: 'Sanchez de la Fuente, Yago' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: 'Stephan Wenger' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; 'Martin Pettersson M' <martin.m.pettersson=[e-mail] <mailto:martin.m.pettersson=[e-mail]> >
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [Phishing Risk] Re: [External] Re: Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05.txt

 

Hi Yago,

 

Regarding GDR pictures with ph_recovery_poc_cnt equal to 0, my opinion is similar as for CRA pictures, i.e., if as an encoder to response to a FIR, there is no reason for the encoder to encode an intra refresh picture as CRA or GDR with ph_recovery_poc_cnt equal to 0 instead of as IDR. 

 

BR, YK

 

From: Sanchez de la Fuente, Yago <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 13:12
To: Ye-Kui Wang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Stephan Wenger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Martin Pettersson M <martin.m.pettersson=[e-mail] <mailto:martin.m.pettersson=[e-mail]> >; shuaiizhao(Shuai Zhao) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Phishing Risk] Re: [AVTCORE] [External] Re: Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05.txt

 

Dear Ye-Kui, all, 

 

After reading Ye-Kui’s email I thought again about my previous Email and even using GDR pictures with ph_recovery_poc_cnt equal to 0 would be questionable as a response for a FIR since in that case the same picture could have a NAL unit type of IDR. Same reasoning as Ye-Kui gave for CRA, there is no good reason for the encoder to encode an intra refresh picture as GDR pictures with ph_recovery_poc_cnt equal to 0 instead of as IDR if it could be an IDR.

 

As for the I bit I agree with Ye-Kui that it seems cleaner to me that if an indication of GDR is desirable, a separate indication could be included in draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking instead of reusing the existing one that states that a frame is independent. However, should we allow or disallow GDR pictures with ph_recovery_poc_cnt equal to 0 for this case? 

 

Best regards,

Yago Sánchez

 

---

Department Video Coding & Analytics

Group Multimedia Communications

Fraunhofer HHI - Heinrich Hertz Institute
Einsteinufer 37, 10587 Berlin, Germany
http://www.hhi.fraunhofer.de/ip/mc <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=a723debd-f8b8e4f8-a7239e26-867b36d1634c-f397f8517be49b2f&q=1&e=525becb6-dd97-448d-a358-26fbd8ac83f5&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hhi.fraunhofer.de%2Fip%2Fmc> 

Tel.: [phone]

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 

 

 

 

On 5. Nov 2020, at 21:51, Ye-Kui Wang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

 

Hi Martin, Stephan, All,

 

I was also hesitating to say yes when I first saw most of the suggestions, so hesitating such that I was hoping Stephan et al would reply and address them 😊

 

Great that Stephan did respond. Thanks!

 

Now a few additional comments from my side.

 

Firstly, regarding the suggestion of changing “Upon reception of a FIR, a sender must send an IDR picture.” to “Upon reception of a FIR, a sender must send an IDR, a CRA or a GDR picture.” Herein, my hesitation is because that a FIR, as the name indicates, requests a full intra picture that immediately stop any prediction from earlier pictures, hoping that once this is received by the receiver, all pictures and all picture areas are correct. GDR won’t do that. And note that we are also in a low delay environment, using GDR would need the receiver to wait much longer (than using IDR) to have correct full pictures. Note that rfc5104 also mentions that using GDR the user experience would not be as good. My personal opinion is, if using GDR were really acceptable, we would have added that in RFC 7798 (the HEVC RTP payload format), even though in HEVC GDR is indicated by the recovery point SEI message instead of by a NAL unit type as in VVC.

 

Secondly, on adding CRA. Herein my hesitation is because CRA is not really supposed to be used in low-delay conversational application environment. If as an encoder you don’t plan to have some associated leading pictures encoded for a CRA picture, there is no reason for the encoder to encode an intra refresh picture as CRA instead of as IDR. That’s why we did not allow CRA as a response to FIR in RFC 7798.

 

Thirdly, including GDR to the I bit constraint confuses both the name and the semantics of the bit, “independent of temporally prior frames”. To me, if an indication of GDR is important, that should be included in draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking, preferrable using a separate indication, and if so, it should also include GDR in AVC and HEVC indicated by the recovery point SEI message, and then in this draft carries that over in the same way as carrying over the I bit. (BTW, Shuai, we should update the status of the [FrameMarking] reference.)

 

However, adding the GDR abbreviation is good, and I think we should also add a brief description of GDR into clause 1.1.2 (Systems and Transport Interfaces).

 

BR, YK

 

From: avt <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Stephan Wenger
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 10:50
To: Martin Pettersson M <martin.m.pettersson=[e-mail] <mailto:martin.m.pettersson=[e-mail]> >; shuaiizhao(Shuai Zhao) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External] Re: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05.txt

 

Hi Martin,

 

Thanks for those suggested changes, which I think would consistently implement the option to react to a “Full Intra Request” (FIR) with a gradual decoder refresh (GDR) series of pictures.

 

As to whether we should allow GDR as a reaction to a FIR: I’m a bit torn here.  Arguments can be made either way, please see below.  Would others in the WG please weigh in?  

 

On one hand, the argument (somewhat rephrased here) that VVC’s GDR pictures are a fully specified replacement for traditional “all intra” pictures is a good one.  I concur that this is somewhat new in VVC, compared to older video coding standards.  Pretty much all of those could do some form of GDR (even good old H.261 and MPEG-2), but things were clumsy, results were not guaranteed, or one had to rely on SEI messages and similar exotics for implementation.  In the environments where FIR matters—video conferencing mostly—no one ever used GDR in any context except in those ca. 1990 H.261-based systems which didn’t implement full intra pictures at all, and relied on intra macroblock walk-around during the initial communication setup.

 

On the other hand, there’s a reason why FIR until now was consistently interpreted as a requirement of sending a single “all intra” picture (whatever that translates to in the various video coding standards and technologies).  That reason was related to the architecture of the MCUs that were around when RFC 5104 was written, back in the 2005-2008 timeframe.  What people requested then was that the internal architecture of an MCU should stay as independent of the codec in use as possible.  For FIR, that means that means: if an MCU sends out a FIR to a sending endpoint, it expects exactly one intra picture at the earliest opportunity that can be used to sync in added decoders of unknown state.  That logic would now have to change to receive either a single IDR picture or a series of pictures that make up a GDR.  A transcoding MCU would have to go further and include the decoding of those multiple pictures with all the tricky (though now fully specified!) stuff that goes on in VVC, before transcoding.   

 

Stephan

 

 

From: avt <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > on behalf of Martin Pettersson M <martin.m.pettersson=[e-mail] <mailto:martin.m.pettersson=[e-mail]> >
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 08:38
To: "shuaiizhao(Shuai Zhao)" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> " <[e-mail]>
Subject: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-05.txt

 

Hi,

 

Thanks for the good progress on the VVC RTP payload format. Below are some suggested modifications for your consideration:

 

1.	In section 3.2, add “GDR                       Gradual Decoding Refresh”

 

2.	In section 8.4, change “Upon reception of a FIR, a sender must send an IDR picture.” to “Upon reception of a FIR, a sender must send an IDR, a CRA or a GDR picture.”

 

Motivation: 

One of the versatile features in VVC is its support for low-latency coding where the GDR picture is a key component to achieve low latency. Compared to AVC and HEVC where GDR is signaled in an SEI message with optional support by the decoder, the GDR picture in VVC is a normative part of the specification and the decoder must be able to tune in at a GDR picture. Therefore it makes sense to allow a sender to respond with a GDR picture upon receiving a FIR. Note also that a gradual decoding refresh point is mentioned as a possible Decoder Refresh Point in response to the FIR command in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5104.

 

Sending a CRA picture as a response to FIR would be fine as well in my opinion. I don’t see the reason to exclude that.

 

 

3.	In section 9.1, change “The I bit MUST be 1 when the NAL unit type is 7-9 (inclusive), otherwise it MUST be 0.” to “The I bit MUST be 1 when the NAL unit type is 7-10 (inclusive), otherwise it MUST be 0.”

 

In section 9.2, change “The I bit MUST be 1 when the NAL unit type is 7-9 (inclusive), otherwise it MUST be 0.” to “The I bit MUST be 1 when the NAL unit type is 7-10 (inclusive), otherwise it MUST be 0.”

 

Motivation:

NAL unit type 10 is GDR_NUT. 

 

In https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-09.html the I bit is specified as:

I: Independent Frame (1 bit) - MUST be 1 for frames that can be decoded independent of temporally prior frames, e.g. intra-frame, VPX keyframe, H.264 IDR [RFC6184], H.265 IDR/CRA/BLA/RAP [RFC7798]; otherwise MUST be 0.

 

The GDR picture is typically not fully refreshed in one frame, but it does not need prior temporal pictures to start the decoding process, i.e. a bitstream that starts with a GDR picture in VVC is a valid bitstream.

 

Best regards,

Martin Pettersson