Re: [codec] [payload] Frames to Packets in draft-ietf-codec-opus-07?
"Benjamin M. Schwartz" <bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu> Mon, 25 July 2011 17:56 UTC
Return-Path: <bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25ECD21F8BA4; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kj2fEQ9vdno9; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us26.unix.fas.harvard.edu (us26.unix.fas.harvard.edu [140.247.35.202]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5184821F8B7F; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us26.unix.fas.harvard.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by us26.unix.fas.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54F21F71CF; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:56:56 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=fas.harvard.edu; h= message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; s=mail; bh=CI3neouXH273ES+ jpDwFnPi9pPqX3A8wMh99A+0+VuQ=; b=qLIzdVOggFTqYg7c+hwEyWB4Iu0tBHn pXTjH8dpCjY2mm0dOT/9+QsgGKqkoVzxR1MxIaZLsRyzmPAgsNR0ZuFqgjx6cGyl 52VtosIivqJLFkNfLEqixQb558PozO7g4htxnlH7nmCpeDnGtdkc8PExpN8v+orR cmR220O2gIOc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=simple; d=fas.harvard.edu; h= message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; q=dns; s=mail; b=I5061MSsD 5F/inLiZfucXmD0Vt4mr7oBWPwxnZRD6xQFGFDuFeJDRGivfQfs4TRJTYrf0XGmU xNLRKY/kwoJzXJTwiYAsSlrQGaOoTJT03daZUjlmvi5mu7p3fRGt1bRrCsa4zxK8 f+UDz78GAhVQkbz8JIge+tupETWXFxsBjg=
Received: from [172.23.141.135] (bwhmaincampuspat25.partners.org [170.223.207.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bmschwar@fas) by us26.unix.fas.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C5831F71CD; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:56:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4E2DAE67.6090008@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:56:55 -0400
From: "Benjamin M. Schwartz" <bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
References: <00ec01cc4ad6$8125b2d0$83711870$@uni-tuebingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <00ec01cc4ad6$8125b2d0$83711870$@uni-tuebingen.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigE092448E8E6DC7BDA0A387E8"
Cc: codec@ietf.org, payload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] [payload] Frames to Packets in draft-ietf-codec-opus-07?
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bens@alum.mit.edu
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:56:58 -0000
On 07/25/2011 10:23 AM, Christian Hoene wrote: > I was wondering why the draft-ietf-codec-opus-07 draft has feature to > concatenate multiple codec frames to packets. At the same time, > draft-spittka-payload-rtp-opus-00 does not support to place multiple codec > entities in on RTP packet. I think we are in agreement that for many packet transports, a single frame per packet (max duration of 20~ms for general audio, minimum of 2.5ms or 400 pps) would be inappropriate, and so a concatenation scheme is required. The question is then: where should the concatenation scheme be specified? The motivation for specifying concatenation inside the codec is to promote interoperability and adoption by reducing the total amount of engineering work required to implement Opus. This happens in two ways: 1. Avoiding duplicative software work Given the structure of existing networked audio software, I expect that software using Opus will typically rely on a pre-existing Opus library, and there will be only a small number of widely used Opus implementations. However, there will likely be many implementations of the Opus-RTP specification, due to engineering integration requirements. As such, we can reduce implementation effort by minimizing the complexity of the RTP specification. 2. Avoiding duplicative specification work Opus will be distributed over many transports other than RTP, and a concatenation scheme may be desirable in each case. Specifying concatenation inside the codec avoids the need to specify a new concatenation scheme for every transport. Having a single concatenation scheme should therefore accelerate adoption, minimize confusion when moving packets between transports, and minimize the amount of software required to make Opus work. Personally, I've found H.264 to be an example of how specifying framing outside the codec can create problems. H.264's packet/framing schemes (the "network abstraction layer", "access units", bytestream alignment, etc.) are specified outside the codec, so that they must be handled by the stream processing layer. Correctly distinguishing and converting between the various possibilities is so confusing that, until the latest release last month, gstreamer's H.264 parser could not correctly depayload H.264 from the popular AVCHD format.
- [codec] Frames to Packets in draft-ietf-codec-opu… Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] [payload] Frames to Packets in draft-… Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] Frames to Packets in draft-ietf-codec… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [codec] Frames to Packets in draft-ietf-codec… Ralph Giles
- Re: [codec] [payload] Frames to Packets in draft-… Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] Frames to Packets in draft-ietf-codec… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [codec] Frames to Packets in draft-ietf-codec… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [codec] Frames to Packets in draft-ietf-codec… Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [codec] Frames to Packets in draft-ietf-codec… Stephen Botzko
- Re: [codec] [payload] Frames to Packets in draft-… Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [codec] [payload] Frames to Packets in draft-… Jean-Marc Valin