Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] New SDP draft

["Greg Shepherd" <[e-mail]>]

Did we ever come to conclusion with mmusic wrt grouping? The
conversation seemed to spin off track discussing uses/application of
groups but away from our original question.

Ali, can you summarize and restate to the mmusic list? ..or did I miss
something?

Thanks,
Greg

On Feb 4, 2008 2:26 PM, Ali Begen (abegen) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ulas.
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> 1- We define the priority field in the repair flow descriptor. However, I
> did not want to use it in the examples (not yet) since assigning priority
> means we can use multiple repair flows in an additive manner. And as you
> know, that issue is still at hand. I believe at least for now we should not
> give examples involving additivity and prioritization.
>
> However, different repair sizes are already used in the last example.
>
> 2- Good question. I am not sure whether that should be a part of the FSSI
> (receiver side) or we should specify a new separate element, which is part
> of the configuration information (hence, common to all FEC schemes)? \
>
> I am inclined towards including in the RS-FSSI? But, either is fine with me.
> We decided to make it optional. So, the configuration information may ignore
> or skip it.
>
> Any comments?
>
> -acbegen
>
>
>  ________________________________
>  From: Ulas Kozat [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 2:05 PM
> To: Ali Begen (abegen)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] New SDP draft
>
>
>
> Ali,
>
> The document looks okay with the notes, etc. I have a few comments:
> 1. Maybe we can add one more example for single source flow and 2 repair
> flows with priority. Also, in such a scenario, should we be able to define 2
> different time windows for each repair flow?
> 2. Are we going to specify a feedback description other than the FEC-scheme
> specific one as part of SDP elements? E.g., is the sender capable of
> receiving any FEC performance feedback or whether the receiver capable of
> sending any feedback?
>
> Ulas
>
>
> On Feb 3, 2008 3:41 AM, Ali Begen (abegen) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I made the changes we discussed last week in the SDP draft. I am
> > attaching the txt and xml files.
> >
> > I would like to hear your feedback before I submit it as a WG document.
> > Could you at least go over the new sections and SDP examples?
> >
> > The changes include:
> > - Divided the FEC-scheme-specific-information (FSSI) container into two.
> > Now, we have one container (Sender-side FSSI) which includes the
> > information required only by the sender. The rest of the FSSI info goes
> > to the other container (Receiver-side FSSI). The FEC scheme decides what
> > goes to where.
> >
> > - Media stream grouping: I updated the text based on our last
> > discussion. The discussion is still going on in the MMUSIC and FECFRAME
> > WGs. We need to come up with something that allows us to associate the
> > repair and source flows in a flexible manner. RFC 3388 is severely
> > limiting us.
> >
> > I also added the cases where we would want to use multiple framework
> > instances in Section 4.2.
> >
> > - Repair flow descriptors: I updated this section (4.5) as we now have
> > two containers for FSSI. I also changed the "Scheme ID" to "Encoding ID"
> > to be consistent with the framework draft.
> >
> > - Repair Window: Section 4.6 is re-written. Now, we support both ms and
> > us.
> >
> > - Section 5 is re-written. I added three SDP examples. Please go over
> > the examples and let me know if something is missing or incorrect.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -acbegen
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto
>
>
_______________________________________________
FECFRAME-PROTO mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe-proto