Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] New SDP draft

["Ali Begen (abegen)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

Nope, nobody has commented on the original question. The discussion was
merely about whether we should support inter-dependent FEC layers. In
the meeting, we decided not to support such FEC layers, but only
independent (maybe additive) FEC layers.

On the other hand, the main issue is still there. Flexible FEC grouping.
No comments from the chairs, either.

I will send another email to mmusic.

-acbegen
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 3:54 PM
> To: Ali Begen (abegen)
> Cc: Ulas Kozat; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [FECFRAME-PROTO] New SDP draft
> 
> 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