Re: [icnrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming-03.txt

[Cedric Westphal <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Niall for reading the draft. Response in-line below…
BR,

C.

From: icnrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Niall Murray
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:30 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [icnrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming-03.txt

Hello All,
Some comments on the draft as follows:

pg5: Use Case - mentions QoE - since this document is likely to be read by a broad audience from different areas I think the definition of QoE (from Qualinet) should be included to give context (if not, at least referenced). I also think it would help if this aspect was brought forward to the introduction. It is referred to throughout the document, the aim of this document (I imagine) is to support these the various scenarios with enhanced QoE.

CW: Very good point. I’ll add a citation to the Qualinet white paper and bring this aspect forward into the introduction.

My key point is wrt synchronization - intra - inter - and inter destination. This was touched on by another reviewer but based on the scenarios outlined, how is synchronized delivery maintained across the various scenarios- this issue is intimated in a number of places throughout the document e.g. pg 9 "the support for potentially multiple sources", pg 11 "synch of multiple content streams" (I think this should be clarified to include intra - for layers of the same video or audio stream and also inter - synch between audio - audio. Based on evolving ICN structure this problem will become more complex than for existing end-to-end system. In addition an additional issue for video conferencing in the form of inter destination synch exists, not to mention the nice mass-media distribution scenario.

CW: agree that synchronization issues will vary depending of what is synchronized and who needs to synchronize, and that clarifying this would be helpful. As you point out, there is the issue of synchronize multiple streams into the same consumer (audio and video streams); synchronize a single stream from multiple sources (making sure packets are received in a way that can be re-ordered);  and making sure multiple consumers of the same stream (say, a live stream or video conferencing) are somewhat in sync. I will try to clarify.

To conclude, I would like to see an additional Future steps for ICN (section 9) to include synchronization (the requirements of which will be different based on application or scenario). Maybe the authors feel that this aspect demands an ID itself and hence the reason for its omission? If this is the case, I think this should be stated.

CW: Good point. There are a lot of sync issues not currently address that should naturally arise in ICNs and adding this in Section 9 would be helpful. Future Steps can be listed, and don’t have to be entered in too much detail, so I don’t see an problem with adding it. There was no specific reason for omission other than oversight!

There are a number of typos in the document but I guess these can be addressed in a later version.

CW: do you have an annotated version you could share with these typos? It’d be helpful.

Some other comments on network coding etc are discussed already.


I think the document is nicely structured and the flow makes sense to me. Its presentation is very timely.

CW: thanks so much!


Kind Rgs
Niall Murra



On 25 February 2015 at 20:38, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Information-Centric Networking Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Adaptive Video Streaming over ICN
        Authors         : Stefan Lederer
                          Cedric Westphal
                          Christopher Mueller
                          Andrea Detti
                          Daniel Corujo
                          Christian Timmerer
                          Daniel Posch
                          Aytac Azgin
                          Sucheng Liu
        Filename        : draft-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming-03.txt
        Pages           : 37
        Date            : 2015-02-25

Abstract:
   This document considers the consequences of moving the underlying
   network architecture to an Information-Centric Network (ICN)
   architecture on video distribution. As most of the traffic in future
   networks is expected to be video, we consider how to modify the
   existing video streaming mechanisms. Several important topics
   related to video distribution over ICN are presented, covering a
   wide range of scenarios: we look at how to evolve DASH to work over
   ICN, and leverage the recent ISO/IEC MPEG Dynamic Adaptive Streaming
   over HTTP (DASH) standard; we consider layered encoding over ICN;
   P2P mechanisms introduce distinct requirements for video and we look
   at how to adapt PPSP for ICN; IPTV adds delay constraints, and this
   will create more stringent requirements over ICN as well. As part of
   the discussion on video, we discuss DRMs in ICN. Finally, in
   addition to consider how existing mechanisms would be impacted by
   ICN, this document lists some research issues to design ICN specific
   video streaming mechanisms.



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming-03


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
icnrg mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg