Re: [MMUSIC] 3D format negotiation in draft-greevenbosch-mmusic-signal-3d-format
"Pedro Capelastegui" <capelastegui@dit.upm.es> Thu, 03 November 2011 16:34 UTC
Return-Path: <capelastegui@dit.upm.es>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D977011E8132 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46r-SKUrFGSX for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.dit.upm.es (mail.dit.upm.es [IPv6:2001:720:1500:42:215:c5ff:fef6:86e4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC64211E8110 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from correo.dit.upm.es (correo.dit.upm.es [IPv6:2001:720:1500:42:250:56ff:fea2:1a03]) by mail.dit.upm.es (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id pA3GYU5o018335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:34:30 +0100
Received: from delta (delta.dit.upm.es [138.4.7.204]) (authenticated bits=0) by correo.dit.upm.es (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id pA3GYIbu008726 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:34:19 +0100
From: Pedro Capelastegui <capelastegui@dit.upm.es>
To: 'IETF - MMUSIC' <mmusic@ietf.org>, Bert.Greevenbosch@huawei.com
References: <002801cc9a45$69afeda0$3d0fc8e0$@dit.upm.es>
In-Reply-To: <002801cc9a45$69afeda0$3d0fc8e0$@dit.upm.es>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:34:31 +0100
Message-ID: <002901cc9a46$771e6290$655b27b0$@dit.upm.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKXCGBtb1yACvM5goToMvn0QrotsJQGewXg
Content-Language: es
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] 3D format negotiation in draft-greevenbosch-mmusic-signal-3d-format
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:34:37 -0000
Hi, In the previous post, I argued against the 3D format negotiation mechanism currently used in draft-greevenbosch-mmusic-signal-3d-format, and suggested associating 3D formats with payload types instead. Here I explain how this could be achieved. The process could be summarized as follows: 3d format configuration parameters are described in media level attributes (like in the current draft), but these attributes have a payload type as an additional parameter: a=3dformat:<Payload_Type> <3dformat parameters> Each 3D media stream will be composed of one or two media descriptions, each with one or more 3d format attributes. For each media description, an answerer would select one of the available media formats, with the preferred combination of codec and 3d format. In order to keep complexity manageable, the answerer would only be allowed to choose a single media format when 3d is enabled. This still leaves us with the problem of declaring dependencies between media descriptions within a 3D media stream (e.g. stream B is the depth map of stream A, or stream B is the right view and stream A is the left one). This could be signaled with the a=depend attribute (see RFC 5583). As an example, here is how this system would work in the scenario shown in section 9.4 of draft-greevenbosch-mmusic-signal-3d-format. The offerer is trying to initiate a session with a 3D video stream which can have 2 possible configurations: (1) 1 stream for video and one stream for a parallax map (2) 1 stream for the left view and one for the right view. This is what the offer SDP would look like v=0 o=Alice 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 131.163.72.4 s=The technology of 3D-TV c=IN IP4 131.164.74.2 t=0 0 a=group:3DS 1 2 m=video 49170 RTP/AVP 99 100 a=rtpmap:99 H264/90000 a=3dFormat:99 2DA C a=rtpmap:100 H264/90000 a=3dFormat:100 SC L a=mid:1 m=video 49172 RTP/AVP 99 100 a=rtpmap:99 H264/90000 a=3dFormat:99 2DA P a=rtpmap:100 H264/90000 a=3dFormat:100 SC R a=mid:2 a=depend 99 3dv 1:99; 100 3dv 1:100 m=audio 52890 RTP/AVP 10 a=rtpmap:10 L16/16000/2 3dv would be a new dependency-type defined for use with 3d format. The depend attribute is tipically used in combination with DDP (decoding dependency) groups, though I think using it with 3DS groups in this scenario wouldnt go against the specification. This offer SDP has 2 video streams in a 3DS group, each with 2 possible configurations. The first one can be configured as a center view in a video+auxiliary map scheme, or as a left view in a simulcast scheme. The second media stream can be configured as a parallax map in a video+aux configuration, or as a right view in a simulcast configuration. Only certain payload type combinations are viable, which is signaled in the a=depend line: video stream 2 can only be configured as a parallax map if video stream 1 is the center view, and it can only be configured as a right view if stream 1 is the left view. The SDP answer would look like this, if the answerer chooses the "center view plus parallax map" option: v=0 o=Bob 2890844528 2890842809 IN IP4 131.163.72.5 s=The technology of 3D-TV c=IN IP4 131.164.74.3 t=0 0 a=group:3DS 1 2 m=video 48170 RTP/AVP 99 a=rtpmap:99 H264/90000 a=3dFormat:99 2DA C a=mid:1 m=video 48172 RTP/AVP 99 a=rtpmap:99 H264/90000 a=3dFormat:99 2DA P a=mid:2 a=depend 99 3dv 1:99; 100 3dv 1:100 m=audio 52890 RTP/AVP 10 a=rtpmap:10 L16/16000/2 Compared to the SDPs used in draft-greevenbosch-mmusic-signal-3d-format, this offer/answer exchange only uses 3 media descriptions instead of 5. Also, including additional 3D formats would be more simple using this mechanism. Regards, Pedro -----Original Message----- From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Capelastegui Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 5:27 PM To: IETF - MMUSIC; Bert.Greevenbosch@huawei.com Subject: [MMUSIC] 3D format negotiation in draft-greevenbosch-mmusic-signal-3d-format Hi, Here are some further comments on draft-greevenbosch-mmusic-signal-3d-format. These are focused on the 3d format negotiation process, and specifically how the extension behaves when multiple 3d configuration options are offered. My main concern is that, in order to offer alternate 3d format configurations, the offerer has to include additional 'm=' lines in the SDP. Currently, each media descriptor can have a single 3d format, and each 3d format is associated to 1 or 2 media descriptors. This is not an issue in offers with a single 3d format (see examples 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3), but when several 3d formats are offered, the number of media descriptors multiplies. This can be observed in example 9.4, where 4 media descriptors are used in the offer, though the answerer is expected to reject all but two. In general, in order to provide N 3D format options for a 3D video stream,between N and 2N media descriptors will be required in the offered SDP, of which only one or two will be used. I think this proliferation of media descriptions has several drawbacks. For one, it goes against the general philosophy of SDP negotiation. Normally, when different possible configurations exist for a media stream, they are shown as different media formats within a single media descriptor. Using multiple media descriptors that actually refer to the same media stream (the 3D video stream, or a subset of it), and having the answerer reject all but the ones with the desired configuration breaks this model. In addition, this excess of 'm=' lines may have a negative effect when combined with techniques such as ICE, and could be confusing for 3d-unaware nodes. On the other hand, this is only a problem if user agents are expected to select between many 3d formats on an average session. Unfortunately, I think this will be the case. At the very least, a UA starting a 3D session should provide a single 3D format and the option not to use 3D. Apart from that, a 3D user agent intended to be interoperable with other UAs should support several 3D formats, including video+depth and transmission of 2 views. The solution, in my opinion, would be to shift away from the current model and instead associate each 3D format with a payload type within a media description. I will discuss how this can be done in a separate mail. Regards, Pedro _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list mmusic@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic ----- No se encontraron virus en este mensaje. Comprobado por AVG - www.avg.com Versión: 10.0.1411 / Base de datos de virus: 2092/3992 - Fecha de publicación: 11/02/11
- [MMUSIC] 3D format negotiation in draft-greevenbo… Pedro Capelastegui
- Re: [MMUSIC] 3D format negotiation in draft-greev… Pedro Capelastegui
- Re: [MMUSIC] 3D format negotiation in draft-greev… Bert Greevenbosch
- Re: [MMUSIC] 3D format negotiation in draft-greev… Pedro Capelastegui