Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read

[Varun Singh <[e-mail]>]

Below is the outcome of the side meeting: provide corrections if I the
summary is inaccurate.

It was decided that
1. We will need to revisit how FEC operates with PERC-enabled middleboxes.
This is currently a non-goal.
2. an identifier will be in the FEC payload. For now this is SSRC. However,
if a needed this could be replaced by another identifier (e.g., RSID). .

3. keep the encapsulated length as 16 bits. Add the 4 bits of SSRC Counter
elsewhere, this is still TBD.

To summarise the version 3/3 in the slides was accepted.

Cheers,

Varun

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>
> Please have a look and send any corrections to the chairs by July 28th.
Presenters, please fill in the gaps denoted by a question mark.
>
> Thanks.
> -acbegen
>
> IETF 93 - Payload Notes
> Chairs: Roni Even, Ali Begen
> Note takers: Stephan Wenger, Mo Zanaty
> Jabber scribe: Jonathan Lennox
>
>
> Payload Status Update Chairs
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-payload-0.pdf
>
> H265: SDP directorate review by Flemming Andreasen noted no overall
> grammar and no formal grammar for fmtp parameters. No interoperability
issues,
> so no change needed, according to Stephan, Magnus Westerlund, others.
Magnus:
> recommendation in how-to: when you have complex parameters, then you
should
> include ABNF. Otherwise not.
> Stephan: there is an ABNF in the draft for one complex parameter.
>
>
> VP9 RTP Payload Format (Magnus Flodman)
> draft-ietf-payload-vp9-00 <
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-payload-vp9-00>
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-payload-3.pdf
>
> Flexible and Non-Flexible GOF (Group of Frames) structure: Mo thinks
> this may be useful for other codecs, authors have no issues with reusing
this.
> Stephan noted that other codecs (e.g. H.264/5) have other means to convey
this
> within the payload itself not in payload headers.
>
>
> Flexible FEC RTP Payload Format (Varun Singh)
> draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-00 <
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-00>
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-payload-1.pdf
>
> Bernard Aboba: How can a sender signal specific FEC patterns, like only
> protect the base layer of SRST RTP streams? Authors clarified that no
static
> signaling (e.g. SDP) is necessary since the sender is free to pick dynamic
> patterns and all receivers must handle this.
>
> Slide 8: open issue:
> Jonathan: putting SSRC into RTP payload is scary (layer violation)
> Mo: we are already in layer violation due to SN; could go Fecframe model
> Jonathan: ??? something about Perc,
> fec over encrypted payload
>
> Magnus: Dislikes no support for jumbo packets > 4KB. Better to
> support 64KB packets and expand the FEC header. Stephan agrees with
expansion.
>
> Different opinions expressed on whether source flow SSRC(s) should be
> included in the FEC header, or other identifiers like MID or the newly
proposed
> ESID/RSID. Also different views on signaling multiple source flows.
> Result: Need a side meeting to decide what source flow identifier is
> used to associate with a FEC repair flow and how to handle multiple source
> flows. Varun will lead and copy the list.
>
>
> MELPe Codec (Roni Even for Victor Demjanenko)
> draft-demjanenko-payload-melpe-03 <
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-demjanenko-payload-melpe-03>
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-payload-4.pdf
>
> Stephan has read it and thinks it is a well written RTP payload format
> draft. No other reviewers, so chairs will ask the list to review.
>
>
> Interleaved RTP Payload Format (Rachel Huang)
> draft-huang-payload-rtp-interleave-00 <
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-huang-payload-rtp-interleave-00>
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-payload-2.pdf
>
> Jonathan: Note that PT must be the same.
> Rachel: yes
> Jonathan: assumption aggregation never changes number of packets.
> Rachel: yes
> Jonathan: with more flexible sequence number mechanism, you could do
better
> Rachel: yes
> Imed: Interleave an IDR, what’s the gain?
> Rachel: ???
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> payload mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload

-- 
http://www.callstats.io