Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read
"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Wed, 22 July 2015 09:02 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F2331ACEC4 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vYRb7F0cZnyY for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 390391ACEA8 for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so161828805wib.0 for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=ycf/WWqNnTqJMCwvSTuUXw0UEq4ewXfVSVlXyP6A9W8=; b=hiWOOcEH7uIWThnG1XWbn+hG4H3XdAbXJ5jMp3n2TFpli2TdWqGz0JWwk0novpQZTu sbWuSqnSgxDl4X9HoMAo4A+wj/IQdo3o/361cEbQCoLbCQ+4HRfE/dDz8KLx9FGPAupx q3dwGnrqYjf4U8zSAeRg/mz6691Ig85nOSOdcmuUMv5J4LLZ6pZ45x4yranUrbNCSega 7Q28pfEkjrQpttlAvpqixvYySLHRl8bHh3IaYzEirrtG5jGyO/t8HscVgJb4QvzeoiVM 6+FsDVM44SyG9UA/zOgaz/y7FIXBUjcNLjoQUBt9Oh9wIiJt4c4iSbUtzJKfopRKwLjn cd5A==
X-Received: by 10.180.21.244 with SMTP id y20mr4407559wie.65.1437555759994; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniPC ([2001:67c:370:176:60cd:f0fd:b04c:e1e1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pg9sm1267016wjb.40.2015.07.22.02.02.38 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: "'Ali C. Begen (abegen)'" <abegen@cisco.com>, payload@ietf.org
References: <E144AE8E-8DE7-44A7-88B1-00340DEC549D@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E144AE8E-8DE7-44A7-88B1-00340DEC549D@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:02:36 +0300
Message-ID: <010901d0c45d$28143540$783c9fc0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHU0UMIGzGvGl3u5PfcJTuLJBBtSZ3fFe4A
Content-Language: he
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/Jw4rWaftrSS8l1ewflbKzXK4F70>
Subject: Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/payload/>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:02:44 -0000
Hi Ali, On Melpe, we will ask the list to adopt this work as a WG item since it is within the scope of the working group and the current version has all the required information based on RTP howto, this was what both Stephan and I (as individual) said at the microphone H.265 does not need any change and can progress On VP9 - need to decide on payload header or payload - go to the list? Roni -----Original Message----- From: payload [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali C. Begen (abegen) Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 7:06 PM To: payload@ietf.org Subject: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read 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 payload@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
- [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read Varun Singh
- Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read Roni Even
- Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read Varun Singh
- Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- [payload] RE: Payload WG notes - Please read Huangyihong (Rachel)