Re: [payload] Payload WG notes

Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Wed, 22 July 2015 11:21 UTC

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Thread-Topic: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read
Thread-Index: AQHQw88dRc8Bj1w5zkONpq1MAxj7sZ3ncHeAgAATTICAACdRAIAAI9yA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:21:49 +0000
Message-ID: <C578FADC-53ED-4360-BB32-144B890EBE7B@cisco.com>
References: <E144AE8E-8DE7-44A7-88B1-00340DEC549D@cisco.com> <CAEbPqrywC5vPQrcsfDiHtx8avDceKa7A2_KUO-VqQ6V51Kk_rQ@mail.gmail.com> <D0F06B80-77E0-4167-8930-176886AEAF06@vidyo.com> <CAEbPqrxoMbipLjZbeHBU0_0MsXEPM4Db6Zj26dsRF=aTktHAuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEbPqrxoMbipLjZbeHBU0_0MsXEPM4Db6Zj26dsRF=aTktHAuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.150701
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E359180128D53C4FAA5DD5D081EC0BB4@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/QGWKJLI2MjgWJaZYvynIdkSwHgE>
Cc: "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read
Precedence: list

Varun,

Please write down the changes you propose in the WG draft (start a new thread please) and we should wait for comments in the list before you incorporate them.

Thanks.




-----Original Message-----
From: Varun Singh
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 1:13 PM
To: Jonathan Lennox
Cc: "Ali C. Begen", "payload@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [payload] Payload WG notes - Please read

>On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> On point 2 — my opinion in the side meeting was that even if we define
>> identifiers like RSID in the future, the identifier in FlexFEC should
>> nonetheless remain an SSRC.  The reason is that the FEC receiver needs to
>> know, after an SSRC change, whether the packets being FEC’d come from the
>> old SSRC or the new SSRC.
>
>If there is agreement on SSRC, I will not put any editor's note or
>placeholder for replacing it.
>
>>
>> It was also pointed out that the FEC format, as a degenerate case, can also
>> perform retransmission (by creating a FEC packet that covers only a single
>> source packet).  This may be able to resolve some of the annoyances of the
>> RFC 4588 RTX format, notably in a BUNDLE context — it avoids payload type
>> explosion (because the source PT is in the packet), and gives you stream
>> association automatically.
>
>True, I will add some text related to this. However, if we want to use
>this in rtcweb, rtp-usage may want to express an opinion on using this
>in addition to RFC4588?
>
>
>-- 
>http://www.callstats.io

[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)