Re: [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-08.txt

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 11 October 2013 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD5021F9FB1 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 02:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.365
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.766, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 MGo+9+vM0TUw for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 02:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4EE21E80C1 for <payload@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 02:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7fcf8e0000062b8-84-5257c746fe22
Received: from ESESSHC009.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 81.35.25272.647C7525; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:39:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:39:18 +0200
Message-ID: <5257C78B.8070303@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:40:27 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
References: <20131011092811.4914.9082.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131011092811.4914.9082.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrNJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvra7b8fAgg52/rSwuXTzL5MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujPW/b7EWTFKu+PH1JFMD4wnpLkZODgkBE4nmLX2MELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hASOMkpMm3KKBcJZzigxfclDsCpeAW2J/Yc+gNksAqoS0zd+Ygex2QQsJG7+aGQD sUUFgiXat39lg6gXlDg58wnQIA4OEQFNiUffhUDCwgI2EvenQZQICdhLnJ38mhnE5hRwkNiy 9DErxEGSEtsWHQMbzyygJzHlagsjhC0v0bx1NjNEr7ZEQ1MH6wRGwVlIts1C0jILScsCRuZV jBzFqcVJuelGBpsYgQF4cMtvix2Ml//aHGKU5mBREuf9+NY5SEggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1 +BAjEwenVAPjfZ2KK/3h+g/K7qrqbJz0ffn+Xo/7RyZPcG30kv+tnlv412YzV5FjyomuMN6g HZ2Xnuiff8IcI1g2r0Blyxz51KtsUy6I7bLeWGB4qYGd9//hNHXLzBXznG2uflS/77lIwbXK +dD3/fkVx5e583u0PjP1ySr/tOLZ1FwT04innmYx6t9fNn1SYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAaiE95w4C AAA=
Subject: Re: [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-08.txt
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:39:36 -0000

WG,

This update is triggered by comments I received from the shepherd (Ali)
as result of my request for publication. It is mostly editorials. I want
to point out the few parts where the meaning of the text has been changed:

Section 3.2.2

   FEC Framework:  The Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework
      [RFC6363] defines how to use FEC protection for arbitrary packet
      flows.  This framework can be applied for RTP/RTCP packet flows,
      including using RTP for transmission of repair symbols, an example
      is the RTP Payload for Raptor FEC [RFC6682].

   RTP Retransmission:  The RTP retransmission scheme [RFC4588] is used
      for semi-reliability of the most important RTP packets in a media
      stream.  The level of reliability between semi and in practice
      full reliability depends on the targeted properties and situation
      where paramters such as round-trip time (RTT) allowed additional
      overhead, and allowable delay.  It often requires the application
      to be quite delay tolerant as a minimum of one round-trip time
      plus processing delay is required to perform a retransmission.
      Thus it is mostly suitable for streaming applications but may also
      be usable in certain other cases when operating in networks with
      short round-trip times.


   RFC 3611:  The RTCP Extended Reports (RTCP XR) [RFC3611] consists of
      a framework for reports sent within RTCP.  It can easily be
      extended by defining new report formats, which has and is
      occuring.  The XRBLOCK WG in IETF is chartered (at the time of
      writing) with defining new report formats.  The list of specified
      formats are available in IANA's RTCP XR Block Type registry (http:
      //www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-block-types/rtcp-xr-block-
      types.xhtml).  The report formats that are defined in RFC3611
      provide report information on packet loss, packet duplication,
      packet reception times, RTCP statistics summary and VoIP Quality.
      [RFC3611] also defines a mechanism that allows receivers to
      calculate the RTT to other session participants when used.


The spelling errors (paramters, and occuring) has been fixed in my
source and will be fixed in the next submission.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2013-10-11 11:28, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title           : How to Write an RTP Payload Format
> 	Author(s)       : Magnus Westerlund
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-08.txt
> 	Pages           : 58
> 	Date            : 2013-10-11
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document contains information on how to best write an RTP
>    payload format specification.  It provides reading tips, design
>    practices, and practical tips on how to produce an RTP payload format
>    specification quickly and with good results.  A template is also
>    included with instructions.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-08
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-08
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------