From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:26:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E756128C415; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:26:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.115 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.014, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xS6-2FrRsKxQ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:26:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3458528C516; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:26:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5FF28C49F for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:26:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P7JEvikiiRCq for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:25:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from server515.appriver.com (unknown [72.32.253.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A58C128C5EC for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:24:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.2.0) with PIPE id 2164982; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:24:34 -0600 Received: from FE1.exchange.rackspace.com ([72.32.49.5] verified) by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 2164965; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:24:33 -0600 Received: from 34093-EVS4C1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.65]) by FE1.exchange.rackspace.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:24:39 -0600 Received: from 76.222.192.62 ([76.222.192.62]) by 34093-EVS4C1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.58]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.mailseat.com ([192.168.1.146]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:24:38 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122 Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:24:33 -0800 From: Mark Watson To: Greg Shepherd , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items Thread-Index: Ach9W9PcEqilQulPEdy3HQAX8sJN9g== In-Reply-To: <38c19b540802270927t30b3d8f4uaae08019ee047c16@mail.gmail.com> Mime-version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2008 18:24:39.0221 (UTC) FILETIME=[D791C650:01C87D5B] X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Primary: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide X-GBUdb-Analysis: 1, 192.168.1.65, Ugly c=0.533984 p=-1 Source White X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-4084-c X-Note: Spam Tests Failed: X-Country-Path: UNKNOWN->PRIVATE->UNITED STATES->UNITED STATES X-Note-Sending-IP: 72.32.49.5 X-Note-Reverse-DNS: fe1.exchange.rackspace.com X-Note-WHTLIST: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: User Rule Hits: X-Note: Global Rule Hits: 75 76 122 X-Note: Mail Class: VALID Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Greg, If there's time, I'd like to make a short presentation about the DVB AL-FEC scheme, and how it would fit into our framework. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to submit a draft on this, but there are some decisions which the group needs to make on how best to proceed with this, particularly regarding the overlap with the Cisco parity FEC draft. ...Mark On 2/27/08 9:27 AM, "Greg Shepherd" wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >> Please send them to Marshal or me. I'll compile the agenda and send it back >> out. >> >> Thanks, >> Greg > > The FECFrame agenda for Philly is now posted: > > IETF 71, FECFrame WG Agenda > > Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5min Chairs > FECFrame Proto Team update - 10 mins Chairs > FECFrame Config Signaling - 15mins Rajiv Asati > draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling > SDP Elements - 15 mins Ali Begen > draft-begen-fecframe-sdp-elements > COP3 2D - 15 mins Ali Begen > draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme > FEC Grouping issues in SDP - 15mins Ali Begen > draft-begen-mmusic-fec-grouping-issues'' > > Please let me know if there's something missing we need to add. > > Thanks, > Greg > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:31:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281D528C519; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:31:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.819 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.819 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fNbT8jU8I7vd; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:31:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7BA28C4F6; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:30:58 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E64F28C203 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:30:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NiA8X+XdNBrF for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB25328C40E for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:30:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so42522and.122 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:30:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=6cAjFWohgTbCrV9z6ywZ1LMQcWuRYeqytb5ppbWZSqk=; b=GzTMG1/eCslgczeTvrzYpYfkiwN3WLt5bZzurCXD0jWHIeMvw6HrTdRbXd+LnqXDgN01/9fTtDz1GlthLH8xLzMTR903yr8t9ghjoPPk9/UN3tXCerz70rDv7mn/2sLJsUDItX49ZNEDM5y9pExRw91DmXmuvqQQ2lqqZn57QGw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=rN9slBqkTuxx9A+GDD25bX6rReCGBXs0gIBvjIttXTEzgCqWv05F0JzCzflodvsJuM59d1RIpRc4LahAo7kp2++jXwLeaiB99z/4lDxJGEJqX2sKogEIWhUrYU8d8A1QslgCKY96xZzscpkqUy5D7iemMeXnj9JsnO+oXfz+Q6U= Received: by 10.100.34.16 with SMTP id h16mr514789anh.111.1204569033625; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.125.10 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:30:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540803031030w1d11ff00rd72766f09071671c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:30:33 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Mark Watson" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <38c19b540802270927t30b3d8f4uaae08019ee047c16@mail.gmail.com> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > Greg, > > If there's time, I'd like to make a short presentation about the DVB AL-FEC > scheme, and how it would fit into our framework. > > Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to submit a draft on this, but there > are some decisions which the group needs to make on how best to proceed with > this, particularly regarding the overlap with the Cisco parity FEC draft. > > ...Mark Okay. Frame this as a discussion and not a draft - since nothing is yet for public consumption. How much time do you want? Greg > On 2/27/08 9:27 AM, "Greg Shepherd" wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > >> Please send them to Marshal or me. I'll compile the agenda and send it back > >> out. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Greg > > > > The FECFrame agenda for Philly is now posted: > > > > IETF 71, FECFrame WG Agenda > > > > Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5min Chairs > > FECFrame Proto Team update - 10 mins Chairs > > FECFrame Config Signaling - 15mins Rajiv Asati > > draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling > > SDP Elements - 15 mins Ali Begen > > draft-begen-fecframe-sdp-elements > > COP3 2D - 15 mins Ali Begen > > draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme > > FEC Grouping issues in SDP - 15mins Ali Begen > > draft-begen-mmusic-fec-grouping-issues'' > > > > Please let me know if there's something missing we need to add. > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:41:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BBF28C404; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:41:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.989 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GOIxDGEnX-x1; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:41:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70DF28C377; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:41:18 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348BA28C377 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:41:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qI51RLITLLMp for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:41:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from server515.appriver.com (unknown [72.32.253.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C076028C27A for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:41:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.2.0) with PIPE id 2171995; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:40:57 -0600 Received: from FE1.exchange.rackspace.com ([72.32.49.5] verified) by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 2171944; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:40:54 -0600 Received: from 34093-EVS4C1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.65]) by FE1.exchange.rackspace.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:41:00 -0600 Received: from 76.222.192.62 ([76.222.192.62]) by 34093-EVS4C1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.58]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.mailseat.com ([192.168.1.146]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:40:59 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122 Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:40:56 -0800 From: Mark Watson To: Greg Shepherd Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items Thread-Index: Ach9Xh3GXGSKbulREdy3HQAX8sJN9g== In-Reply-To: <38c19b540803031030w1d11ff00rd72766f09071671c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2008 18:41:00.0277 (UTC) FILETIME=[20530A50:01C87D5E] X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Primary: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide X-GBUdb-Analysis: 1, 192.168.1.65, Ugly c=0.555345 p=-1 Source White X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-4927-c X-Note: Spam Tests Failed: X-Country-Path: UNKNOWN->PRIVATE->UNITED STATES->UNITED STATES X-Note-Sending-IP: 72.32.49.5 X-Note-Reverse-DNS: fe1.exchange.rackspace.com X-Note-WHTLIST: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: User Rule Hits: X-Note: Global Rule Hits: 75 76 122 X-Note: Mail Class: VALID Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org How much time is there ? 15mins ? ...Mark On 3/3/08 10:30 AM, "Greg Shepherd" wrote: > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Mark Watson wrote: >> Greg, >> >> If there's time, I'd like to make a short presentation about the DVB AL-FEC >> scheme, and how it would fit into our framework. >> >> Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to submit a draft on this, but there >> are some decisions which the group needs to make on how best to proceed with >> this, particularly regarding the overlap with the Cisco parity FEC draft. >> >> ...Mark > > Okay. Frame this as a discussion and not a draft - since nothing is > yet for public consumption. How much time do you want? > > Greg > >> On 2/27/08 9:27 AM, "Greg Shepherd" wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: >>>> Please send them to Marshal or me. I'll compile the agenda and send it back >>>> out. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Greg >>> >>> The FECFrame agenda for Philly is now posted: >>> >>> IETF 71, FECFrame WG Agenda >>> >>> Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5min Chairs >>> FECFrame Proto Team update - 10 mins Chairs >>> FECFrame Config Signaling - 15mins Rajiv Asati >>> draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling >>> SDP Elements - 15 mins Ali Begen >>> draft-begen-fecframe-sdp-elements >>> COP3 2D - 15 mins Ali Begen >>> draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme >>> FEC Grouping issues in SDP - 15mins Ali Begen >>> draft-begen-mmusic-fec-grouping-issues'' >>> >>> Please let me know if there's something missing we need to add. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Greg >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fecframe mailing list >>> Fecframe@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >>> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 3 11:16:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF423A6CE0; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:16:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.373 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zjSRA-9EQggd; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:16:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2513A6BBF; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:16:51 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572EC3A6B9C for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:16:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I64XAqTx1Eoj for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29073A6B04 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so339716wxd.31 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:16:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=haZ9TqYCdjxFfwuJp7Tm4l5LOFEt4isfzH3Ljgd0le0=; b=jg+9bCyxajEsYeLMYiiQnSrg1IR9gp2AUKkV7hM5fJhWK0s2wcSt3FNe2OTIuBhe/lg8WeSc/LKas9Wmg0XS/wjraKsfJZOXh9tCVrWrsYWi0aSgOn/m3X5K1l/tuLGL0ViACMfQ7RmxKH/Kjp9PJbnVccTtYwlQ2PzmfXszR9o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XGh7zSgcd+8af/jEEOCKzMy3Yx2uHs07kacgRHxLCptS5u8U57Z2X+gixFydRvO/RC1NfUYrDSkWRWBsVLkx+GDvcRgbab/ydVVYO0sJY1X/2BUptulLcR3x/Vpwj/Ftm6DcB4eVLgkYBOdEixi82KbommUzvoRncI4mufW2noI= Received: by 10.100.172.17 with SMTP id u17mr801238ane.2.1204571795401; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:16:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.125.10 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:16:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38c19b540803031116n5fb0045dn184b409d08da3b3e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:16:35 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Mark Watson" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <38c19b540803031030w1d11ff00rd72766f09071671c@mail.gmail.com> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > How much time is there ? 15mins ? > > ...Mark We have a 2hr slot and currently 1:15 filled. So you can have a nice long 15mins. at the end. ;-) Greg > On 3/3/08 10:30 AM, "Greg Shepherd" wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > >> Greg, > >> > >> If there's time, I'd like to make a short presentation about the DVB AL-FEC > >> scheme, and how it would fit into our framework. > >> > >> Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to submit a draft on this, but there > >> are some decisions which the group needs to make on how best to proceed with > >> this, particularly regarding the overlap with the Cisco parity FEC draft. > >> > >> ...Mark > > > > Okay. Frame this as a discussion and not a draft - since nothing is > > yet for public consumption. How much time do you want? > > > > Greg > > > >> On 2/27/08 9:27 AM, "Greg Shepherd" wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > >>>> Please send them to Marshal or me. I'll compile the agenda and send it back > >>>> out. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Greg > >>> > >>> The FECFrame agenda for Philly is now posted: > >>> > >>> IETF 71, FECFrame WG Agenda > >>> > >>> Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5min Chairs > >>> FECFrame Proto Team update - 10 mins Chairs > >>> FECFrame Config Signaling - 15mins Rajiv Asati > >>> draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling > >>> SDP Elements - 15 mins Ali Begen > >>> draft-begen-fecframe-sdp-elements > >>> COP3 2D - 15 mins Ali Begen > >>> draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme > >>> FEC Grouping issues in SDP - 15mins Ali Begen > >>> draft-begen-mmusic-fec-grouping-issues'' > >>> > >>> Please let me know if there's something missing we need to add. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Greg > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Fecframe mailing list > >>> Fecframe@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Sun Mar 9 13:33:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA93A3A6BAB; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.534, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gT1+PCyirGuP; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB6EA3A6875; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:33:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB853A6875 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:33:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NBiWrsNPOJDW for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968C23A6850 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2008 13:30:43 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m29KUhAQ023378; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:30:43 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m29KUhXK013725; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:30:43 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:30:43 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:30:37 -0700 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406A9020A@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <38c19b540802270927t30b3d8f4uaae08019ee047c16@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items Thread-Index: Ach5Z0l9qNVEeEn+S86gi1n2eDIlNQIvOPHQ References: <38c19b540802251809i626e4823we716c35d6074d816@mail.gmail.com> <38c19b540802270927t30b3d8f4uaae08019ee047c16@mail.gmail.com> From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: "Greg Shepherd" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2008 20:30:43.0452 (UTC) FILETIME=[72AE53C0:01C88224] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1485; t=1205094643; x=1205958643; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20Call=20for=20FECFrame=20WG =20agenda=20items |Sender:=20; bh=K0dO/BtGN9agS3Ex2hQK50Hb+8oGzNOQfl5fBjLtlE4=; b=I5L6MHW1TMwMTBNFU6AhsT4lrzhdmbisOwu3WbrouxsYUZEE1CXai1dnKk riNoG18uznDVsbBmK9GcJfr5agI+ctsYEgtKIvb+Ky7VoPBqY+zZkHOj6ry4 BI0G5fPezj; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Greg, If a change in the agenda is possible, I would like to present the SDP draft and FEC grouping draft back to back since they are connected to each other. Then, I can present the 1d/2d draft. -acbegen > -----Original Message----- > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:27 AM > To: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Greg Shepherd > wrote: > > Please send them to Marshal or me. I'll compile the agenda > and send it back out. > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > The FECFrame agenda for Philly is now posted: > > IETF 71, FECFrame WG Agenda > > Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5min Chairs > FECFrame Proto Team update - 10 mins Chairs > FECFrame Config Signaling - 15mins Rajiv Asati > draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling > SDP Elements - 15 mins Ali Begen > draft-begen-fecframe-sdp-elements > COP3 2D - 15 mins Ali Begen > draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme > FEC Grouping issues in SDP - 15mins Ali Begen > draft-begen-mmusic-fec-grouping-issues'' > > Please let me know if there's something missing we need to add. > > Thanks, > Greg > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Sun Mar 9 14:38:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCBE3A69F6; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:38:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BWN5I+eLuqAZ; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13EB43A6850; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:38:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721EE3A6850 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:38:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cw+hmAEIWHsk for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.240]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E583A67AE for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so465042and.122 for ; Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:36:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=N9kUtvdUV50d7WsnQe/iRelm5thI1knW4f0dsh+iUdw=; b=rJzj5c+ITULX25jXAksk5dM0u/SFWrlKmOhYKMawG5CfN7+PSPzb3dl3BWSNuLe0PKYFwnwFWap1I6+BFvo/xm5U56WdrjOTqM6Fw+H5HgOxUqyDwg/B7SNZX7zNO4Cvw7ptg8vqAPv56yx9Y4ZRj2sq3tazrAfeWIruXniJof0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Qgn27dwP4Zt/6M/LdG/BvPXP/r2RGeoYEyZUmqOgBW+flX7XKxT7pK01SgHeDYVDiIAeS9AXzTP0+E4fiGxrtrsM9akMIUMwPKxeXEZQu7tnUqqpLki+XkaX781LdEwzk0hQUV/Mt2fSVPeWAPFHwtVdYorogqg3xvR1ps2GPCY= Received: by 10.100.44.4 with SMTP id r4mr9555213anr.77.1205098585341; Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.125.10 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <38c19b540803091436m84df99er14ae2709d6e96c7a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:36:25 -0800 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Ali Begen (abegen)" In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406A9020A@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <38c19b540802251809i626e4823we716c35d6074d816@mail.gmail.com> <38c19b540802270927t30b3d8f4uaae08019ee047c16@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406A9020A@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org No trouble. I'll update the new agenda later today. Greg On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > Hi Greg, > > If a change in the agenda is possible, I would like to present the SDP > draft and FEC grouping draft back to back since they are connected to > each other. Then, I can present the 1d/2d draft. > > > -acbegen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org > > [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:27 AM > > To: fecframe@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Call for FECFrame WG agenda items > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Greg Shepherd > > wrote: > > > Please send them to Marshal or me. I'll compile the agenda > > and send it back out. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Greg > > > > The FECFrame agenda for Philly is now posted: > > > > IETF 71, FECFrame WG Agenda > > > > Introduction, Agenda Bashing - 5min Chairs > > FECFrame Proto Team update - 10 mins Chairs > > FECFrame Config Signaling - 15mins Rajiv Asati > > draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling > > SDP Elements - 15 mins Ali Begen > > draft-begen-fecframe-sdp-elements > > COP3 2D - 15 mins Ali Begen > > draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme > > FEC Grouping issues in SDP - 15mins Ali Begen > > draft-begen-mmusic-fec-grouping-issues'' > > > > Please let me know if there's something missing we need to add. > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:21:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2432C3A686D; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:21:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oCovh53hjbmn; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337083A6D3A; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:18:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822643A6D3A for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:18:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GunB9M4BDKZt for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk (mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk [130.209.249.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6647F3A6DCD for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.247.112]:52107) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1JYlZS-0006UL-TQ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:13:54 +0000 In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406895B05@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> References: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406895B05@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: From: Colin Perkins Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:14:02 +0000 To: Ali Begen (abegen) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FW: New Version Notification for draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Ali, On 19 Feb 2008, at 02:03, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: > New draft on using partiy codes and their RTP payload format. > > http://www.tools.ietf.org/id/draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity- > scheme-00.txt I'm assuming this will be presented in AVT at some point? One comment: requiring the SSRC to be the same as the SSRC of the protected RTP stream requires the FEC stream to be sent separately from the protected stream (i.e. on a separate port). This was (just about) acceptable for RFC 5109, but does limit flexibility. You might consider allocating the SSRC in the usual way (random assignment with collision detection), and using the RTCP CNAME to associate the media stream and the FEC stream. This is more complex, but gives the flexibility to either multiplex FEC and media data on the same port, or to multiplex multiple FEC streams on a single port. -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:10:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61423A6A2F; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:10:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.746 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m1yU6j1T-3Jy; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCA328C334; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF44028C169 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:10:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2221Cku4nY6d for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from multicasttech.com (lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086C03A6B2C for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 10619731; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:07:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406895B05@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: From: Marshall Eubanks Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:07:48 -0400 To: Colin Perkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FW: New Version Notification for draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On Mar 10, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Colin Perkins wrote: > Ali, > > On 19 Feb 2008, at 02:03, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: >> New draft on using partiy codes and their RTP payload format. >> >> http://www.tools.ietf.org/id/draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity- >> scheme-00.txt > > I'm assuming this will be presented in AVT at some point? That has been discussed and is the plan, assuming you'll have us. Regards Marshall > > One comment: requiring the SSRC to be the same as the SSRC of the > protected RTP stream requires the FEC stream to be sent separately > from the protected stream (i.e. on a separate port). This was (just > about) acceptable for RFC 5109, but does limit flexibility. You might > consider allocating the SSRC in the usual way (random assignment with > collision detection), and using the RTCP CNAME to associate the media > stream and the FEC stream. This is more complex, but gives the > flexibility to either multiplex FEC and media data on the same port, > or to multiplex multiple FEC streams on a single port. > > -- > Colin Perkins > http://csperkins.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:02:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B49A28C295; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:02:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aOb8In+IR3rZ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9603428C4FE; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:01:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13AED28C4FF for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:01:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oBvcyE6HSDi6 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk (mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk [130.209.249.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9E93A6C7D for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([62.49.4.249]:60185 helo=[192.168.0.4]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1JYnCR-0003TE-Rj; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:58:15 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406895B05@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: From: Colin Perkins Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:58:23 +0000 To: Marshall Eubanks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] FW: New Version Notification for draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On 10 Mar 2008, at 18:07, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Mar 10, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Colin Perkins wrote: >> On 19 Feb 2008, at 02:03, Ali Begen (abegen) wrote: >>> New draft on using partiy codes and their RTP payload format. >>> >>> http://www.tools.ietf.org/id/draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity- >>> scheme-00.txt >> >> I'm assuming this will be presented in AVT at some point? > > That has been discussed and is the plan, assuming you'll have us. Sure - although looking at the AVT agenda, it may have to be in Dublin! -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:30:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A4F28C430; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:30:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.432, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bNTUTe3FuJPw; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA393A6D4F; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:30:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29A93A6C3C for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:30:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HPFRiZj3YEgS for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk (mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk [130.209.249.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4776E28C1BA for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([62.49.4.249]:60516 helo=[192.168.0.4]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1JYnfU-0004qF-UD for fecframe@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:28:17 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <6B96DA7F-24C6-4315-A3CE-9269C22E8452@csperkins.org> To: fecframe@ietf.org From: Colin Perkins Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:28:24 +0000 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Subject: [Fecframe] Jabber? X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Is there a jabber room for the current meeting? Colin _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:41:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC37F3A6D4D; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:41:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.761 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.761 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.324, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aH7E3FMPWXS6; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:41:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE2E3A6B56; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:41:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C47F3A6BF3 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:41:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6leIdYZDaV8R for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk (mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk [130.209.249.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB243A6B56 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([62.49.4.249]:60562 helo=[192.168.0.4]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1JYnpT-0005X7-QL; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:38:35 +0000 In-Reply-To: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B604FE6C2A@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B604FE6C2A@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <1E69BB31-B7EA-4FAC-ACD5-3CEC913B7A40@csperkins.org> From: Colin Perkins Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:38:42 +0000 To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On 26 Feb 2008, at 20:06, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > I would like to request a timeslot (15mins) to present the 'FECframe > Config signaling' draft. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval interacts poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. Cheers, Colin [by email, since the jabber doesn't seem to be in use] _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:00:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9424F3A6D6B; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:00:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hBM+OtkQUUnY; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4967A3A6CD0; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:00:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA693A6C3C for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:00:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C+fzjxmWc03O for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FC228C147 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:00:34 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,476,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="1221204" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2008 15:58:13 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2AJwDc1010623; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:58:13 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m2AJvjb1022432; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:58:13 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:57:47 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:56:53 -0400 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6050FF59F@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <1E69BB31-B7EA-4FAC-ACD5-3CEC913B7A40@csperkins.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 Thread-Index: AciC5n3kjjHBku+8Q3S9VBL34ci7jQAAM1+w From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Colin Perkins" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2008 19:57:47.0774 (UTC) FILETIME=[037F89E0:01C882E9] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=943; t=1205179093; x=1206043093; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20Fecframe=20Digest,=20Vol=2 025,=20Issue=209 |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Colin=20Perkins=22=20; bh=eXM7gojazPTH8swyjlup7Wjtl6zXojKcdGNqTwYwhWc=; b=DCj2CFYiLFjk9di61nF0Zvy0pxmY3g5xzGX1VC8/XoKcATSYxSoYX60wRd peyDmuqAZBVv6oxMFTHUv/VyZlF4mY/LxjnOwF4raAd25vu7MrtvkF0mYmaG BJGwymPXBB; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Colin, Thanks for the feedback. Could you please provide more context ? Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 > > On 26 Feb 2008, at 20:06, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > I would like to request a timeslot (15mins) to present the 'FECframe > > Config signaling' draft. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 > > SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval interacts > poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any > consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the > (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. > > Cheers, > Colin [by email, since the jabber doesn't seem to be in use] > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:09:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610E328C0F8; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:09:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.638 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mcaCRbCm+LGP; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B56028C242; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:09:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F073A67F9 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:09:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xob+AECtnh4b for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from multicasttech.com (lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BE83A6DCD for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 10621070; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:05:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6050FF59F@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6050FF59F@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <031AF9F1-8EA6-40B0-AE4A-B3B0BFEC6780@multicasttech.com> From: Marshall Eubanks Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:05:32 -0400 To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: Colin Perkins , fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On Mar 10, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > Hi Colin, > > Thanks for the feedback. Could you please provide more context ? From the jabber logs Colin : SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval interacts poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. Colin : internet-media guides Colin : Problem is that multicast state times about, because SAP sends so infrequently. [he means "times out"] Regards Marshall > > Cheers, > Rajiv > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) >> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 >> >> On 26 Feb 2008, at 20:06, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: >>> I would like to request a timeslot (15mins) to present the 'FECframe >>> Config signaling' draft. >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 >> >> SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval interacts >> poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any >> consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the >> (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. >> >> Cheers, >> Colin [by email, since the jabber doesn't seem to be in use] >> > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:20:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE493A6DAD; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:20:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.317 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.317 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.880, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Aa72Hre2Dmhp; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857C63A6D63; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:20:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817C328C2C9 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:20:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mvUxnRN6Xz84 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B63528C3A2 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:19:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,476,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="8495811" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2008 13:17:01 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2AKH16p015082; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:17:01 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m2AKGaM5027980; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:17:00 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:16:44 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:15:50 -0400 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6050FF5C4@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <031AF9F1-8EA6-40B0-AE4A-B3B0BFEC6780@multicasttech.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 Thread-Index: AciC6ipHkkSsknxXTnivxLIdqUrZxAAADDeg From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Marshall Eubanks" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2008 20:16:44.0513 (UTC) FILETIME=[A90C2510:01C882EB] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3175; t=1205180221; x=1206044221; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20Fecframe=20Digest,=20Vol=2 025,=20Issue=209 |Sender:=20; bh=E98gnn56lUzz2QxfoIkGsJF0FO0haG+hrGkwM6uZmLQ=; b=V1demNI6bsqO5kXfFWP3C7Adsnid7VE6wxWpkdPV4urg7cpfzBgyjkXXGd o027GnkttqlB3emwXhaj2x6Jhd89rFUzhYR8AWaNI/YsmPaMotjaLGsIONLn RL/7HqA28z; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: Colin Perkins , fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thanks for expanding it, Marshall. The cited problem is one of the reasons why section 4.1.1 of the draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 includes simpler interval definition so as to avoid having SAP to calculate the interval in an adaptive manner. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4.1.1. Sender Procedure .... The sender must periodically send the 'SAP announcement' message. This is required so that the receiver doesn't purge the cached entry(s) from the database and doesn't trigger the deletion of FEC Framework configuration information. While the time interval between repetitions of an announcement can be calculated as per the very sophisticated but complex formula explained in RFC2974, the preferred and simpler mean is to let the user specify the time interval from the range of 1-60 mins with suggested default being 10 mins. The implementation of signaling protocol should provide the flexibility to the operator to choose the complex method over the simpler method of determining the SAP announcement time interval. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:06 PM > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > Cc: Colin Perkins; fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 > > > On Mar 10, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > > Hi Colin, > > > > Thanks for the feedback. Could you please provide more context ? > > From the jabber logs > > Colin : SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval > interacts > poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any > consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the > (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. > > Colin : internet-media guides > > Colin : Problem is that multicast state times about, because SAP > sends so infrequently. > > [he means "times out"] > > Regards > Marshall > > > > > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] > >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM > >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > >> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 > >> > >> On 26 Feb 2008, at 20:06, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > >>> I would like to request a timeslot (15mins) to present > the 'FECframe > >>> Config signaling' draft. > >>> > >>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 > >> > >> SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval > interacts > >> poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any > >> consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the > >> (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Colin [by email, since the jabber doesn't seem to be in use] > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:48:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CDE28C231; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:48:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.746 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06e+N58mkoUF; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044FC3A6CC8; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BFD93A63CA for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:48:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JL3XfmPvZi1l for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk (mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk [130.209.249.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9709128C2E4 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vpn3.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.254.3]:52861) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1JYpne-0001fD-5P; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:44:50 +0000 In-Reply-To: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6050FF59F@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6050FF59F@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: From: Colin Perkins Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:36:09 +0000 To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Rajiv, There were issues with the inter-packet interval in SAP being larger than one of the time-out values used in the multicast routing protocol (either PIM-SM or MSDP, I forget which), resulting in SAP being deterministically lost. Colin On 10 Mar 2008, at 19:56, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > Hi Colin, > > Thanks for the feedback. Could you please provide more context ? > > Cheers, > Rajiv > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) >> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 >> >> On 26 Feb 2008, at 20:06, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: >>> I would like to request a timeslot (15mins) to present the 'FECframe >>> Config signaling' draft. >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 >> >> SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval interacts >> poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any >> consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the >> (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. >> >> Cheers, >> Colin [by email, since the jabber doesn't seem to be in use] _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 15:42:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9AA3A6A35; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:42:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.14 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.703, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fOnQJqWt2zgd; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:42:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A623A6813; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:42:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A8ED3A6A35 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:42:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IAeIfwFjddRD for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290853A67B6 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 281B52049E for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:39:38 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b019cbb000004ec0-f7-47d5b8aa30e9 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.124]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 0FF4B20242 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:39:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:39:37 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([153.88.48.6]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:39:35 +0100 Message-ID: <47D5B8A1.9050402@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:39:29 -0400 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "fecframe@ietf.org" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2008 22:39:36.0782 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E8496E0:01C882FF] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Fecframe] My comments around draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi, In today's WG session I did appear quite negative to this draft. I am sorry that I wasn't better prepared and had read and thought about this before. Let me try to put down my comments here and with some hindsight. - Appropriateness in the FEC framework: Yes, this does fit the framework as a rather speciallized FEC code that results in one repair stream for every SSRC in a single RTP session. That is quite far from a more generic FEC scheme that can take multiple streams and combine them etc. In fact it is very similar to the already existing RTP payload level FEC mechanisms like ULP (RFC5109). Thus, it seem to leverage very little of the framework and instead be very much something that could be done in AVT. - The selection of RTP/UDP as repair stream transport layer. I don't think this really is a FEC scheme but rather a instantiation of the FEC framework using a component that haven't been much discussed to my knowledge. I do understand that it can provide feedback on how well the repair stream is delivered to the receiver(s). Which actually is a good point for general deployment. However in that case one maybe need to consider what general feedback that a FEC framework instance should provide towards the sender, i.e. including both source and repair stream related statistics. Something to think about and actually should make it way into the framework. So I primarily would like to get the issue of the repair stream feedback mechanism and what the WG think is suitable for this before this is adopted anywhere. Cheers Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 11 03:35:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E4E3A6D81; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:35:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.249, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HyQASpkIDqw3; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB8228C2C6; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:35:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D62AF3A6D86 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:35:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ImXGjs7+J4dF for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk (mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk [130.209.249.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823EC3A6D81 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.247.112]:54904) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1JZ1nV-0007fl-CX; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:33:29 +0000 In-Reply-To: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6050FF5C4@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> References: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6050FF5C4@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <82E62DB5-217C-4795-9100-50C24CB3E363@csperkins.org> From: Colin Perkins Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:33:38 +0000 To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Rajiv, The problem isn't the adaptation, it's the length of the interval. Colin On 10 Mar 2008, at 20:15, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > Thanks for expanding it, Marshall. > > The cited problem is one of the reasons why section 4.1.1 of the > draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 includes simpler interval > definition so as to avoid having SAP to calculate the interval in an > adaptive manner. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 4.1.1. Sender Procedure > > .... > > The sender must periodically send the 'SAP announcement' message. > This is required so that the receiver doesn't purge the cached > entry(s) from the database and doesn't trigger the deletion of FEC > Framework configuration information. While the time interval > between > repetitions of an announcement can be calculated as per the very > sophisticated but complex formula explained in RFC2974, the > preferred > > and simpler mean is to let the user specify the time interval from > the range of 1-60 mins with suggested default being 10 mins. The > implementation of signaling protocol should provide the flexibility > to the operator to choose the complex method over the simpler > method > of determining the SAP announcement time interval. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Cheers, > Rajiv > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:06 PM >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) >> Cc: Colin Perkins; fecframe@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 >> >> >> On Mar 10, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: >> >>> Hi Colin, >>> >>> Thanks for the feedback. Could you please provide more context ? >> >> From the jabber logs >> >> Colin : SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval >> interacts >> poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any >> consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the >> (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. >> >> Colin : internet-media guides >> >> Colin : Problem is that multicast state times about, because SAP >> sends so infrequently. >> >> [he means "times out"] >> >> Regards >> Marshall >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Rajiv >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] >>>> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM >>>> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) >>>> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 >>>> >>>> On 26 Feb 2008, at 20:06, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: >>>>> I would like to request a timeslot (15mins) to present >> the 'FECframe >>>>> Config signaling' draft. >>>>> >>>>> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 >>>> >>>> SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval >> interacts >>>> poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any >>>> consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the >>>> (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Colin [by email, since the jabber doesn't seem to be in use] >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fecframe mailing list >>> Fecframe@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 11 08:48:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33823A6A43; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:48:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.672, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y36SBeNA20pA; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88953A6ADB; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:48:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C743A6ADB for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:48:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9jhzxVABEH8c for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA1E3A67B2 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:48:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,480,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="1326343" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2008 11:46:03 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2BFk3HT008121; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:46:03 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m2BFjuuI005127; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:46:03 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:45:45 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:44:48 -0400 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B605164696@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <82E62DB5-217C-4795-9100-50C24CB3E363@csperkins.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 Thread-Index: AciDY2FZSSzhV1gfTkOILryWOWA4WgAK0moA From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Colin Perkins" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2008 15:45:45.0176 (UTC) FILETIME=[F823F580:01C8838E] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4287; t=1205250363; x=1206114363; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20Fecframe=20Digest,=20Vol=2 025,=20Issue=209 |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Colin=20Perkins=22=20; bh=hZtyONw1wlwUp/LpYoIuSLQiiyDzzo2lPUHUazvJWHM=; b=knmvf+TpY7cY3PMhgnu7LR1veXx4qGDz6w54vnMAy9aCT/wGBzinEzb1Ji ST/Bf5tlbMvPCZJZxIgGCIiRhrcoNOENwY/XIhGjgVqH5bwwN8ZGQ/9ef4wY MnrEgr5AhM; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Colin, Agreed. Perhaps, the default interval (in the draft) should be changed to 2 mins (or less than 3 mins, which is the default timeout for an mroute on a router) to better handle it. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:34 AM > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 > > Rajiv, > > The problem isn't the adaptation, it's the length of the interval. > Colin > > > On 10 Mar 2008, at 20:15, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > Thanks for expanding it, Marshall. > > > > The cited problem is one of the reasons why section 4.1.1 of the > > draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 includes simpler interval > > definition so as to avoid having SAP to calculate the interval in an > > adaptive manner. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 4.1.1. Sender Procedure > > > > .... > > > > The sender must periodically send the 'SAP announcement' message. > > This is required so that the receiver doesn't purge the cached > > entry(s) from the database and doesn't trigger the > deletion of FEC > > Framework configuration information. While the time interval > > between > > repetitions of an announcement can be calculated as per the very > > sophisticated but complex formula explained in RFC2974, the > > preferred > > > > and simpler mean is to let the user specify the time > interval from > > the range of 1-60 mins with suggested default being 10 mins. The > > implementation of signaling protocol should provide the > flexibility > > to the operator to choose the complex method over the simpler > > method > > of determining the SAP announcement time interval. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:06 PM > >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > >> Cc: Colin Perkins; fecframe@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 > >> > >> > >> On Mar 10, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Colin, > >>> > >>> Thanks for the feedback. Could you please provide more context ? > >> > >> From the jabber logs > >> > >> Colin : SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval > >> interacts > >> poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any > >> consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the > >> (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. > >> > >> Colin : internet-media guides > >> > >> Colin : Problem is that multicast state times about, because SAP > >> sends so infrequently. > >> > >> [he means "times out"] > >> > >> Regards > >> Marshall > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Rajiv > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] > >>>> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM > >>>> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > >>>> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 > >>>> > >>>> On 26 Feb 2008, at 20:06, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > >>>>> I would like to request a timeslot (15mins) to present > >> the 'FECframe > >>>>> Config signaling' draft. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 > >>>> > >>>> SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval > >> interacts > >>>> poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any > >>>> consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the > >>>> (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Colin [by email, since the jabber doesn't seem to be in use] > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Fecframe mailing list > >>> Fecframe@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > -- > Colin Perkins > http://csperkins.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 11 11:35:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7A028C3C5; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:35:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.128 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.691, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zcjFoRLfVTFg; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEE328C39B; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:35:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221AD3A68D8 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:35:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ARUovl4Ns8b for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB19528C36E for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2008 11:33:24 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2BIXOWN008034; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:33:24 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m2BIXLrt005017; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:33:24 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:33:21 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:32:26 -0400 Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B6051647DF@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 Thread-Index: AciC+AJE8NH09d3dSgWDZPMK22kxoAArh43Q From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: "Colin Perkins" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2008 18:33:21.0703 (UTC) FILETIME=[624C3370:01C883A6] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1759; t=1205260404; x=1206124404; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20Fecframe=20Digest,=20Vol=2 025,=20Issue=209 |Sender:=20; bh=bWjS0/74AcMr6VT4FLPc/p0YBrha/d2rcPHXqp1ulVQ=; b=oeiA3lhJaxxzG3SExDM1fVQ4oVNAVI0+I1SXOjYy/gS9ejh4AAcVw+2xJJ EZBr1/zvK6Ih6GE44P9teFua7Wn1QyqUaCIlpjp+the0+cIt4fuFPZIXhAF0 CZDFpNWhJq; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Colin, Thanks for the clarification. I will update the draft with the default inteval=2mins in the next version. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:36 PM > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > Cc: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 > > Rajiv, > > There were issues with the inter-packet interval in SAP being larger > than one of the time-out values used in the multicast routing > protocol (either PIM-SM or MSDP, I forget which), resulting in SAP > being deterministically lost. > > Colin > > > > On 10 Mar 2008, at 19:56, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > Hi Colin, > > > > Thanks for the feedback. Could you please provide more context ? > > > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] > >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM > >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > >> Cc: Greg Shepherd; fecframe@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Fecframe Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9 > >> > >> On 26 Feb 2008, at 20:06, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > >>> I would like to request a timeslot (15mins) to present > the 'FECframe > >>> Config signaling' draft. > >>> > >>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-fecframe-config-signaling-00 > >> > >> SAP is problematic, because its long inter-packet interval > interacts > >> poorly with many multicast routing protocols. Have you given any > >> consideration to these problems? This was the reason for the > >> (stalled) IMG work in MMUSIC. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Colin [by email, since the jabber doesn't seem to be in use] > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 13 08:19:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F81628C6AF; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:19:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BuE7q6O6Awvd; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009753A6E77; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:18:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A163A6EAB for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tUqJCBPh2pB1 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9E03A6C3E for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2008 08:14:31 -0700 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2DFEUYW002444; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:14:30 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2DFETrN021268; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:14:30 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:14:29 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:14:14 -0700 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406AFFB1C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <47D5B8A1.9050402@ericsson.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] My comments arounddraft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 Thread-Index: AciC/7Ln9+oaTJgzQZWm+2XLX3IBPgCGwmEA References: <47D5B8A1.9050402@ericsson.com> From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: "Magnus Westerlund" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2008 15:14:29.0521 (UTC) FILETIME=[EEFD3810:01C8851C] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4017; t=1205421271; x=1206285271; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20My=20comments=20arounddraf t-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 |Sender:=20; bh=NOeAoCKpraTrVUWzclYNmssi8HDLvMwqKeJOFRQ02+s=; b=pw/Sap41qDpaT4cPnI4qdly5/5y76RYutF8ZWNnp4DttIDRxY7Pd/BaDy6 p/h0+FE6SBkVcwAMoHaS3SPBScFZi4ovsD6sPHRS8rwswYlCVcD5Dlvb4K1e lK+Ab9z23HK9gp6GLn9E+slcRLC9E/ZVJmg/8AnzTCH5R1Qw/w/EI=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Fecframe] My comments arounddraft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Magnus, Thanks for your summary. Regarding your comments: - Appropriateness issue: Yes, we agree that it fits the framework as a specialized FEC scheme. Indeed, it is an FEC scheme (so specialization should be OK to some extent) and has broad selection of use cases. We will look into the issue of combining multiple source flows and generate a single repair stream. At first look, this is not very trivial and seems to be limiting for some of the use cases. I will report more once we can get a better idea of how feasible it will be to do it. - The feedback issue: We believe feedback is an important component of any FEC scheme. The design team earlier decided to make it "recommended" for the individual FEC schemes and CDPs to support feedback and the type of the feedback reports. We chose RTCP instrumentation for the obvious reasons, as it provides many good features and abilities for reporting feedback: regular RTCP RRs, extended reports, etc. However, I do understand that there is a need for a wider discussion for the feedback issue before the WG proceeds with any FEC scheme. I'll post the write-up we came up with after the design team meeting and I am hoping it will be a good starting point for discussion. Thanks, -acbegen > -----Original Message----- > From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM > To: fecframe@ietf.org > Subject: [Fecframe] My comments > arounddraft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 > > Hi, > > In today's WG session I did appear quite negative to this > draft. I am sorry that I wasn't better prepared and had read > and thought about this before. > > Let me try to put down my comments here and with some hindsight. > > - Appropriateness in the FEC framework: Yes, this does fit > the framework as a rather speciallized FEC code that results > in one repair stream for every SSRC in a single RTP session. > That is quite far from a more generic FEC scheme that can > take multiple streams and combine them etc. > In fact it is very similar to the already existing RTP > payload level FEC mechanisms like ULP (RFC5109). Thus, it > seem to leverage very little of the framework and instead be > very much something that could be done in AVT. > > - The selection of RTP/UDP as repair stream transport layer. > I don't think this really is a FEC scheme but rather a > instantiation of the FEC framework using a component that > haven't been much discussed to my knowledge. I do understand > that it can provide feedback on how well the repair stream is > delivered to the receiver(s). Which actually is a good point > for general deployment. However in that case one maybe need > to consider what general feedback that a FEC framework > instance should provide towards the sender, i.e. including > both source and repair stream related statistics. Something > to think about and actually should make it way into the framework. > > So I primarily would like to get the issue of the repair > stream feedback mechanism and what the WG think is suitable > for this before this is adopted anywhere. > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 > Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 > S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 13 11:21:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9113A6A65; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FqsnIibl3AuH; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBAC28C590; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1230928C2BF for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oNAaUN8bxeev for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEF33A6E93 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2008 11:18:32 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2DIIWE1021242 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:18:32 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m2DIIWdw029712 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:18:32 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:18:21 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:16:51 -0700 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406AFFC7D@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Feedback support by the FEC Framework Thread-Index: AciFNauaAq9/nKctQm+tQm7VdCAjHQ== From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2008 18:18:21.0499 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E8F78B0:01C88536] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1846; t=1205432312; x=1206296312; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20Feedback=20support=20by=20the=20FEC=20Framework |Sender:=20; bh=J8HOMJsc0TGMkgBVBbcBmfOuO/poD3sw8kNujCyG5z4=; b=bnNsSMoAs4fJTin932AtofT1wpo9uvXNbcCCc5VRS7CT80oLvLJqvIQDUr whg6dDCuf6srH1Oag/aR6VH4Hrvr9NF5uNHFA9T+QEOJS0uEY4ZQdr5MmGgA vMwtY0QnQ0bUXVoiLaHHqe5etPWGngevc5LkJZqq0p+di7Eo1s9Pg=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Fecframe] Feedback support by the FEC Framework X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi everyone, Following up with Magnus' email, I would like to get your opinions and suggestions about how the WG should proceed regarding the feedback issue. Currently, the framework does not provide any guideline for the receiver end-points about what they should report back to the sender (or another 3rd party). The first question is of course whether we should generalize this feedback support and provide the guidelines in the framework draft OR we should leave these issues to the individual FEC schemes and CDPs. (E.g., an FEC scheme may use RTCP machinery to benefit from the receiver reports and RTCP extended reports to provide any level of detailed feedback about the FEC performance and other metrics listed below.) If you think the framework should generalize the feedback support and should define the minimal information that will be included in the feedback reports, please make your recommendations. FYI, this issue came up in the design team meeting in late January. The design team decided to make the feedback support optional (not a MUST but RECOMMENDED). The basic feedback information that - we thought- would be useful was: 1) Which FEC schemes and/or repair flows are used by which clients 2) How useful the repair flows are, what the FEC recovery performance is 3) FEC performance variation over time (e.g., in the long term for planning purposes and in the short term for faster adaptation); number of errors in errored blocks, number of errored blocks, number of corrected errors per source block, various histograms. 4) Feedback information can also (if applicable) sent back to the sender when all the missing symbols in a source block are recovered, and the sender starts the (early) transmission of the next source block Please share your comments. Thanks, -acbegen _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 13 17:43:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054E328C190; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:43:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.888 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.451, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pq-ilOb6EAe8; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059DF3A6BCC; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:43:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F3E3A69F6 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:43:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 52NZ+ZmALdqk for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109773A6815 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2008 17:41:38 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2E0fcOD002338; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:41:38 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2E0fcDL020334; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:41:38 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:41:34 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:41:04 -0700 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406B6DB63@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 Thread-Index: AciFbBXBe/FqEbuaRQCqUHpEZ0YCfQ== From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2008 00:41:34.0318 (UTC) FILETIME=[275938E0:01C8856C] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3655; t=1205455298; x=1206319298; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20Backward=20compatibility=20of=20the=201D/2D=20d raft=20with=20RFC=202733,=20RFC=205109=20and=20SMPTE=202022- 1 |Sender:=20; bh=x0HhD3HEUGRrJMqNS1PtcRWTv9wUfd8ia2E6FfhRFxA=; b=JWaXDrhzL+rRzE85xtvaHF03EHFhPILqdPMYEUx+UW2apiBKZJDM9/tE+Y RCc9UsIUJcmeJ2dX4O5JnPlXhQCwMHGZRdMi9ue/8uae8+XdkrWntt3YF+a8 zZIHFNPSWb2Izs6u8pucccgf/GmwNVak1VefahObW7VtwmlyU5hjI=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Fecframe] Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi everyone, On Monday, there were questions raised regarding the backward compatibility of the scheme discussed in draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 with RFC 2733, 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1. Basically, this draft is not backward compatible with these prior documents. The way the FEC is computed (i.e., XOR operation) is the same, but the headers/fields we are using are different. I'll provide the main reasoning for each document. For any questions, please post them to the mail list. RFC 2733: - RFC 5109 obsoleted RFC 2733. So, 2733 is already an old document. RFC 5109: - RFC 5109 provides protection at different protection lengths and levels, which may provide partial recovery of a missing packet. This is not the intention in our draft. - RFC 5109 uses a bitmap to convey the association information between the repair and source packets. This bitmap consists of 16 bits (by default) or 48 bits (if extended). That is, a repair packet may be associated with source packets whose seqnums can be at most in the range of [SN base, SN base + 48). As one could imagine, this is severely limiting and is insufficient to handle large block sizes. SMPTE 2022-1: Pro-MPEG CoP3 r2 document was an old document and was based on RFC 2733. When SMPTE decided to update this spec, they made some changes but the SMPTE doc is still based on RFC 2733 in many ways. This introduces several inefficiencies. More Reasons: - SMPTE doc does not use the SSRC field (they set to zero) in the RTP header of the repair packets. It does not use the timestamp field in the RTP header, either. In contrast, we use these fields for good. - SMPTE doc extends the already obsoleted RFC 2733 (by setting the E bit). - SMPTE doc carries over the overhead of the bitmap mask field from 2733, although it doesn't use it. It is set to zero. - Several other fields, which are actually not essential. Note that SMPTE doc does not use the bitmap (the bitmap field still exists, though) for indicating associations between the source and repair packets, but the document signals the number of columns (L) and rows (D) in the FEC header. Each value (L and D) is limited to 8 bits, so they have to be smaller than 256. While this is way better than what RFC 5109 offers, 255 may be limiting for the FEC framework when high bitrate source flows are to be protected and/or a group of source flows are protected together. Note that higher aggregated bitrate means larger block sizes (in terms of number of packets in the block) even when the size of the block in terms of time is not that large. In summary, there are improvements in the SMPTE document over the previous documents, but it still inherits many legacy stuff from those earlier docs. Furthermore, it still has limitations on the source block sizes. We considered these issues carefully and decided to make our draft better by not being backward compatible. It is the expectation of the authors and the WG that this new format for the parity FEC codes will satisfy the needs of the FEC Framework and the emerging high-bitrate applications. It is also expected that any future FEC specification that is using the parity FEC codes will use this format to be compatible with this draft. Of course, we are still in the first version of this draft and would welcome any suggestions. So, please speak up. I am hoping this email will address the questions raised in the meeting. Thanks, -acbegen PS This information regarding backward compatibility will also be incorporated into the draft in the next revision. _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:13:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFF13A6F35; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:13:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -95.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.029, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zcEuZlisl3mm; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67B528C65F; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:12:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194AC3A6E16 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:12:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QAG2W0kEHWtd for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server515.appriver.com (unknown [72.32.253.74]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC23A28C757 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.2.0) with PIPE id 9768483; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:10:01 -0500 Received: from FE1.exchange.rackspace.com ([72.32.49.5] verified) by server515.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 9768444; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:09:59 -0500 Received: from 34093-EVS4C1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.68]) by FE1.exchange.rackspace.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:10:05 -0500 Received: from 76.222.192.62 ([76.222.192.62]) by 34093-EVS4C1.exchange.rackspace.com ([192.168.1.58]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.mailseat.com ([192.168.1.146]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:09:42 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:49:40 -0700 From: Mark Watson To: "Ali Begen (abegen)" , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 Thread-Index: AciFbBXBe/FqEbuaRQCqUHpEZ0YCfQDtFrE6 In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406B6DB63@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Mime-version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2008 18:10:05.0748 (UTC) FILETIME=[4B229F40:01C88923] X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Policy: GLOBAL X-Primary: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide X-GBUdb-Analysis: 1, 192.168.1.68, Ugly c=0.858894 p=-0.987998 Source White X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-11405-c X-Note: Spam Tests Failed: X-Country-Path: UNKNOWN->PRIVATE->UNITED STATES->UNITED STATES X-Note-Sending-IP: 72.32.49.5 X-Note-Reverse-DNS: fe1.exchange.rackspace.com X-Note-WHTLIST: mark@digitalfountain.com X-Note: User Rule Hits: X-Note: Global Rule Hits: 75 76 122 X-Note: Mail Class: VALID Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Ali, Thanks for these clarifications. Just for the record, I think you went a bit far when you said: > It is the expectation of the authors and the WG that this new format for > the parity FEC codes will satisfy the needs of the FEC Framework and the > emerging high-bitrate applications. This may be the authors expectation, but this wasn't discussed at the WG. In FECFRAME we do not have a charter to make judgements/recommendations about the suitability of FEC Schemes for given applications and the FEC Framework doesn't have "needs" in this regard. Of course it's correct that your scheme fits the requirements for an FEC Scheme within the Framework, but this is all. As for high-bitrate applications, your claim is highly debatable. This particular code would behave very badly in such a setting as the larger block size would not bring the efficiency improvements one would normally expect with larger blocks and comes with significant restrictions on the overheads and hence loss rates/patterns supported. ...Mark On 3/13/08 5:41 PM, "Ali Begen (abegen)" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > On Monday, there were questions raised regarding the backward > compatibility of the scheme discussed in > draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 with RFC 2733, 5109 and SMPTE > 2022-1. > > Basically, this draft is not backward compatible with these prior > documents. The way the FEC is computed (i.e., XOR operation) is the > same, but the headers/fields we are using are different. > > I'll provide the main reasoning for each document. For any questions, > please post them to the mail list. > > RFC 2733: > - RFC 5109 obsoleted RFC 2733. So, 2733 is already an old document. > > RFC 5109: > - RFC 5109 provides protection at different protection lengths and > levels, which may provide partial recovery of a missing packet. This is > not the intention in our draft. > - RFC 5109 uses a bitmap to convey the association information between > the repair and source packets. This bitmap consists of 16 bits (by > default) or 48 bits (if extended). That is, a repair packet may be > associated with source packets whose seqnums can be at most in the range > of [SN base, SN base + 48). As one could imagine, this is severely > limiting and is insufficient to handle large block sizes. > > SMPTE 2022-1: > Pro-MPEG CoP3 r2 document was an old document and was based on RFC 2733. > When SMPTE decided to update this spec, they made some changes but the > SMPTE doc is still based on RFC 2733 in many ways. This introduces > several inefficiencies. > > More Reasons: > - SMPTE doc does not use the SSRC field (they set to zero) in the RTP > header of the repair packets. It does not use the timestamp field in the > RTP header, either. In contrast, we use these fields for good. > - SMPTE doc extends the already obsoleted RFC 2733 (by setting the E > bit). > - SMPTE doc carries over the overhead of the bitmap mask field from > 2733, although it doesn't use it. It is set to zero. > - Several other fields, which are actually not essential. > > Note that SMPTE doc does not use the bitmap (the bitmap field still > exists, though) for indicating associations between the source and > repair packets, but the document signals the number of columns (L) and > rows (D) in the FEC header. Each value (L and D) is limited to 8 bits, > so they have to be smaller than 256. While this is way better than what > RFC 5109 offers, 255 may be limiting for the FEC framework when high > bitrate source flows are to be protected and/or a group of source flows > are protected together. Note that higher aggregated bitrate means larger > block sizes (in terms of number of packets in the block) even when the > size of the block in terms of time is not that large. > > In summary, there are improvements in the SMPTE document over the > previous documents, but it still inherits many legacy stuff from those > earlier docs. Furthermore, it still has limitations on the source block > sizes. We considered these issues carefully and decided to make our > draft better by not being backward compatible. > > It is the expectation of the authors and the WG that this new format for > the parity FEC codes will satisfy the needs of the FEC Framework and the > emerging high-bitrate applications. > > It is also expected that any future FEC specification that is using the > parity FEC codes will use this format to be compatible with this draft. > Of course, we are still in the first version of this draft and would > welcome any suggestions. So, please speak up. > > I am hoping this email will address the questions raised in the meeting. > > > Thanks, > -acbegen > > PS This information regarding backward compatibility will also be > incorporated into the draft in the next revision. > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:29:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858B528C33E; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:29:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.797 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Te3NOCiemUc5; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0C73A6DAD; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:29:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F79328C18D for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:29:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yH-L9-G4GLJw for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com (hs-out-0708.google.com [64.233.178.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06173A6A21 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by hs-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 4so20375hsl.5 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:27:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=PH9K4NBRHqTZYk6Ev2oBt5H7uKFN5Bt2XTxmXGctfWs=; b=GA98lMZXT+q32wAckRfBVX3t8e4DldTYv0gqc1PcbYCJfWQjn+uahXkzNQvS5itJ2yejkbmC+q66n/Ca7xwQDM9oqRCXpXRCyAtfh1VFrs7VHOZnug0YUci51jcj6OgEP17MfL4NMqU2JfJpcfHBu4XZjRxSMPC3ADoULgIgp50= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=KbBSq6Hi+LIO9/vEfjBiJowByeNHQDjBwwfCfgUPuB1OHSRDVR2LH3wcTTOiZ+GzngbuKxlaFp/w0AUfLOIb7A/e0dShqUP8p28OQfEXZNJNj8eCD3HS2UXYJf7RdF8/ItNotKWziPhd+4aLS/dUpi0tkXkRvbRUuPLSZfpwAlQ= Received: by 10.100.33.11 with SMTP id g11mr2572373ang.59.1205864821589; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:27:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.119.4 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:27:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <38c19b540803181127y648eb949xc3be38f780eba9e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:27:01 -0700 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Mark Watson" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406B6DB63@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > Ali, > > Thanks for these clarifications. > > > Just for the record, I think you went a bit far when you said: > > > It is the expectation of the authors and the WG that this new format for > > the parity FEC codes will satisfy the needs of the FEC Framework and the > > emerging high-bitrate applications. > > This may be the authors expectation, but this wasn't discussed at the WG. > > In FECFRAME we do not have a charter to make judgements/recommendations > about the suitability of FEC Schemes for given applications and the FEC > Framework doesn't have "needs" in this regard. > > Of course it's correct that your scheme fits the requirements for an FEC > Scheme within the Framework, but this is all. > > As for high-bitrate applications, your claim is highly debatable. This > particular code would behave very badly in such a setting as the larger > block size would not bring the efficiency improvements one would normally > expect with larger blocks and comes with significant restrictions on the > overheads and hence loss rates/patterns supported. ..which brings us back outside the scope of the WG in discussing suitability of an FEC Scheme. ;-) From what I understand, the question seems to be: Does the framework as defined today currently support this scheme? Thanks, Greg > ...Mark > > > > > On 3/13/08 5:41 PM, "Ali Begen (abegen)" wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > On Monday, there were questions raised regarding the backward > > compatibility of the scheme discussed in > > draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 with RFC 2733, 5109 and SMPTE > > 2022-1. > > > > Basically, this draft is not backward compatible with these prior > > documents. The way the FEC is computed (i.e., XOR operation) is the > > same, but the headers/fields we are using are different. > > > > I'll provide the main reasoning for each document. For any questions, > > please post them to the mail list. > > > > RFC 2733: > > - RFC 5109 obsoleted RFC 2733. So, 2733 is already an old document. > > > > RFC 5109: > > - RFC 5109 provides protection at different protection lengths and > > levels, which may provide partial recovery of a missing packet. This is > > not the intention in our draft. > > - RFC 5109 uses a bitmap to convey the association information between > > the repair and source packets. This bitmap consists of 16 bits (by > > default) or 48 bits (if extended). That is, a repair packet may be > > associated with source packets whose seqnums can be at most in the range > > of [SN base, SN base + 48). As one could imagine, this is severely > > limiting and is insufficient to handle large block sizes. > > > > SMPTE 2022-1: > > Pro-MPEG CoP3 r2 document was an old document and was based on RFC 2733. > > When SMPTE decided to update this spec, they made some changes but the > > SMPTE doc is still based on RFC 2733 in many ways. This introduces > > several inefficiencies. > > > > More Reasons: > > - SMPTE doc does not use the SSRC field (they set to zero) in the RTP > > header of the repair packets. It does not use the timestamp field in the > > RTP header, either. In contrast, we use these fields for good. > > - SMPTE doc extends the already obsoleted RFC 2733 (by setting the E > > bit). > > - SMPTE doc carries over the overhead of the bitmap mask field from > > 2733, although it doesn't use it. It is set to zero. > > - Several other fields, which are actually not essential. > > > > Note that SMPTE doc does not use the bitmap (the bitmap field still > > exists, though) for indicating associations between the source and > > repair packets, but the document signals the number of columns (L) and > > rows (D) in the FEC header. Each value (L and D) is limited to 8 bits, > > so they have to be smaller than 256. While this is way better than what > > RFC 5109 offers, 255 may be limiting for the FEC framework when high > > bitrate source flows are to be protected and/or a group of source flows > > are protected together. Note that higher aggregated bitrate means larger > > block sizes (in terms of number of packets in the block) even when the > > size of the block in terms of time is not that large. > > > > In summary, there are improvements in the SMPTE document over the > > previous documents, but it still inherits many legacy stuff from those > > earlier docs. Furthermore, it still has limitations on the source block > > sizes. We considered these issues carefully and decided to make our > > draft better by not being backward compatible. > > > > It is the expectation of the authors and the WG that this new format for > > the parity FEC codes will satisfy the needs of the FEC Framework and the > > emerging high-bitrate applications. > > > > It is also expected that any future FEC specification that is using the > > parity FEC codes will use this format to be compatible with this draft. > > Of course, we are still in the first version of this draft and would > > welcome any suggestions. So, please speak up. > > > > I am hoping this email will address the questions raised in the meeting. > > > > > > Thanks, > > -acbegen > > > > PS This information regarding backward compatibility will also be > > incorporated into the draft in the next revision. > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:37:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FE328C628; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:37:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SwQ6z2niubTG; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA8B628C56C; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A0D3A6B46 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:37:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9XEYR2QWXLHH for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491FD28C5C6 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:37:11 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,519,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="17848993" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2008 11:34:54 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2IIYsiD009091; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:34:54 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2IIYsht007489; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:34:54 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:34:54 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:35:03 -0700 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406BDA1A9@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 Thread-Index: AciFbBXBe/FqEbuaRQCqUHpEZ0YCfQDtFrE6AAEmPFA= References: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406B6DB63@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: "Mark Watson" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2008 18:34:54.0296 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2610580:01C88926] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6926; t=1205865294; x=1206729294; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20Backward=20compatibility=2 0of=20the=201D/2D=20draft=20with=20RFC=202733,=20RFC=205109= 20and=20SMPTE=202022-1 |Sender:=20; bh=dcYckXeccJWOqjh1527uJ3sdrHzqlSt1j7+W/oEpK2I=; b=U1IaNPTAV2L6hp2qmv1CmduXFi1QtcpJXDRekjKxUbXL59x00WMyKgh4BU FjXc1mPzEfQ0K4696LzPEYPaG6wqECQ10d1v+yFFEgTeNC/cnvyy7eTn9KY9 pF4eTKANiG; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Hi Mark, Let me clarify a few points here. My apologies for miscommunication, if any. > Ali, > > Thanks for these clarifications. > > Just for the record, I think you went a bit far when you said: > > > It is the expectation of the authors and the WG that this > new format > > for the parity FEC codes will satisfy the needs of the FEC > Framework > > and the emerging high-bitrate applications. > > This may be the authors expectation, but this wasn't > discussed at the WG. We are not claiming that the parity FEC codes are the most suitable or the most efficient codes available. We are simply claiming the parity FEC codes satisfy the reqs of the framework and compared to the previous specs (the ones cited below), we believe this spec is more friendly with the high-bitrate applications. If somebody wants to use parity FEC codes, this spec should be preferred for the reasons listed below. Yes, it is the author's expectation but I also recall that the WG previously agreed on defining a particular FEC scheme only once regardless of whether the same code would be used in a hybrid fashion with other codes. Correct me if I am wrong here. > In FECFRAME we do not have a charter to make > judgements/recommendations about the suitability of FEC > Schemes for given applications and the FEC Framework doesn't > have "needs" in this regard. In the draft, we can list the scenarios where a particular code (e.g., row vs column, 1-D vs. 2-D) works better. I don't see any problem with this at all. > Of course it's correct that your scheme fits the requirements > for an FEC Scheme within the Framework, but this is all. > > As for high-bitrate applications, your claim is highly > debatable. This particular code would behave very badly in > such a setting as the larger block size would not bring the > efficiency improvements one would normally expect with larger > blocks and comes with significant restrictions on the > overheads and hence loss rates/patterns supported. Again, we are not claiming that the parity FEC codes are the best available codes in the market. What we are claiming is that our spec works better (more suitable and/or friendly) than the previous specs that are cited below. I did not do comparison with any other FEC code. No need to read more than it is intended. Thanks, -acbegen > ...Mark > > > On 3/13/08 5:41 PM, "Ali Begen (abegen)" wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > On Monday, there were questions raised regarding the backward > > compatibility of the scheme discussed in > > draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00 with RFC 2733, 5109 and > > SMPTE 2022-1. > > > > Basically, this draft is not backward compatible with these prior > > documents. The way the FEC is computed (i.e., XOR operation) is the > > same, but the headers/fields we are using are different. > > > > I'll provide the main reasoning for each document. For any > questions, > > please post them to the mail list. > > > > RFC 2733: > > - RFC 5109 obsoleted RFC 2733. So, 2733 is already an old document. > > > > RFC 5109: > > - RFC 5109 provides protection at different protection lengths and > > levels, which may provide partial recovery of a missing > packet. This > > is not the intention in our draft. > > - RFC 5109 uses a bitmap to convey the association > information between > > the repair and source packets. This bitmap consists of 16 bits (by > > default) or 48 bits (if extended). That is, a repair packet may be > > associated with source packets whose seqnums can be at most in the > > range of [SN base, SN base + 48). As one could imagine, this is > > severely limiting and is insufficient to handle large block sizes. > > > > SMPTE 2022-1: > > Pro-MPEG CoP3 r2 document was an old document and was based > on RFC 2733. > > When SMPTE decided to update this spec, they made some > changes but the > > SMPTE doc is still based on RFC 2733 in many ways. This introduces > > several inefficiencies. > > > > More Reasons: > > - SMPTE doc does not use the SSRC field (they set to zero) > in the RTP > > header of the repair packets. It does not use the timestamp > field in > > the RTP header, either. In contrast, we use these fields for good. > > - SMPTE doc extends the already obsoleted RFC 2733 (by > setting the E > > bit). > > - SMPTE doc carries over the overhead of the bitmap mask field from > > 2733, although it doesn't use it. It is set to zero. > > - Several other fields, which are actually not essential. > > > > Note that SMPTE doc does not use the bitmap (the bitmap field still > > exists, though) for indicating associations between the source and > > repair packets, but the document signals the number of > columns (L) and > > rows (D) in the FEC header. Each value (L and D) is limited > to 8 bits, > > so they have to be smaller than 256. While this is way better than > > what RFC 5109 offers, 255 may be limiting for the FEC > framework when > > high bitrate source flows are to be protected and/or a > group of source > > flows are protected together. Note that higher aggregated bitrate > > means larger block sizes (in terms of number of packets in > the block) > > even when the size of the block in terms of time is not that large. > > > > In summary, there are improvements in the SMPTE document over the > > previous documents, but it still inherits many legacy stuff > from those > > earlier docs. Furthermore, it still has limitations on the source > > block sizes. We considered these issues carefully and > decided to make > > our draft better by not being backward compatible. > > > > It is the expectation of the authors and the WG that this > new format > > for the parity FEC codes will satisfy the needs of the FEC > Framework > > and the emerging high-bitrate applications. > > > > It is also expected that any future FEC specification that is using > > the parity FEC codes will use this format to be compatible > with this draft. > > Of course, we are still in the first version of this draft > and would > > welcome any suggestions. So, please speak up. > > > > I am hoping this email will address the questions raised in > the meeting. > > > > > > Thanks, > > -acbegen > > > > PS This information regarding backward compatibility will also be > > incorporated into the draft in the next revision. > > _______________________________________________ > > Fecframe mailing list > > Fecframe@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > > > > > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:55:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57763A6EEF; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:55:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.352 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8KbCLdLNGJ5w; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B9A3A6E6C; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:55:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032D13A6B0E for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:55:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LrW226EVxfy3 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0603A682A for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so845071uge.46 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:53:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=yGqa066Z5eZCfBMsRCB4445YuQAOVaxmbtBEILHizGU=; b=Yf7RL23B1vXH4iU11FhW69Ofh33B9DvroVPjy5EB0vs5w6qRfo+YRGPmLLnvfCCOdmTL37RrSlT6+70XJEg/Pny5Wu/ERc7BYI9OK6OXmp7FDrgtlDwo8AuU1mfqrXVzuqsM0DVHkR6/ualKlnnJrQK2kiYDWQVJAg6AWIxu/QY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=ExN5J6nvn1YKHOjj34hAlupS+NwYVgzqE3LtT6j6xTvnvIGv633g29o14bIG0goPMPw+UvY0mZ8lN1/zwq94f3RfgtMipNa8fQXRDR7rxQPRdtM1xwWS/Tv5ndzvBLZK8kK0R08zJK+X2oJnYwBNrjB+8TS4kNHegcUsWiqo9E4= Received: by 10.67.24.18 with SMTP id b18mr3893021ugj.52.1205866402397; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.221.1 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <241bc2150803181153g2488f02t1ca072c92d05d6f7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:53:22 -0700 From: "=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Ula=BA_C._Kozat?=" To: fecframe@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Fecframe] using RTP and RTCP as the transport for the repair flow X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0311536679==" Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org --===============0311536679== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_19519_33122731.1205866402332" ------=_Part_19519_33122731.1205866402332 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Since using RTP and RTCP as the transport for the repair flow was one of the discussion items in the working group, some of you might find the following document interesting to look at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/avt-11.pdf I am not sure to what extent (if any) we should define FEC specific feedback information in the FEC framework document(s). Since the framework document will serve as a guideline, and since I remember that in the design team meetings we had an agreement that it is a good idea to define some of the feedback information, should we start a new discussion in the WG and crystallize our thoughts on the matter? Ulas ------=_Part_19519_33122731.1205866402332 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Since using RTP and RTCP as the transport for the repair flow was one of the discussion items in the working group, some of you might find the following document interesting to look at:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/avt-11.pdf

I am not sure to what extent (if any) we should define FEC specific feedback information in the FEC framework document(s). Since the framework document will serve as a guideline, and since I remember that in the design team meetings we had an agreement that it is a good idea to define some of the feedback information, should we start a new discussion in the WG and crystallize our thoughts on the matter?

Ulas


------=_Part_19519_33122731.1205866402332-- --===============0311536679== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --===============0311536679==-- From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 18 23:00:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60AD53A695D; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:00:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.883, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y8PtcjsX5qKB; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:00:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658493A6992; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:00:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80483A6883 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:00:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROR8LPfC5lSL for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C613A695D for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2008 22:58:12 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2J5wBS1026208; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:58:11 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2J5wBGk019179; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:58:11 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:58:09 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:58:06 -0700 Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5406BDA4EB@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <241bc2150803181153g2488f02t1ca072c92d05d6f7@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] using RTP and RTCP as the transport for the repair flow Thread-Index: AciJKVubPA+Uz9YaQg6chu5mDtcWLQAWtE1A References: <241bc2150803181153g2488f02t1ca072c92d05d6f7@mail.gmail.com> From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" To: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Ula=BA_C=2E_Kozat?= , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2008 05:58:09.0718 (UTC) FILETIME=[358DFD60:01C88986] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6707; t=1205906291; x=1206770291; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Begen=20(abegen)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Fecframe]=20using=20RTP=20and=20RTCP=2 0as=20the=20transport=20for=20the=20repair=20flow |Sender:=20; bh=K/wFt3OzRbYd60M7z07zvDN9KeZTWmEu+eNaPMkegw8=; b=2BeT6d3uVeQ0aIPNnYAnNC8YjncEaMkPQA6Tf4fPSKY1rRLTdmYzrAky8E FX/kLLUcMKQ5V3o3WrRtJaZ0HIKgIQbWrlUOfYs6KjetGVvodoWGqqXFDag7 +3//gG9oGO; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=abegen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Fecframe] using RTP and RTCP as the transport for the repair flow X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1742570456==" Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1742570456== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C88986.355CDAA7" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C88986.355CDAA7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ulas, =20 I was in the AVT group when this draft was presented, and this is a = quite useful document. I liked the slide #4 most. It is a good summary = showing how RTCP could be used to report feedback in different ways = (e.g., receiver reports for the RTP-based repair flows and extended = reports for the FEC performance feedback). This is one of the reasons = why I support using RTCP as a means of transmitting the feedback = information for RTP-based repair flows. Non-RTP-based repair flows can = use whatever they like to use, of course. Or nothing, if no feedback = support is desired. =20 Regarding your question, you summarized my earlier email well ;) The WG = should discuss whether we need to define the feedback information for = the framework or whether we will leave this issue to the individual FEC = schemes. =20 I am hoping your email will start the discussion. If nobody speakes up, = I believe we will simply leave this issue to the individual schemes.=20 =20 -acbegen =20 =20 ________________________________ From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Ulas C. Kozat Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:53 AM To: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: [Fecframe] using RTP and RTCP as the transport for the repair = flow =09 =09 Since using RTP and RTCP as the transport for the repair flow was one = of the discussion items in the working group, some of you might find the = following document interesting to look at: =09 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/avt-11.pdf=20 =09 I am not sure to what extent (if any) we should define FEC specific = feedback information in the FEC framework document(s). Since the = framework document will serve as a guideline, and since I remember that = in the design team meetings we had an agreement that it is a good idea = to define some of the feedback information, should we start a new = discussion in the WG and crystallize our thoughts on the matter? =09 Ulas =09 =09 =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C88986.355CDAA7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ulas,
 
I was in the AVT group when this draft was = presented, and=20 this is a quite useful document. I liked the slide #4 most. It is a good = summary=20 showing how RTCP could be used to report feedback in different ways = (e.g.,=20 receiver reports for the RTP-based repair flows and extended reports for = the FEC=20 performance feedback). This is one of the reasons why I support using = RTCP as a=20 means of transmitting the feedback information for RTP-based repair = flows.=20 Non-RTP-based repair flows can use whatever they like to use, of course. = Or=20 nothing, if no feedback support is desired.
 
Regarding your question, you summarized my = earlier email=20 well ;) The WG should discuss whether we need to define the = feedback=20 information for the framework or whether we will leave this = issue to=20 the individual FEC schemes.
 
I am hoping your email will start the = discussion. If = nobody speakes=20 up, I believe we will simply leave this issue to the individual schemes. =
 
-acbegen
 
 

From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ulas C.=20 Kozat
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:53 AM
To:=20 fecframe@ietf.org
Subject: [Fecframe] using RTP and RTCP as = the=20 transport for the repair flow


Since using RTP and RTCP as the transport for the = repair flow=20 was one of the discussion items in the working group, some of you = might find=20 the following document interesting to look at:

http://w= ww.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/avt-11.pdf=20

I am not sure to what extent (if any) we should define FEC = specific=20 feedback information in the FEC framework document(s). Since the = framework=20 document will serve as a guideline, and since I remember that in the = design=20 team meetings we had an agreement that it is a good idea to define = some of the=20 feedback information, should we start a new discussion in the WG and=20 crystallize our thoughts on the=20 matter?

Ulas


------_=_NextPart_001_01C88986.355CDAA7-- --===============1742570456== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe --===============1742570456==-- From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 11:24:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF14F3A6FD9; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:24:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.753 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.753 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.316, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H8buT2BGzZql; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:24:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDE028C5D0; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:24:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE13E3A6D7C for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:24:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EmrJSePoyJbS for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound5-va3-R.bigfish.com (outbound-va3.frontbridge.com [216.32.180.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5638928C276 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:23:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound5-va3.bigfish.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by outbound5-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00983B0A799 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:21:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail8-va3-R.bigfish.com (si1-va3 [10.7.14.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound5-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F292F199006E for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:21:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail8-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail8-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0B8205F1 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:21:08 +0000 (UTC) X-BigFish: VP X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Antispam-Report: OrigIP: 216.205.229.106; Service: EHS Received: by mail8-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1206037267609768_23490; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:21:07 +0000 (UCT) Received: from fegplmsmmdz02.foxinc.com (unknown [216.205.229.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail8-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A9C6500A3 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:21:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ffeplmsexbh04.ffe.foxeg.com (Not Verified[10.136.96.105]) by FOX.COM (post.office MTA v5.0 0924 ) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:21:08 -0700 Received: from fegplmsexmb06.ffe.foxeg.com ([10.136.96.132]) by ffeplmsexbh04.ffe.foxeg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:21:05 -0700 Received: from 10.135.137.64 ([10.135.137.64]) by fegplmsexmb06.ffe.foxeg.com ([10.136.96.132]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:20:18 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214 Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:20:17 -0700 From: Thomas Edwards To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Fecframe] Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 Thread-Index: AciKtwxLSsvj9PaqEdyxCwAbY7CwgA== Mime-version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2008 18:21:05.0432 (UTC) FILETIME=[2929E980:01C88AB7] Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org I'd like to state that there are a large number of deployed MPEG encoders and decoders in the field with Pro-MPEG CoP#3 / SMPTE 2022-1 (a Google for +"mpeg cop 3" +ethernet should reveal a number). As a user, my hope is that SMPTE, DVB, and IETF can move forward in a harmonious fashion that maintains interoperation of current deployed devices while not limiting future performance gains in FEC systems. -Thomas -- Thomas Edwards Vice President, Digital Television Testing & Evaluation FOX Technology Group thomas.edwards at fox.com p. 310.369.7093 10201 West Pico Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90035 _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 11:30:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38DD28C606; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:30:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fV-QWj7t4HdG; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C2328C47E; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:30:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC1828C47E for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:30:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sP5OqMKqGu4P for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D00128C3D3 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so327867and.122 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:27:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=DBAzIq0tUIUlywUT+BL84AnE8hXZSdHpu8rHVBuIMUo=; b=s3Wfw2R7qKslYmhrB1lRYPzi4nn0D37oA2vXWKhi/XJ/IRQ6uPBr6K5bednmphIh2QaZ5S0ZVp0/rBpTDyG9wn9vNDQPvL8Sg1dzqnKwTRWeF1IAs6lKFKYsH5Nt0oU5NLlpeat/SR8zEOnQXo0XxRT1AA0PbiHr6+a9hFPOxxI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XZwuCXhf6TOKaTJjpTaepb83jEWNs00JnCmQB++2Y7/3lEX94xv7TvZKjD5XfvQURUsXu/B5onJsDszCu6lTtHbflY6//ccZMfIuHOTy/IAZNKmEDn8MO18DxygIduIKgUpAzqyoR+IbVsBGH+iji/qskRwtMDnmQDa7cpb9gbk= Received: by 10.100.33.4 with SMTP id g4mr6320192ang.49.1206037671159; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.119.4 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <38c19b540803201127k511169b9gdbd86ce5e37b5c8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:27:51 -0700 From: "Greg Shepherd" To: "Thomas Edwards" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: Cc: fecframe@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Thomas Edwards wrote: > I'd like to state that there are a large number of deployed MPEG encoders > and decoders in the field with Pro-MPEG CoP#3 / SMPTE 2022-1 (a Google for > +"mpeg cop 3" +ethernet should reveal a number). > > As a user, my hope is that SMPTE, DVB, and IETF can move forward in a > harmonious fashion that maintains interoperation of current deployed devices > while not limiting future performance gains in FEC systems. > > -Thomas Thanks Thomas. I believe the objective of FECFrame is to allow for any number of FEC schemes and any one scheme should not preclude the inclusion of another. My expectation would be that anyone needing support for Pro-MPEG CoP#3 / SMPTE 2022-1 would submit a scheme draft to the FECFrame WG. Greg > -- > Thomas Edwards > Vice President, Digital Television Testing & Evaluation > FOX Technology Group > thomas.edwards at fox.com > p. 310.369.7093 > 10201 West Pico Blvd. > Los Angeles, CA 90035 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe > _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 11:08:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-fecframe-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF69D3A69FC; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.512, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XDnIxlF9Nw4m; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6B728C138; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:08:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: fecframe@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B85828C132 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:08:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uGRtNS5bI3+R for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from multicasttech.com (lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B2528C1D7 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 10753377; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:05:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <38c19b540803201127k511169b9gdbd86ce5e37b5c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <38c19b540803201127k511169b9gdbd86ce5e37b5c8@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: From: Marshall Eubanks Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:05:45 -0400 To: "Greg Shepherd" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: fecframe@ietf.org, Thomas Edwards Subject: Re: [Fecframe] Backward compatibility of the 1D/2D draft with RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1 X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Thomas Edwards > wrote: >> I'd like to state that there are a large number of deployed MPEG >> encoders >> and decoders in the field with Pro-MPEG CoP#3 / SMPTE 2022-1 (a >> Google for >> +"mpeg cop 3" +ethernet should reveal a number). >> >> As a user, my hope is that SMPTE, DVB, and IETF can move forward >> in a >> harmonious fashion that maintains interoperation of current >> deployed devices >> while not limiting future performance gains in FEC systems. >> >> -Thomas > > Thanks Thomas. I believe the objective of FECFrame is to allow for any > number of FEC schemes and any one scheme should not preclude the > inclusion of another. My expectation would be that anyone needing > support for Pro-MPEG CoP#3 / SMPTE 2022-1 would submit a scheme draft > to the FECFrame WG. > I think that we should strongly encourage this. Regards Marshall > Greg > >> -- >> Thomas Edwards >> Vice President, Digital Television Testing & Evaluation >> FOX Technology Group >> thomas.edwards at fox.com >> p. 310.369.7093 >> 10201 West Pico Blvd. >> Los Angeles, CA 90035 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fecframe mailing list >> Fecframe@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe >> > _______________________________________________ > Fecframe mailing list > Fecframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe