Subject: [Fecframe] WGLC on draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-02

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:05:37 -0400

Hello;

We would like to start a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-02.txt

In view of the summer vacations, this will last until 23:59 UTC on
August 31.

Tools information for this document can be found at

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-02

The Intended status for this document is : Informational

This document will require positive support from WG members (in  
addition to the authors !)
to be advanced, so, please, review the draft and send comments and/or  
statements of support or
non-support to the WG mailing list.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks
Greg Shepherd

---

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:50:12 +0200

Hello everybody,

After reading the above I-D, I don't have any major comments, only
a few clarification proposals (see below).

In particular once comment 1- is addressed, then I support this
document, taking into account the fact that I have no technical opinion
WRT the RTP discussion in section 3.1 (sorry).

----

1- Explicit reference to DVB-IPTV

Currently the first reference to DVB-IPTV and DVB-IPI appear in
section 3.1. Instead, the abstract, introduction and title only
refer to the "DVB consortium". This is a bit misleading since the
various DVB Technical Modules (i.e. working groups) have standardized
several FEC schemes for the erasure channel (i.e. several FEC codes
and several ways of using these FEC codes).
(NB: this is the DVB UL-FEC document discussion we had during July's
 meeting)

I suggest to:
- mention DVB-IPTV (and possibly DVB TM-IPI, up to you) in the
  abstract and introduction.
- change a little bit the long and short titles to clarify this
  as well. For instance: "DVB-IPTV Application-Level Hybrid FEC
  Protection" and "DVB-IPTV AL-FEC Protocol".

2- Introduction, p3, minor clarification proposal:
Current text mentions 1-D interleaved parity code in the introduction,
and then only uses the "parity encoder/decoder" (fig. 1, 2, 3) and
"parity repair packet" (bottom of p3).
I suggest you say once and for all that in the remaining of the
document, "parity code" (and derivatives, like parity encoder/decoder
or parity repair packet) will refer to the "1-D interleaved parity code"
(and derivatives).

3- Introduction, p3, clarification needed:
It is said:
   "The source can be any type of media
    such as audio, video, text or application.  However, in the AL-FEC
    protocol, the source stream can only be an MPEG-2 transport stream."
While I understand the idea, the juxtaposition of "can be anything",
"however it can only be..." puzzles me a little bit. Additionally, is
there any difference between "the source" (1st sentence) and "the
source stream" (2nd sentence)?

4- Introduction, p3, RTP stream definition:
It is said:
   "In DVB AL-FEC, the source packets are carried in the source RTP
    stream and the generated FEC repair packets at each layer are carried
    in separate streams."
For an RTP expert, it's probably sufficient. However, as far as I am
concerned, I'd like to see a definition of an "RTP stream" and how
the "separate streams" are distinguished (source or destination
port/address, or both, or...). I guess there are several possibilities.

5- Section 3.1., Base-Layer FEC, p5, minor clarification proposal:
It is said:
   "In a group of D x L source packets,
    the XOR operation is applied to the group of the source packets whose
    sequence numbers are L apart from each other to generate L repair
    packets."
Instead, I suggest:
   "In a group of D x L source packets,
    the XOR operation is applied to each group of D source packets whose
    sequence numbers are L apart from each other to generate a total of L repair
    packets."

Best regards,

    Vincent

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:54:22 -0700

Hi Vincent,

See inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Vincent
> Roca
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 5:50 PM
> To: Marshall Eubanks; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] WGLC on draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-02
> 
> Hello everybody,
> 

Sure, good idea.

>   Protection" and "DVB-IPTV AL-FEC Protocol".

If there are no objections, we can do this as well.

> or parity repair packet) will refer to the "1-D interleaved parity code"

Will do.

> "however it can only be..." puzzles me a little bit. Additionally, is

Admittedly, this was taken from the al-fec spec. I will remove the former part.

> source stream" (2nd sentence)?

Nope. Will fix this.

> port/address, or both, or...). I guess there are several possibilities.

I would rather prefer to leave this discussion to rfc 3550 as other drafts do. 

>     sequence numbers are L apart from each other to generate a total of L repair

Sure.

Thanks for the review.

-acbegen
 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
>     Vincent
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe