Subject: [AVT] Presenting new 1-D and 2-D proposals in SMPTE

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:38:24 -0700

Dear Marshall,

The VSF Web site says that you (one of the FECframe WG chairs) are
scheduled to give a talk on the recent developments in FEC in the next
VSF meeting that will take place in early October. 

http://www.videoservicesforum.org/upcoming_events/2008-10_MtgSeries-Aust
inTX/VSFAgenda-Oct2008.pdf

I believe this is a perfect opportunity to engage with our colleagues in
the SMPTE/VSF technical groups who are working towards new FEC
protection schemes and provide them updates on the following two issues:

1- WG-adopted RTP payload format for 1-D interleaved FEC protection: 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-
scheme-00.txt

This draft adopts the FEC header of SMPTE 2022-1 (2007) and provide
fixes to non-RTP-compliant parts. It also registers a new RTP payload
format with IANA for the interleaved FEC. Currently, this draft is being
specified for the base layer of the AL-FEC protocol developed by DVB. It
is important to note that we are trying to update the SMPTE's spec,
rather we are trying to produce an RTP-compliant version that could be
adopted by vendors/SDOs that want to have RTP-compliant interleaved FEC
protection. 

2- New/fresh RTP payload format proposal for interleaved and
non-interleaved parity FEC protection:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-begen-fecframe-1d2d-parity-sch
eme-01.txt

The existing specs for protecting the RTP source streams unfortunately
have scalability issues (including the one above). When we have
high-bitrate media flows such as UltraHD or when we need protection
against long bursty errors (such as device/route failures in the core),
the existing specs won't work. In the last IETF discussion, you
mentioned that SMPTE started working on this problem and that indeed
shows the need for a solution.

The current version of the draft was produced after a substantial update
based on the discussions we had during the last IETF (July) meeting.
(The initial version was presented in March). This draft attempts to
register the new payload formats for both non-interleaved and
interleaved FEC and to be fully RTP compliant. Due to changes in the
header and its settings, this draft is not backward compatible with the
existing specs.

I would appreciate if you could include discussions around these two
drafts in your talk next month. Even better, it would be great if you
could provide the SMPTE/VSF groups a heads-up in their email lists (I
believe their lists require membership) about these works at IETF. We
would welcome their suggestions and collaboration on these drafts,
especially for defining the new RTP payload formats (#2 above).

If you need, I can provide you some slides for your presentation.

Thanks and best regards,

-acbegen

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt