[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [AVT] RE: Working group last call: draft-ietf-avt-ulp-14.txt
Thanks Mark,
The WGLC of this document has conclude and there is a need for
addressing these comments and an update. A one week WGLC will held on
these updates at that time the new version is addressed.
I also have a comment on the feedback:
Mark Watson wrote:
C.5) Section 7.3: Timestamp: it is not clear to me what purpose it serves to timestamp the FEC packet with the time it was sent, since there are many strategies for timing the sending of the FEC packets relative to the original stream. It might be more useful to timestamp it with the same time as the last packet protected by this FEC packet, since that is the time in the stream playout after which the FEC packet is useless. However, this would not result in monotonically increasing timestamps.
There is one good reason for timestamping with transmission time. It
makes the RTCP reports on the FEC traffic very accurate and can be used
to measure traffic characteristics better than for example a stream of
video packets. To me there is no need to indicate the protected streams
media TS corresponding to the last directly protected packet. That
information is in most cases available from the buffer by looking into
the payload of the received FEC packet. However it will provide
information is some cases that is not directly available. So this would
be a definite trade-off but probably not worth changing in this update
to RFC 2733.
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt