Re: [AVT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-03

["Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen at cisco.com>]

Yes, that is the fecframework draft, and I raised exactly the same point this morning in the fecframe/mmusic list when I noticed that text in the draft. Please use that thread for that discussion. 

-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 12:32 PM
> To: Ali C. Begen (abegen); fecframe at ietf.org
> Cc: avt at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [AVT] FW: New Version Notification for 
> draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-03
> 
> Ali,
> I am a bit confused about your answer, I assume that FEC 
> framework you refer
> to draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-03, at least I cold not see 
> any reference
> in the draft to a document. 
> In section 4 of the above draft it says 
> 
> "
> In the case that RTP is used for the repair flows, the source 
> and repair
>    data may be multiplexed using RTP onto a single UDP flow and must
>    consequently be demultiplexed at the receiver."
> 
> 
> Roni
> 
> 
> > 6. In section 7 you discuss an exchange using grouping. Is it 
> > also allowed
> > to use FEC withoutout grouping using the video or audio media 
> > types like
> > section 14 in RFC 5109
> 
> Per FEC framework, we require the FEC to be in a separate flow, which
> requires the source and FEC streams to be on different RTP 
> sessions. Thus,
> we require grouping (RFC 4756 or 4756bis)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case that RTP is used for the repair flows, the source 
> and repair
>    data may be multiplexed using RTP onto a single UDP flow and must
>    consequently be demultiplexed at the receiver.
> 
>