Re: [Fecframe] DVB AL-FEC integration in FECFRAME - proposed changes

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

Hi Muriel,

Inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Muriel Deschanel [mailto:murield at microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 11:29 PM
> To: Ali C. Begen (abegen); fecframe at ietf.org
> Cc: Jeff Goldberg (jgoldber); Henry Jean-Baptiste
> Subject: RE: [Fecframe] DVB AL-FEC integration in FECFRAME - proposed changes
> 
> Dear Ali, all,
> 
> I will try and explain some of the rationale behind the comments and modifications that
> Jean-Baptiste sent earlier.
> DVB has published a specification for AL-FEC, as annex E of the DVB-IPTV specification
> from revision 1.3 and later.
> The base layer of the DVB AL-FEC specification references SMPTE 2022. We understand that
> RTP compatibility issues have been identified in the SMPTE 2022 specification and we hope
> that SMPTE will be able to address them in a future revision of their specification.

I sure hope so, too.
 
> We believe that it is useful to define a new fec scheme where the compatibilities issues
> with RTP are resolved but it should be clear that this is no longer the DVB AL-FEC
> specification. The proposed changes have been submitted by Jean-Baptiste to clarify this

Of course. The 1-d draft is not claiming that it is the exact FEC method as adopted by DVB al-fec. Rather, it explains all the differences in detail. If there is a difference I missed, I will be more than happy to correct it. 

OTOH, the DVB al-fec informational draft explains how one can use the 1-d and raptor drafts and produce dvb-compatible fec stream(s) by following certain rules. Nothing more.

> point and avoid any confusion between the scheme defined in interleaved-fec-scheme and the
> DVB-IPTV AL-FEC specification. This is essential because the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC specification
> is referenced by other organizations, e.g. Rec. H.701 of the ITU-T. So it will create
> confusion and potentially interoperability issues if changes (to address the RTP issues)
> are introduced in an internet draft that references the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC though these
> changes do not reflect the actual DVB-IPTV AL-FEC specification.
> 
> 
> Could you please give some information on the proposed changes which you feel are not
> acceptable and I will try and address your points.

Based on the feedback we received so far, I will try to submit a revision soon. I'll then ask you to make your comments on that revision. 

> For information, the latest DVB-IPTV specification is revision 1.4 and was published in
> August 2009.

Thanks, will update this in the revision as well.

Cheers,
-acbegen
 
> Best regards,
> 
> Muriel Deschanel
> Chair of DVB TM-IPI group
> 
> +33 6 64 40 44 11
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Ali C. Begen (abegen) [mailto:abegen at cisco.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 28 août 2009 14:23
> À : Henry Jean-Baptiste; fecframe at ietf.org
> Cc : Muriel Deschanel
> Objet : RE: [Fecframe] DVB AL-FEC integration in FECFRAME - proposed changes
> 
> Hi JB,
> 
> Thanks for the comments. FYI, the interleaved-fec-scheme draft has completed its last call
> in both fecframe and AVT months ago and AFAIK, the chairs already asked for request for
> publication from the AD. Nevertheless, I looked at the comments. In fact, there was only
> one major comment, which was simply to delete the references to the ETSI spec. To tell the
> truth, I don't understand the reason. The goal of this draft was to develop an RTP-
> compliant parity FEC payload format (as close as possible to the base layer) and list the
> exceptions to make it compatible with the DVB implementation.
> 
> As for the informational dvb-al-fec draft: I can make some of the changes for
> clarification but I must say I cannot agree with most of the comments, text changes and
> deletions. We cannot refer to SMPTE 2022-1 spec as it is broken from our viewpoint. In
> fact, this is the reason why we had to write the other draft in the first place.
> 
> If you still feel strong about these comments, I suggest you (or someone else) present the
> reasoning in the list (not on a word doc) and we all can comment on/discuss/finalize the
> text. As a reminder, we are in the WGLC process for this draft.
> 
> Cheers,
> -acbegen
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fecframe-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henry
> > Jean-Baptiste
> > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:04 AM
> > To: fecframe at ietf.org
> > Cc: Muriel Deschanel
> > Subject: [Fecframe] DVB AL-FEC integration in FECFRAME - proposed changes
> >
> > Dear fecframe list,
> >
> > I would like to provide some inputs about the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC specification.
> >
> > Several IETF drafts are currently under writing process to integrate the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC
> > specification into the IETF FECFRAME system, which is very positive and goes in the
> > direction of improved interoperability between DVB-IPTV systems and IETF protocols.
> >
> > The DVB-TM-IPI group has reviewed the current drafts relating to the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC and
> > thus I would like to propose some changes for your consideration to clarify the
> > relationship between DVB-IPTV AL-FEC, technologies referenced, e.g. SMPTE and the IETF
> > FECFRAME.
> >
> > Please find attached two documents:
> >
> > .       draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-01 DVB-TM-IPI.doc
> >
> > .       draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05 DVB-TM-IPI.doc
> >
> > You will find the proposed modifications in Word track change mode and comments.
> >
> > I apologize if those docs refer to old versions of the drafts, it took some time to
> review
> > them in DVB IPI meeting.
> >
> > As my email will not be valid after today, please provide any comment or question to
> > Muriel Deschanel (in copy). Muriel is the chair of the DVB-TM-IPI group which defined
> the
> > DVB AL-FEC system.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Jean-Baptiste HENRY
> >
> > <<draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05 DVB-TM-IPI.doc>> <<draft-ietf-fecframe-
> > dvb-al-fec-01 DVB-TM-IPI.doc>>
>