[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4756bis-03

Cool, here is the new version addressing all remaining comments received so far.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4756bis-05.txt

Cheers,
-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Schierl [mailto:schierl at hhi.fhg.de]
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:34 AM
> To: Ali C. Begen (abegen)
> Cc: Jean-Francois Mule; mmusic at ietf.org; Joerg Ott; draft-ietf-mmusic-
> rfc4756bis at tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4756bis-03
> 
> Hi  Ali,
> 
> Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
> 
> 	Now, this sounds different than the first scenario you described above, IMO. And,
> this leads to the original SDP you gave:
> 
> 	a=group:FEC-XR SB RB
> 	a=group:FEC-XR SB SE RB RB+E
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, RB and RB+E are meant to be additive with respect to SB+SE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		section 4.1:
> 
> 		"Repair flows that are in different FEC groups are non-
> 		   additive.".
> 
> 
> 
> 	Why would it be contrary? Here, RB and RB+E are in the same line and that is enough
> to state their additivity. But, in this scenario, their joint decoding helps the group of
> SB+SE. The above SDP says if the source consists of SB only, then just use RB only since
> RB+E would not help with decoding.
> 
> 
> 
> 		If the signaling in the example above is in line with the intention of
> 		the draft, I would make the following modifications:
> 
> 		- You may add an "...exclusively in different FEC groups..." to the
> 		sentence of section 4.1 above.
> 
> 
> 
> 	We can add this to make it stronger. But, I believe if two repair flows are additive
> in a group, it does not mean that they will also be additive in any other group where one
> of the source flows they protect is listed.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this makes the text clearer, at least to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	Agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 		- Further, I would add the following text to section 4.1 to make it clearer:
> 
> 		"In order to express multiple relations between source and repair flows,
> 		source and repair flows may appear in more than one FEC group."
> 
> 
> 
> 	I believe this was clear, but it is a good suggestion.
> 
> 
> 
> Good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		I think the same should be valid for the FEC-SSRC grouping.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Sure.
> 
> 	Thanks for the review. Let me know if you agree with the above.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarifications. I am ok with the changes and the resulting draft.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	Cheers, acbegen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		Best regards,
> 		Thomas
> 
> 
> 		--
> 		Thomas Schierl
> 		--------------
> 		Fraunhofer HHI
> 
> 
> 
> 		Jean-Francois Mule wrote:
> 
> 
> 			This is to start a 2-week working group last call on draft
> 			draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4756bis-03,
> 			http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4756bis-03.  The comment
> 			period will end on Wednesday October 28.
> 
> 			Please send your comments to the mmusic list and the authors.
> 
> 			Thank you,
> 			Jean-Francois.
> 
> 
> 			_______________________________________________
> 			mmusic mailing list
> 			mmusic at ietf.org
> 			https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Thomas Schierl
> --------------
> Fraunhofer HHI
> 
> 
> 
>