[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-roca-fecframe-simple-rs) 00 01 02 03 RFC 6865

FecFrame                                                         V. Roca
Internet-Draft                                                     INRIA
Intended status: Standards Track                               M. Cunche
Expires: June 1, 2012                                              NICTA
                                                                J. Lacan
                                                          A. Bouabdallah
                                                          ISAE/LAAS-CNRS
                                                            K. Matsuzono
                                                         Keio University
                                                       November 29, 2011


 Simple Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for FECFRAME
                    draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-02

Abstract

   This document describes a fully-specified simple FEC scheme for Reed-
   Solomon codes over GF(2^^m), with 2 <= m <= 16, that can be used to
   protect arbitrary media streams along the lines defined by the
   FECFRAME framework.  Reed-Solomon codes belong to the class of
   Maximum Distance Separable (MDS) codes which means they offer optimal
   protection against packet erasures.  They are also systematic codes,
   which means that the source symbols are part of the encoding symbols.
   The price to pay is a limit on the maximum source block size, on the
   maximum number of encoding symbols, and a computational complexity
   higher than that of LDPC codes for instance.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the



Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Definitions Notations and Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Notations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Common Procedures Related to the ADU Block and Source
       Block Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  ADU Block Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  Source Block Creation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme over GF(2^^m) for Arbitrary
       ADU Flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Formats and Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       5.1.1.  FEC Framework Configuration Information  . . . . . . . 11
       5.1.2.  Explicit Source FEC Payload ID . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       5.1.3.  Repair FEC Payload ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.2.  Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.3.  FEC Code Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.1.  Attacks Against the Data Flow  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       6.1.1.  Access to Confidential Content . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       6.1.2.  Content Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.2.  Attacks Against the FEC Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.3.  When Several Source Flows are to be Protected Together . . 17
     6.4.  Baseline Secure FEC Framework Operation  . . . . . . . . . 18
   7.  Operations and Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.1.  Operational Recommendations: Finite Field Size (m) . . . . 18
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19



Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20


















































Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


1.  Introduction

   The use of Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes is a classic solution
   to improve the reliability of unicast, multicast and broadcast
   Content Delivery Protocols (CDP) and applications.  The [RFC6363]
   document describes a generic framework to use FEC schemes with media
   delivery applications, and for instance with real-time streaming
   media applications based on the RTP real-time protocol.  Similarly
   the [RFC5052] document describes a generic framework to use FEC
   schemes with with objects (e.g., files) delivery applications based
   on the ALC [RFC5775] and NORM [RFC5740] reliable multicast transport
   protocols.

   More specifically, the [RFC5053] and [RFC5170] FEC schemes introduce
   erasure codes based on sparse parity check matrices for object
   delivery protocols like ALC and NORM.  These codes are efficient in
   terms of processing but not optimal in terms of erasure recovery
   capabilities when dealing with "small" objects.

   The Reed-Solomon FEC codes described in this document belong to the
   class of Maximum Distance Separable (MDS) codes that are optimal in
   terms of erasure recovery capability.  It means that a receiver can
   recover the k source symbols from any set of exactly k encoding
   symbols.  These codes are also systematic codes, which means that the
   k source symbols are part of the encoding symbols.  However they are
   limited in terms of maximum source block size and number of encoding
   symbols.  Since the real-time constraints of media delivery
   applications usually limit the maximum source block size, this is not
   considered to be a major issue in the context of the FEC Framework
   for many (but not necessarily all) use-cases.  Additionally, if the
   encoding/decoding complexity is higher with Reed-Solomon codes than
   it is with [RFC5053] or [RFC5170] codes, it remains reasonable for
   most use-cases, even in case of a software codec.

   Many applications dealing with reliable content transmission or
   content storage already rely on packet-based Reed-Solomon erasure
   recovery codes.  In particular, many of them use the Reed-Solomon
   codec of Luigi Rizzo [RS-codec] [Rizzo97].  The goal of the present
   document is to specify a simple Reed-Solomon scheme that is
   compatible with this codec.

   More specifically, the [RFC5510] document introduced such Reed-
   Solomon codes and several associated FEC schemes that are compatible
   with the [RFC5052] framework.  The present document inherits from
   [RFC5510] the specification of the core Reed-Solomon codes based on
   Vandermonde matrices, and specifies a simple FEC scheme that is
   compatible with the FECFRAME framework [RFC6363].  Therefore this
   document specifies only the information specific to the FECFRAME



Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   context and refers to [RFC5510] for the core specifications of the
   codes.  To that purpose, the present document introduces:
   o  the Fully-Specified FEC Scheme with FEC Encoding ID XXX that
      specifies a simple way of using of Reed-Solomon codes over
      GF(2^^m), with 2 <= m <= 16, with a simple FEC encoding for
      arbitrary packet flows;

   For instance, with this scheme, a set of Application Data Units (or
   ADUs) coming from one or several (resp. one) media delivery
   applications (e.g., a set of RTP packets), are grouped in an ADU
   block and FEC encoded as a whole.  With Reed-Solomon codes over
   GF(2^^8), there is a strict limit over the number of ADUs that can be
   protected together, since the number of encoded symbols, n, must be
   inferior or equal to 255.  This constraint is relaxed when using a
   higher finite field size (m > 8), at the price of an increased
   computational complexity.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


3.  Definitions Notations and Abbreviations

3.1.  Definitions

   This document uses the following terms and definitions.  Some of them
   are FEC scheme specific and are in line with [RFC5052]:
   Source symbol:  unit of data used during the encoding process.  In
      this specification, there is always one source symbol per ADU.
   Encoding symbol:  unit of data generated by the encoding process.
      With systematic codes, source symbols are part of the encoding
      symbols.
   Repair symbol:  encoding symbol that is not a source symbol.
   Code rate:  the k/n ratio, i.e., the ratio between the number of
      source symbols and the number of encoding symbols.  By definition,
      the code rate is such that: 0 < code rate <= 1.  A code rate close
      to 1 indicates that a small number of repair symbols have been
      produced during the encoding process.
   Systematic code:  FEC code in which the source symbols are part of
      the encoding symbols.  The Reed-Solomon codes introduced in this
      document are systematic.






Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   Source block:  a block of k source symbols that are considered
      together for the encoding.
   Packet Erasure Channel:  a communication path where packets are
      either dropped (e.g., by a congested router, or because the number
      of transmission errors exceeds the correction capabilities of the
      physical layer codes) or received.  When a packet is received, it
      is assumed that this packet is not corrupted.

   Some of them are FECFRAME framework specific and are in line with
   [RFC6363]:
   Application Data Unit (ADU):  The unit of source data provided as
      payload to the transport layer.  Depending on the use-case, an ADU
      may use an RTP encapsulation.
   (Source) ADU Flow:  A sequence of ADUs associated with a transport-
      layer flow identifier (such as the standard 5-tuple {Source IP
      address, source port, destination IP address, destination port,
      transport protocol}).  Depending on the use-case, several ADU
      flows may be protected together by the FECFRAME framework.
   ADU Block:  a set of ADUs that are considered together by the
      FECFRAME instance for the purpose of the FEC scheme.  Along with
      the F[], L[], and Pad[] fields, they form the set of source
      symbols over which FEC encoding will be performed.
   ADU Information (ADUI):  a unit of data constituted by the ADU and
      the associated Flow ID, Length and Padding fields (Section 4.3).
      This is the unit of data that is used as source symbol.
   FEC Framework Configuration Information:  Information which controls
      the operation of the FEC Framework.  The FFCI enables the
      synchronization of the FECFRAME sender and receiver instances.
   FEC Source Packet:  At a sender (respectively, at a receiver) a
      payload submitted to (respectively, received from) the transport
      protocol containing an ADU along with an optional Explicit Source
      FEC Payload ID.
   FEC Repair Packet:  At a sender (respectively, at a receiver) a
      payload submitted to (respectively, received from) the transport
      protocol containing one repair symbol along with a Repair FEC
      Payload ID and possibly an RTP header.

   The above terminology is illustrated in Figure 1 (sender's point of
   view):












Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   +----------------------+
   |     Application      |
   +----------------------+
              |
              | (1) Application Data Units (ADUs)
              |
              v
   +----------------------+                           +----------------+
   |    FEC Framework     |                           |                |
   |                      |-------------------------->|   FEC Scheme   |
   |(2) Construct source  |(3) Source Block           |                |
   |    blocks            |                           |(4) FEC Encoding|
   |(6) Construct FEC     |<--------------------------|                |
   |    source and repair |                           |                |
   |    packets           |(5) Explicit Source FEC    |                |
   +----------------------+    Payload IDs            +----------------+
              |                Repair FEC Payload IDs
              |                Repair symbols
              |
              |(7) FEC source and repair packets
              v
   +----------------------+
   |   Transport Layer    |
   |     (e.g., UDP)      |
   +----------------------+

           Figure 1: Terminology used in this document (sender).

3.2.  Notations

   This document uses the following notations: Some of them are FEC
   scheme specific:
   k      denotes the number of source symbols in a source block.
   max_k  denotes the maximum number of source symbols for any source
          block.
   n      denotes the number of encoding symbols generated for a source
          block.
   E      denotes the encoding symbol length in bytes.
   GF(q)  denotes a finite field (also known as Galois Field) with q
          elements.  We assume that q = 2^^m in this document.
   m      defines the length of the elements in the finite field, in
          bits.  In this document, m is such that 2 <= m <= 16.
   q      defines the number of elements in the finite field.  We have:
          q = 2^^m in this specification.







Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   CR     denotes the "code rate", i.e., the k/n ratio.
   a^^b   denotes a raised to the power b.

   Some of them are FECFRAME framework specific:
   B      denotes the number of ADUs per ADU block.
   max_B  denotes the maximum number of ADUs for any ADU block.

3.3.  Abbreviations

   This document uses the following abbreviations:
   ADU    stands for Application Data Unit.
   ESI    stands for Encoding Symbol ID.
   FEC    stands for Forward Error (or Erasure) Correction code.
   FFCI   stands for FEC Framework Configuration Information.
   FSSI   stands for FEC Scheme Specific Information.
   MDS    stands for Maximum Distance Separable code.


4.  Common Procedures Related to the ADU Block and Source Block Creation

   This section introduces the procedures that are used during the ADU
   block and the related source block creation, for the FEC scheme
   considered.

4.1.  Restrictions

   This specification has the following restrictions:
   o  there MUST be exactly one source symbol per ADUI, and therefore
      per ADU;
   o  there MUST be exactly one repair symbol per FEC Repair Packet;
   o  there MUST be exactly one source block per ADU block;

4.2.  ADU Block Creation

   Two kinds of limitations MUST be considered, that impact the ADU
   block creation:
   o  at the FEC Scheme level: the finite field size (m parameter)
      directly impacts the maximum source block size and the maximum
      number of encoding symbols;
   o  at the FECFRAME instance level: the target use-case MAY have real-
      time constraints that MAY define a maximum ADU block size;
   Note that terminology "maximum source block size" and "maximum ADU
   block size" depends on the point of view that is adopted (FEC Scheme
   versus FECFRAME instance).  However, in this document, both refer to
   the same value since Section 4.1 requires there is exactly one source
   symbol per ADU.  We now detail each of these aspects.

   The finite field size parameter, m, defines the number of non zero



Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   elements in this field which is equal to: q - 1 = 2^^m - 1.  This q -
   1 value is also the theoretical maximum number of encoding symbols
   that can be produced for a source block.  For instance, when m = 8
   (default) there is a maximum of 2^^8 - 1 = 255 encoding symbols.  So:
   k < n <= 255.  Given the target FEC code rate (e.g., provided by the
   end-user or upper application when starting the FECFRAME framework,
   and taking into account the known or estimated packet loss rate), the
   sender calculates:
      max_k = floor((2^^m - 1) * CR)
   This max_k value leaves enough room for the sender to produce the
   desired number of repair symbols.  Since there is one source symbol
   per ADU, max_k is also an upper bound to the maximum number of ADUs
   per ADU block.

   The source ADU flows MAY have real-time constraints.  In that case
   the maximum number of ADUs of an ADU block must not exceed a certain
   threshold since it directly impacts the decoding delay.  The larger
   the ADU block size, the longer a decoder may have to wait until it
   has received a sufficient number of encoding symbols for decoding to
   succeed, and therefore the larger the decoding delay.  When the
   target use-case is known, these real-time constraints result in an
   upper bound to the ADU block size, max_rt.

   For instance, if the use-case specifies a maximum decoding latency,
   l, and if each source ADU covers a duration d of a continuous media
   (we assume here the simple case of a constant bit rate ADU flow),
   then the ADU block size must not exceed:
      max_rt = floor(l / d)
   After encoding, this block will produce a set of at most n = max_rt /
   CR encoding symbols.  These n encoding symbols will have to be sent
   at a rate of n / l packets per second.  For instance, with d = 10 ms,
   l = 1 s, max_rt = 100 ADUs.

   If we take into account all these constraints, we find:
      max_B = min(max_k, max_rt)
   This max_B parameter is an upper bound to the number of ADUs that can
   constitute an ADU block.

4.3.  Source Block Creation

   In its most general form the FECFRAME framework and the Reed-Solomon
   FEC scheme are meant to protect a set of independent flows.  Since
   the flows have no relationship to one another, the ADU size of each
   flow can potentially vary significantly.  Even in the special case of
   a single flow, the ADU sizes can largely vary (e.g., the various
   frames of a "Group of Pictures (GOP) of an H.264 flow will have
   different sizes).  This diversity must be addressed since the Reed-
   Solomon FEC scheme requires a constant encoding symbol size (E



Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   parameter) per source block.  Since this specification requires that
   there is only one source symbol per ADU, E must be large enough to
   contain all the ADUs of an ADU block along with their prepended 3
   bytes (see below).

   In situations where E is determined per source block (default,
   specified by the FFCI/FSSI with S = 0, Section 5.1.1.2), E is equal
   to the size of the largest ADU of this source block plus three (for
   the prepended 3 bytes, see below).  In this case, upon receiving the
   first FEC Repair Packet for this source block, since this packet MUST
   contain a single repair symbol (Section 5.1.3), a receiver determines
   the E parameter used for this source block.

   In situations where E is fixed (specified by the FFCI/FSSI with S =
   1, Section 5.1.1.2), then E must be greater or equal to the size of
   the largest ADU of this source block plus three (for the prepended 3
   bytes, see below).  If this is not the case, an error is returned.
   How to handle this error is use-case specific (e.g., a larger E
   parameter may be communicated to the receivers in an updated FFCI
   message, using an appropriate mechanism) and is not considered by
   this specification.

   The ADU block is always encoded as a single source block.  There are
   a total of B <= max_B ADUs in this ADU block.  For the ADU i, with 0
   <= i <= B-1, 3 bytes are prepended (Figure 2):
   o  The first byte, FID[i] (Flow ID), contains the integer identifier
      associated to the source ADU flow to which this ADU belongs to.
      It is assumed that a single byte is sufficient, or said
      differently, that no more than 256 flows will be protected by a
      single instance of the FECFRAME framework.
   o  The following two bytes, L[i] (Length), contain the length of this
      ADU, in network byte order (i.e., big endian).  This length is for
      the ADU itself and does not include the FID[i], L[i], or Pad[i]
      fields.

   Then zero padding is added to ADU i (if needed) in field Pad[i], for
   alignment purposes up to a size of exactly E bytes.  The data unit
   resulting from the ADU i and the F[i], L[i] and Pad[i] fields, is
   called ADU Information (or ADUI).  Each ADUI contributes to exactly
   one source symbol to the source block.











Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


                        Encoding Symbol Length (E)
   < -------------------------------------------------------------- >
   +----+----+-----------------------+------------------------------+
   |F[0]|L[0]|        ADU[0]         |            Pad[0]            |
   +----+----+----------+------------+------------------------------+
   |F[1]|L[1]| ADU[1]   |                         Pad[1]            |
   +----+----+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   |F[2]|L[2]|                    ADU[2]                            |
   +----+----+------+-----------------------------------------------+
   |F[3]|L[3]|ADU[3]|                             Pad[3]            |
   +----+----+------+-----------------------------------------------+
   \_______________________________  _______________________________/
                                   \/
                          simple FEC encoding

   +----------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                            Repair 4                            |
   +----------------------------------------------------------------+
   .                                                                .
   .                                                                .
   +----------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                            Repair 7                            |
   +----------------------------------------------------------------+

    Figure 2: Source block creation, for code rate 1/2 (equal number of
         source and repair symbols, 4 in this example), and S = 0.

   Note that neither the initial 3 bytes nor the optional padding are
   sent over the network.  However, they are considered during FEC
   encoding.  It means that a receiver who lost a certain FEC source
   packet (e.g., the UDP datagram containing this FEC source packet)
   will be able to recover the ADUI if FEC decoding succeeds.  Thanks to
   the initial 3 bytes, this receiver will get rid of the padding (if
   any) and identify the corresponding ADU flow.


5.  Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme over GF(2^^m) for Arbitrary ADU Flows

   This Fully-Specified FEC Scheme specifies the use of Reed-Solomon
   codes over GF(2^^m), with 2 <= m <= 16, with a simple FEC encoding
   for arbitrary packet flows.

5.1.  Formats and Codes

5.1.1.  FEC Framework Configuration Information

   The FEC Framework Configuration Information (or FFCI) includes
   information that MUST be communicated between the sender and



Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   receiver(s).  More specifically, it enables the synchronization of
   the FECFRAME sender and receiver instances.  It includes both
   mandatory elements and scheme-specific elements, as detailed below.

5.1.1.1.  Mandatory Information

   FEC Encoding ID:  the value assigned to this fully-specified FEC
      scheme MUST be XXX, as assigned by IANA (Section 8).
   When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC Encoding ID is
   carried in the 'encoding-id' parameter.

5.1.1.2.  FEC Scheme-Specific Information

   The FEC Scheme Specific Information (FSSI) includes elements that are
   specific to the present FEC scheme.  More precisely:
   Encoding symbol length (E):  a non-negative integer that indicates
      either the length of each encoding symbol in bytes ("strict" mode,
      i.e., if S = 1), or the maximum length of any encoding symbol
      (i.e., if S = 0).
   Strict (S) flag:  when set to 1 this flag indicates that the E
      parameter is the actual encoding symbol length value for each
      block of the session (unless otherwise notified by an updated FFCI
      if this possibility is considered by the use-case or CDP).  When
      set to 0 this flag indicates that the E parameter is the maximum
      encoding symbol length value for each block of the session (unless
      otherwise notified by an updated FFCI if this possibility is
      considered by the use-case or CDP).
   m parameter (m):  an integer that defines the length of the elements
      in the finite field, in bits.  We have: 2 <= m <= 16.
   These elements are required both by the sender (Reed-Solomon encoder)
   and the receiver(s) (Reed-Solomon decoder).

   When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC scheme-specific
   information is carried in the 'fssi' parameter in textual
   representation as specified in [RFC6364].  For instance:

   fssi=E:1400,S:0,m:8

   If another mechanism requires the FSSI to be carried as an opaque
   octet string (for instance after a Base64 encoding), the encoding
   format consists of the following 3 octets:
   o  Encoding symbol length (E): 16 bit field.
   o  Strict (S) flag: 1 bit field.
   o  m parameter (m): 7 bit field.







Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


    0                   1                   2
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Encoding Symbol Length (E)  |S|     m       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 3: FSSI encoding format.

5.1.2.  Explicit Source FEC Payload ID

   A FEC source packet MUST contain an Explicit Source FEC Payload ID
   that is appended to the end of the packet as illustrated in Figure 4.

   +--------------------------------+
   |           IP Header            |
   +--------------------------------+
   |        Transport Header        |
   +--------------------------------+
   |              ADU               |
   +--------------------------------+
   | Explicit Source FEC Payload ID |
   +--------------------------------+

    Figure 4: Structure of a FEC Source Packet with the Explicit Source
                              FEC Payload ID.

   More precisely, the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID is composed of the
   Source Block Number, the Encoding Symbol ID, and the Source Block
   Length.  The length of the first two fields depends on the m
   parameter (transmitted separately in the FFCI, Section 5.1.1.2):
   Source Block Number (SBN) (32-m bit field):  this field identifies
      the source block to which this FEC source packet belongs.
   Encoding Symbol ID (ESI) (m bit field):  this field identifies the
      source symbol contained in this FEC source packet.  This value is
      such that 0 <= ESI <= k - 1 for source symbols.
   Source Block Length (k) (16 bit field):  this field provides the
      number of source symbols for this source block, i.e., the k
      parameter.  If 16 bits are too much when m <= 8, it is needed when
      8 < m <= 16.  Therefore we provide a single common format
      regardless of m.











Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Source Block Number (24 bits)       | Enc. Symb. ID |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Source Block Length (k)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 5: Source FEC Payload ID encoding format for m = 8 (default).


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Source Block Nb (16 bits)   |   Enc. Symbol ID (16 bits)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Source Block Length (k)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Figure 6: Source FEC Payload ID encoding format for m = 16.

   The format of the Source FEC Payload ID for m = 8 and m = 16 are
   illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively.

5.1.3.  Repair FEC Payload ID

   A FEC repair packet MUST contain a Repair FEC Payload ID that is
   prepended to the repair symbol(s) as illustrated in Figure 7.  There
   MUST be a single repair symbol per FEC repair packet.

   +--------------------------------+
   |           IP Header            |
   +--------------------------------+
   |        Transport Header        |
   +--------------------------------+
   |      Repair FEC Payload ID     |
   +--------------------------------+
   |         Repair Symbol          |
   +--------------------------------+

      Figure 7: Structure of a FEC Repair Packet with the Repair FEC
                                Payload ID.

   More precisely, the Repair FEC Payload ID is composed of the Source
   Block Number, the Encoding Symbol ID, and the Source Block Length.
   The length of the first two fields depends on the m parameter
   (transmitted separately in the FFCI, Section 5.1.1.2):




Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   Source Block Number (SBN) (32-m bit field):  this field identifies
      the source block to which the FEC repair packet belongs.
   Encoding Symbol ID (ESI) (m bit field)  this field identifies the
      repair symbol contained in this FEC repair packet.  This value is
      such that k <= ESI <= n - 1 for repair symbols.
   Source Block Length (k) (16 bit field):  this field provides the
      number of source symbols for this source block, i.e., the k
      parameter.  If 16 bits are too much when m <= 8, it is needed when
      8 < m <= 16.  Therefore we provide a single common format
      regardless of m.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Source Block Number (24 bits)       | Enc. Symb. ID |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Source Block Length (k)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 8: Repair FEC Payload ID encoding format for m = 8 (default).


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Source Block Nb (16 bits)   |   Enc. Symbol ID (16 bits)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Source Block Length (k)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Figure 9: Repair FEC Payload ID encoding format for m = 16.

   The format of the Repair FEC Payload ID for m = 8 and m = 16 are
   illustrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9 respectively.

5.2.  Procedures

   The following procedures apply:
   o  The source block creation procedures are specified in Section 4.3.
   o  The SBN value is incremented for each new source block, starting
      at 0 for the first block of the ADU flow.  Wrapping to zero will
      happen for long sessions, after value 2^^(32-m) - 1.
   o  The ESI of encoding symbols is managed sequentially, starting at 0
      for the first symbol.  The first k values (0 <= ESI <= k - 1)
      identify source symbols, whereas the last n-k values (k <= ESI <=
      n - 1) identify repair symbols.





Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   o  The FEC repair packet creation procedures are specified in
      Section 5.1.3.

5.3.  FEC Code Specification

   The present document inherits from [RFC5510] the specification of the
   core Reed-Solomon codes based on Vandermonde matrices for a packet
   transmission channel.


6.  Security Considerations

   The FEC Framework document [RFC6363] provides a comprehensive
   analysis of security considerations applicable to FEC schemes.
   Therefore the present section follows the security considerations
   section of [RFC6363] and only discusses topics that are specific to
   the use of Reed-Solomon codes.

6.1.  Attacks Against the Data Flow

6.1.1.  Access to Confidential Content

   The Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme specified in this document does not
   change the recommendations of [RFC6363].  To summarize, if
   confidentiality is a concern, it is RECOMMENDED that one of the
   solutions mentioned in [RFC6363] is used, with special considerations
   to the way this solution is applied (e.g., before versus after FEC
   protection, and within the end-system versus in a middlebox), to the
   operational constraints (e.g., performing FEC decoding in a protected
   environment may be complicated or even impossible) and to the threat
   model.

6.1.2.  Content Corruption

   The Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme specified in this document does not
   change the recommendations of [RFC6363].  To summarize, it is
   RECOMMENDED that one of the solutions mentioned in [RFC6363] is used
   on both the FEC Source and Repair Packets.

6.2.  Attacks Against the FEC Parameters

   The FEC Scheme specified in this document defines parameters that can
   be the basis of several attacks.  More specifically, the following
   parameters of the FFCI may be modified by an attacker
   (Section 5.1.1.2):
   o  FEC Encoding ID: changing this parameter leads the receiver to
      consider a different FEC Scheme, which enables an attacker to
      create a Denial of Service (DoS).



Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   o  Encoding symbol length (E): setting this E parameter to a value
      smaller than the valid one enables an attacker to create a DoS
      since the repair symbols and certain source symbols will be larger
      than E, which is an incoherency for the receiver.  Setting this E
      parameter to a value larger than the valid one has similar impacts
      when S=1 since the received repair symbol size will be smaller
      than expected.  On the opposite it will not lead to any
      incoherency when S=0 since the actual symbol length value for the
      block is determined by the size of any received repair symbol, as
      long as this value is smaller than E. However setting this E
      parameter to a larger value may have impacts on receivers that
      pre-allocate memory space in advance to store incoming symbols.
   o  Strict (S) flag: flipping this S flag from 0 to 1 (i.e., E is now
      considered as a strict value) enables an attacker to mislead the
      receiver if the actual symbol size varies over different source
      blocks.  Flipping this S flag from 1 to 0 has no major
      consequences unless the receiver requires to have a fixed E value
      (e.g., because the receiver pre-allocates memory space).
   o  m parameter: changing this parameter triggers a DoS since the
      receiver and sender will consider different codes, and the
      receiver will interpret the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID and
      Repair FEC Payload ID differently.  Additionally, by increasing
      this m parameter to a larger value (typically m=16 rather than 8,
      when both values are possible in the target use-case) will create
      additional processing load at a receiver if decoding is attempted.

   It is therefore RECOMMENDED that security measures are taken to
   guarantee the FFCI integrity, as specified in [RFC6363].  How to
   achieve this depends on the way the FFCI is communicated from the
   sender to the receiver, which is not specified in this document.

   Similarly, attacks are possible against the Explicit Source FEC
   Payload ID and Repair FEC Payload ID: by modifying the Source Block
   Number (SBN), or the Encoding Symbol ID (ESI), or the Source Block
   Length (k), an attacker can easily corrupt the block identified by
   the SBN.  Other consequences, that are use-case and/or CDP dependant,
   may also happen.  It is therefore RECOMMENDED that security measures
   are taken to guarantee the FEC Source and Repair Packets as stated in
   [RFC6363].

6.3.  When Several Source Flows are to be Protected Together

   The Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme specified in this document does not
   change the recommendations of [RFC6363].







Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


6.4.  Baseline Secure FEC Framework Operation

   The Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme specified in this document does not
   change the recommendations of [RFC6363] concerning the use of the
   IPsec/ESP security protocol as a mandatory to implement (but not
   mandatory to use) security scheme.  This is well suited to situations
   where the only insecure domain is the one over which the FEC
   Framework operates.


7.  Operations and Management Considerations

   The FEC Framework document [RFC6363] provides a comprehensive
   analysis of operations and management considerations applicable to
   FEC schemes.  Therefore the present section only discusses topics
   that are specific to the use of Reed-Solomon codes as specified in
   this document.

7.1.  Operational Recommendations: Finite Field Size (m)

   The present document requires that m, the length of the elements in
   the finite field, in bits, is such that 2 <= m <= 16.  However all
   possibilities are not equally interesting from a practical point of
   view.  It is expected that m=8, the default value, will be mostly
   used since it offers the possibility to have small to medium sized
   source blocks and/or a significant number of repair symbols (i.e., k
   < n <= 255).  Additionally, elements in the finite field are 8 bits
   long which makes read/write memory operations aligned on bytes during
   encoding and decoding.

   An alternative when it is known that only very small source blocks
   will be used is m=4 (i.e., k < n <= 15).  Elements in the finite
   field are 4 bits long, so if two elements are accessed at a time,
   read/write memory operations are aligned on bytes during encoding and
   decoding.

   An alternative when very large source blocks are needed is m=16
   (i.e., k < n <= 65535).  However this choice has significant impacts
   on the processing load.  For instance using pre-calculated tables to
   speedup operations over the finite field (as done with smaller finite
   fields) may require a prohibitive amount of memory to be used on
   embedded platforms.  Alternative lightweight solutions (e.g.,
   [RFC5170]) MAY be preferred in situations where the processing load
   is an issue [Matsuzono10].

   Since several values for the m parameter are possible, the use-case
   SHOULD define which value(s) need(s) to be supported.  In situations
   where this is not specified, the default m=8 value SHOULD be



Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   supported and used.


8.  IANA Considerations

   Values of FEC Encoding IDs are subject to IANA registration.
   [RFC6363] defines general guidelines on IANA considerations.  In
   particular it defines a registry called FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC
   Encoding IDs whose values are granted on an IETF Consensus basis.

   This document registers one value in the FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC
   Encoding IDs registry as follows:
   o  XXX refers to the Simple Reed-Solomon [RFC5510] FEC Scheme over
      GF(2^^m) for Arbitrary Packet Flows.


9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors want to thank Hitoshi Asaeda and Ali Begen for their
   valuable comments.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", RFC 2119.

   [RFC5052]  Watson, M., Luby, M., and L. Vicisano, "Forward Error
              Correction (FEC) Building Block", RFC 5052, August 2007.

   [RFC5510]  Lacan, J., Roca, V., Peltotalo, J., and S. Peltotalo,
              "Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes",
              RFC 5510, April 2009.

   [RFC6363]  Watson, M., Begen, A., and V. Roca, "Forward Error
              Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6363, September 2011.

   [RFC6364]  Begen, A., "Session Description Protocol Elements for the
              Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6364,
              October 2011.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RS-codec]
              Rizzo, L., "Reed-Solomon FEC codec (revised version of
              July 2nd, 1998), available at



Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


              http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/vdm98/vdm980702.tgz,
              mirrored at http://planete-bcast.inrialpes.fr/ and
              http://openfec.org/", July 1998.

   [Rizzo97]  Rizzo, L., "Effective Erasure Codes for Reliable Computer
              Communication Protocols", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
              Communication Review Vol.27, No.2, pp.24-36, April 1997.

   [Matsuzono10]
              Matsuzono, K., Detchart, J., Cunche, M., Roca, V., and H.
              Asaeda, "Performance Analysis of a High-Performance Real-
              Time Application with Several AL-FEC Schemes", 35th Annual
              IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN 2010),
              October 2010.

   [RFC5170]  Roca, V., Neumann, C., and D. Furodet, "Low Density Parity
              Check (LDPC) Forward Error Correction", RFC 5170,
              June 2008.

   [RFC5053]  Luby, M., Shokrollahi, A., Watson, M., and T. Stockhammer,
              "Raptor Forward Error Correction Scheme", RFC 5053,
              June 2007.

   [RFC5775]  Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Asynchronous
              Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", RFC 5775,
              April 2010.

   [RFC5740]  Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker,
              "Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable
              Multicast (NORM) Protocol", RFC 5740, November 2009.


Authors' Addresses

   Vincent Roca
   INRIA
   655, av. de l'Europe
   Inovallee; Montbonnot
   ST ISMIER cedex  38334
   France

   Email: vincent.roca@inria.fr
   URI:   http://planete.inrialpes.fr/people/roca/








Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft       Simple Reed-Solomon FEC Scheme        November 2011


   Mathieu Cunche
   NICTA
   Australia

   Email: mathieu.cunche@nicta.com.au
   URI:   http://mathieu.cunche.free.fr/


   Jerome Lacan
   ISAE/LAAS-CNRS
   1, place Emile Blouin
   Toulouse  31056
   France

   Email: jerome.lacan@isae.fr
   URI:   http://dmi.ensica.fr/auteur.php3?id_auteur=5


   Amine Bouabdallah
   ISAE/LAAS-CNRS
   1, place Emile Blouin
   Toulouse  31056
   France

   Email: Amine.Bouabdallah@isae.fr
   URI:   http://dmi.ensica.fr/


   Kazuhisa Matsuzono
   Keio University
   Graduate School of Media and Governance
   5322 Endo
   Fujisawa, Kanagawa  252-8520
   Japan

   Email: kazuhisa@sfc.wide.ad.jp















Roca, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                 [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/