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

Versions: (draft-begen-mmusic-rfc4756bis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 5956

MMUSIC                                                          A. Begen
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Updates:  4756 (if approved)                            January 21, 2009
Intended status:  Standards Track
Expires:  July 25, 2009


   Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in Session Description
                                Protocol
                    draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4756bis-00

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 25, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   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.






Begen                     Expires July 25, 2009                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        FEC Grouping Semantics in SDP         January 2009


Abstract

   The Session Description Protocol (SDP) supports grouping media lines.
   SDP also has semantics defined for grouping the associated source and
   Forward Error Correction (FEC)-based repair flows.  However, the
   semantics that were defined in RFC 4756 generally fail to provide the
   specific grouping relationships between the source and repair flows
   when there are more than one source and/or repair flows in the same
   group.  Furthermore, the existing semantics also do not support
   additive repair flows.  This document addresses these issues by
   introducing new FEC grouping semantics.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Requirements Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Requirements and Issues with RFC 4756  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Source and Repair Flow Association . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Support for Additivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  FEC Grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  New Grouping Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Offer / Answer Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3.  Example of FEC Grouping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10




















Begen                     Expires July 25, 2009                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        FEC Grouping Semantics in SDP         January 2009


1.  Introduction

   Any application that needs a reliable transmission over an unreliable
   packet network has to cope with packet losses.  Forward Error
   Correction (FEC) is an effective approach that provides reliable
   transmission particularly in multicast and broadcast applications
   where the feedback from the receiver(s) is potentially limited.

   In a nutshell, FEC groups source packets into blocks and applies
   protection to generate a desired number of repair packets.  These
   repair packets may be sent on demand or independently of any receiver
   feedback.  The choice depends on the FEC scheme or the Content
   Delivery Protocol used by the application, the packet loss
   characteristics of the underlying network, the transport scheme
   (e.g., unicast, multicast and broadcast), and the application.  At
   the receiver side, lost packets can be recovered by erasure decoding
   provided that a sufficient number of source and repair packets have
   been received.

   For example, one of the most basic FEC schemes is the parity codes,
   where an XOR operation is applied to a group of packets (i.e., source
   block) to generate a single repair packet.  At the receiver side,
   this scheme achieves a full recovery if only one packet is lost
   within the source block and the repair packet is received.  There are
   various other ways of generating repair packets, possibly with
   different loss-recovery capabilities.

   The FEC Framework [I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework] outlines a general
   framework for using FEC codes in multimedia applications that stream
   audio, video or other types of multimedia content.  The FEC Framework
   specification states that source and repair packets MUST be carried
   in different streams, which are referred to as the source and repair
   flows, respectively.  At the receiver side, the receivers should know
   which flows are the source flows and which flows are the repair
   flows.  The receivers should also know the exact association of the
   source and repair flows so that they can use the correct data to
   repair the original content in case there is a packet loss.
   Currently, SDP [RFC4566] uses [RFC3388] and [RFC4756] for this
   purpose.

   In order to provide applications more flexibility, the FEC Framework
   [I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework] allows a source flow to be protected by
   multiple FEC schemes, each of which requires an instance of the FEC
   Framework.  Thus, multiple instances of the FEC Framework MAY exist
   at the sender and the receiver(s).  Furthermore, within a single FEC
   Framework instance, multiple source flows MAY be grouped and
   protected by one or more repair flows.




Begen                     Expires July 25, 2009                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        FEC Grouping Semantics in SDP         January 2009


   A basic example scenario is shown in Figure 1.  Here, source flow S1
   is protected by repair flow R1.  Also, source flows S1 and S2 are
   grouped and protected together by repair flow R2.

               SOURCE FLOWS             | FEC FRAMEWORK INSTANCE #1
             | S1: Source Flow |--------| R1: Repair Flow
         +---|
         |   | S2: Source Flow
         |
         +______________________________| FEC FRAMEWORK INSTANCE #2
                                        | R2: Repair Flow

   Figure 1: Example scenario with two FEC Framework instances where R1
            protects S1, and R2 protects the group of S1 and S2

   Grouping source flows before applying FEC protection may allow us to
   achieve a better coding performance.  As a typical scenario, suppose
   that source flows S1 and S2 in Figure 1 correspond to the base and
   enhancement layers in a layered video content, respectively.  Repair
   flow R2 protects the combination of the base and enhancement layer
   for the receivers who receive both layers, and repair flow R1
   protects the base layer only, for the receivers who want the base
   layer only, or who receive both layers but prefer FEC protection for
   the base layer only due to a bandwidth and/or processing-power
   limitation.

   Using multiple FEC Framework instances for a single source flow
   provides flexibility to the receivers.  An example scenario is
   sketched in Figure 2.  Different instances may offer repair flows
   that are generated by different FEC schemes, and receivers choose
   receiving the appropriate repair flow(s) that they can support and
   decode.  Alternatively, different instances (whether they use the
   same FEC scheme or not) may use larger and smaller source block
   sizes, which accommodate the receivers that have looser and tighter
   latency requirements, respectively.  In addition, different instances
   may also provide FEC protection at different redundancy levels.  This
   is particularly useful in multicast scenarios where different
   receivers might experience different packet loss rates and each
   receiver can choose the repair flow that is tailored to its needs.












Begen                     Expires July 25, 2009                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        FEC Grouping Semantics in SDP         January 2009


           SOURCE FLOWS              | FEC FRAMEWORK INSTANCE #1
           S3: Source Flow |---------| R3: Repair Flow
                           |
                           |---------| FEC FRAMEWORK INSTANCE #2
                                     | R4: Repair Flow

     Figure 2: Example scenario with two FEC Framework instances, each
       with a single repair flow protecting the same source flow S3

   To summarize, the FEC Framework supports the following:

   1.  A source flow MAY be protected by multiple different FEC schemes.

   2.  An FEC scheme MAY generate multiple repair flows.

   3.  Source flows MAY be grouped prior to FEC protection.  That is,
       one or more repair flows MAY protect a group of source flows.

   To fully benefit from the flexibility provided by the FEC Framework,
   the grouping semantics for FEC MUST support these features.


2.  Requirements Notation

   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 [RFC2119].


3.  Requirements and Issues with RFC 4756

3.1.  Source and Repair Flow Association

   Currently, the 'group' attribute and the FEC grouping semantics
   defined in [RFC3388] and [RFC4756], respectively, are used to
   associate source and repair flows together.

   The 'group' attribute is used to group multiple repair flows with one
   or more source flows.  However, [RFC3388] prohibits an "m" line
   identified by its 'mid' attribute from appearing in more than one
   "a=group" line using the same semantics.  This limitation prevents us
   from indicating specific associations between the source and repair
   flows by using an "a=group:FEC" line per FEC Framework instance.  For
   example, for the scenario sketched in Figure 1, [RFC3388] mandates us
   to write






Begen                     Expires July 25, 2009                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        FEC Grouping Semantics in SDP         January 2009


        a=group:FEC S1 S2 R1 R2

   Clearly, this "a=group:FEC" line does not say anything specific about
   which repair flows are protecting which source flows.

   A new work ([I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis]) is currently in progress in
   the MMUSIC WG to remove this limitation in [RFC3388].  However,
   [RFC4756] also needs to be updated according to the FEC Framework
   requirements.

3.2.  Support for Additivity

   The FEC Framework also supports additive repair flows.  Additivity
   among the repair flows means that multiple repair flows may be
   decoded jointly to improve the recovery chances of the missing
   packets in a single or the same set of source flows.  Additive repair
   flows can be generated by the same FEC scheme or different FEC
   schemes.

   For example, in Figure 3, repair flows R5 and R6 may be additive
   within the FEC Framework instance #1.  Alternatively, all three
   repair flows R5, R6 and R7 could be additive, too.

           SOURCE FLOWS              | FEC FRAMEWORK INSTANCE #1
           S4: Source Flow |---------| R5: Repair Flow
                           |         | R6: Repair Flow
                           |
                           |---------| FEC FRAMEWORK INSTANCE #2
                                     | R7: Repair Flow

    Figure 3: Example scenario with two FEC Framework instances, where
    two repair flows in the first instance and a single repair flow in
            the second instance protect the same source flow S4


4.  FEC Grouping

4.1.  New Grouping Semantics

   Each "a=group" line is used to indicate an association relationship
   between the source and repair flows.  The flows included in one
   "a=group" line are called an "FEC Group."  If there are more than one
   repair flows included in an FEC group, they are considered to be
   additive.  Repair flows that are in different FEC groups are non-
   additive.

   By extending [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis] we define "FEC-XR" as the
   new grouping semantics that can support the features of the FEC



Begen                     Expires July 25, 2009                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        FEC Grouping Semantics in SDP         January 2009


   Framework.

4.2.  Offer / Answer Consideration

   The backward compatibility in offer / answer is generally handled as
   specified in [RFC3388].

   Depending on the implementation, a node that does not understand FEC
   grouping (either does not understand line grouping at all, or just
   does not understand the FEC semantics) SHOULD respond to an offer
   containing FEC grouping either (1) with an answer that ignores the
   grouping attribute or (2) with a refusal to the request (e.g., 488
   Not acceptable here or 606 Not acceptable in SIP).

   In the first case, the original sender of the offer MUST establish
   the connection without FEC.  In the second case, if the sender of the
   offer still wishes to establish the session, it SHOULD re-try the
   request with an offer without FEC.

   Editor's note:  This section may need to be updated according to
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis].

4.3.  Example of FEC Grouping

   For the scenario sketched in Figure 1, we can write the following
   SDP:

























Begen                     Expires July 25, 2009                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        FEC Grouping Semantics in SDP         January 2009


        v=0
        o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 fec.example.com
        s=New FEC Grouping Semantics
        t=0 0
        a=group:FEC-XR S1 R1
        a=group:FEX-XR S1 S2 R2
        m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 100
        c=IN IP4 224.1.1.1/127
        a=rtpmap:100 MP2T/90000
        a=mid:S1
        m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 101
        c=IN IP4 224.1.1.2/127
        a=rtpmap:101 MP2T/90000
        a=mid:S2
        m=application 30000 RTP/AVP 110
        c=IN IP4 224.1.2.1/127
        a=rtpmap:110 1d-interleaved-parityfec/90000
        a=fmtp:110 L:5; D:10; repair-window: 200000
        a=mid:R1
        m=application 30000 RTP/AVP 111
        c=IN IP4 224.1.2.2/127
        a=rtpmap:111 1d-interleaved-parityfec/90000
        a=fmtp:111 L:10; D:10; repair-window: 200000
        a=mid:R2

   For the additivity issues, let us consider the scenario sketched in
   Figure 3.  Suppose that repair flows R5 and R6 are additive but
   repair flow R7 is not additive with any of the other repair flows.
   In this case, we must write

        a=group:FEC-XR S4 R5 R6
        a=group:FEC-XR S4 R7

   If none of the repair flows are additive, we must write

        a=group:FEC-XR S4 R5
        a=group:FEC-XR S4 R6
        a=group:FEC-XR S4 R7


5.  Security Considerations

   There is a weak threat for the receiver that the FEC grouping can be
   modified to indicate FEC relationships that do not exist.  Such
   attacks may result in failure of FEC to protect, and/or mishandling
   of other media payload streams.  It is recommended that the receiver
   SHOULD do integrity check on SDP and follow the security
   considerations of SDP [RFC4566] to only trust SDP from trusted



Begen                     Expires July 25, 2009                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        FEC Grouping Semantics in SDP         January 2009


   sources.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers the following semantics with IANA in
   Semantics for the "group" SDP Attribute under SDP Parameters.

   Semantics                    Token   Reference
   ---------------------------  ------  -------------
   Forward Error Correction XR  FEC-XR  This document


7.  Acknowledgments

   Some parts of this document is based on [RFC4756].  Thus, the author
   would like to thank those who contributed to [RFC4756].


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework]
              Watson, M., "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework",
              draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-03 (work in progress),
              October 2008.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis]
              Camarillo, G., "The SDP (Session Description Protocol)
              Grouping Framework", draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis-02 (work
              in progress), January 2009.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4756]  Li, A., "Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in
              Session Description Protocol", RFC 4756, November 2006.

   [RFC3388]  Camarillo, G., Eriksson, G., Holler, J., and H.
              Schulzrinne, "Grouping of Media Lines in the Session
              Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3388, December 2002.




Begen                     Expires July 25, 2009                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        FEC Grouping Semantics in SDP         January 2009


Author's Address

   Ali Begen
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email:  abegen@cisco.com










































Begen                     Expires July 25, 2009                [Page 10]


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