draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-00.txt   draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-01.txt 
Network Working Group S. Wenger Network Working Group S. Wenger
Internet-Draft J. Lennox Internet-Draft J. Lennox
Updates: 5104 (if approved) Vidyo, Inc. Updates: 5104 (if approved) Vidyo, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track B. Burman Intended status: Standards Track B. Burman
Expires: October 28, 2016 M. Westerlund Expires: November 18, 2016 M. Westerlund
Ericsson Ericsson
April 26, 2016 May 17, 2016
Using Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Using Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with
Feedback with Layered Codecs Feedback with Layered Codecs
draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-00 draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-01
Abstract Abstract
This document fixes a shortcoming in the specification language of This document fixes a shortcoming in the specification language of
the Codec Control Message Full Intra Request (FIR) as defined in the Codec Control Message Full Intra Request (FIR) as defined in
RFC5104 when using with layered codecs. In particular, a Decoder RFC5104 when using with layered codecs. In particular, a Decoder
Refresh Point needs to be sent by a media sender when a FIR is Refresh Point needs to be sent by a media sender when a FIR is
received on any layer of the layered bitstream, regardless on whether received on any layer of the layered bitstream, regardless on whether
those layers are being sent in a single or in multiple RTP flows. those layers are being sent in a single or in multiple RTP flows.
The other payload-specific feedback messages defined in RFC 5104 and The other payload-specific feedback messages defined in RFC 5104 and
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 28, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 18, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
4. Full Intra Request for Layered Codecs . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Full Intra Request for Layered Codecs . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Identifying the use of Layered Codecs (Informative) . . . . . 5 5. Identifying the use of Layered Codecs (Informative) . . . . . 5
6. Layered Codecs and non-FIR codec control messages 6. Layered Codecs and non-FIR codec control messages
(Informative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 (Informative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Picture Loss Indication (PLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Picture Loss Indication (PLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Slice Loss Indication (SLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Slice Loss Indication (SLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3. Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI) . . . . . . 6 6.3. Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI) . . . . . . 6
6.4. Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Request and Notification 6.4. Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Request and Notification
(TSTR/TSTN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 (TSTR/TSTN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.5. H.271 Video Back Channel Message (VBCM) . . . . . . . . . 7 6.5. H.271 Video Back Channel Message (VBCM) . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction and Problem Statement 1. Introduction and Problem Statement
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
take advantage of inter-layer prediction. In such a scenario, it is take advantage of inter-layer prediction. In such a scenario, it is
potentially (though not necessarily) unnecessary--or even counter- potentially (though not necessarily) unnecessary--or even counter-
productive--to send a decoder refresh point on all RTP streams using productive--to send a decoder refresh point on all RTP streams using
that payload format and SSRC. that payload format and SSRC.
One good indication of the likely use of layering with interlayer One good indication of the likely use of layering with interlayer
prediction is when the various RTP streams are "bound" together on prediction is when the various RTP streams are "bound" together on
the signaling level. In an SDP environment, this would be the case the signaling level. In an SDP environment, this would be the case
if they are marked as being dependent from each other using the if they are marked as being dependent from each other using the
grouping framework RFC 4588 [RFC4588] and the layer dependency grouping framework RFC 4588 [RFC4588] and the layer dependency
RFC 5583 [RFC5583]. Conversely, one good indication of the use of RFC 5583 [RFC5583].
simulcast is when simulcasting is explicitly being signaled, for
example through the use of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast], except
when simulcast stream identifiers are explicitly defined as dependent
according to [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid].
6. Layered Codecs and non-FIR codec control messages (Informative) 6. Layered Codecs and non-FIR codec control messages (Informative)
Between them, RFC 4585 [RFC4585] (as updated by RFC 5506 [RFC5506]) Between them, RFC 4585 [RFC4585] (as updated by RFC 5506 [RFC5506])
and RFC 5104 [RFC5104] define a total of seven Payload-specific and RFC 5104 [RFC5104] define a total of seven Payload-specific
Feedback messages. For the FIR command message, guidance has been Feedback messages. For the FIR command message, guidance has been
provided above. In this section, some information is provided with provided above. In this section, some information is provided with
respect to the remaining six codec control messages. respect to the remaining six codec control messages.
6.1. Picture Loss Indication (PLI) 6.1. Picture Loss Indication (PLI)
skipping to change at page 10, line 22 skipping to change at page 10, line 17
for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", RFC 7656, for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", RFC 7656,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7656, November 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7656, November 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656>.
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. Change Log
NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please remove this section prior to publication. NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please remove this section prior to publication.
draft-wenger-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-00-00: initial version draft-wenger-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-00-00: initial version
draft-wenger-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-00-00: resubmit as avtext WG draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-00: resubmit as avtext WG draft
draft per IETF95 and list confirmation by Rachel 4/25/2016 per IETF95 and list confirmation by Rachel 4/25/2016
draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-00: In section "Identifying the
use of Layered Codecs (Informative)", removed last sentence that
could be misread that the explicit signaling of simulcasting in
conjunction with payload formats supporting layered coding implies no
layering.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stephan Wenger Stephan Wenger
Vidyo, Inc. Vidyo, Inc.
Email: stewe@stewe.org Email: stewe@stewe.org
Jonathan Lennox Jonathan Lennox
Vidyo, Inc. Vidyo, Inc.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 14 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/