draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-03.txt   draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-04.txt 
Payload Working Group J. Lennox Payload Working Group J. Lennox
Internet-Draft D. Hong Internet-Draft D. Hong
Intended status: Standards Track Vidyo Intended status: Standards Track Vidyo
Expires: January 9, 2017 J. Uberti Expires: October 12, 2017 J. Uberti
S. Holmer S. Holmer
M. Flodman M. Flodman
Google Google
July 8, 2016 April 10, 2017
The Layer Refresh Request (LRR) RTCP Feedback Message The Layer Refresh Request (LRR) RTCP Feedback Message
draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-03 draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-04
Abstract Abstract
This memo describes the RTCP Payload-Specific Feedback Message "Layer This memo describes the RTCP Payload-Specific Feedback Message "Layer
Refresh Request" (LRR), which can be used to request a state refresh Refresh Request" (LRR), which can be used to request a state refresh
of one or more substreams of a layered media stream. It also defines of one or more substreams of a layered media stream. It also defines
its use with several RTP payloads for scalable media formats. its use with several RTP payloads for scalable media formats.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 January 9, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 12, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This memo describes an RTCP [RFC3550] Payload-Specific Feedback This memo describes an RTCP [RFC3550] Payload-Specific Feedback
Message [RFC4585] "Layer Refresh Request" (LRR). It is designed to Message [RFC4585] "Layer Refresh Request" (LRR). It is designed to
allow a receiver of a layered media stream to request that one or allow a receiver of a layered media stream to request that one or
more of its substreams be refreshed, such that it can then be decoded more of its substreams be refreshed, such that it can then be decoded
by an endpoint which previously was not receiving those layers, by an endpoint which previously was not receiving those layers,
without requiring that the entire stream be refreshed (as it would be without requiring that the entire stream be refreshed (as it would be
if the receiver sent a Full Intra Request (FIR); [RFC5104] see also if the receiver sent a Full Intra Request (FIR); [RFC5104] see also
[I-D.ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered]). [RFC8082]).
The feedback message is applicable both to temporally and spatially The feedback message is applicable both to temporally and spatially
scaled streams, and to both single-stream and multi-stream scaled streams, and to both single-stream and multi-stream
scalability modes. scalability modes.
2. Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms 2. Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
skipping to change at page 12, line 22 skipping to change at page 12, line 22
Value: TBD Value: TBD
Reference: RFC XXXX Reference: RFC XXXX
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-avtext-framemarking] [I-D.ietf-avtext-framemarking]
Berger, E., Nandakumar, S., and M. Zanaty, "Frame Marking Berger, E., Nandakumar, S., and M. Zanaty, "Frame Marking
RTP Header Extension", draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-01 RTP Header Extension", draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-04
(work in progress), March 2016. (work in progress), March 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>. July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 22 skipping to change at page 13, line 22
DOI 10.17487/RFC7741, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7741, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7741>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7741>.
[RFC7798] Wang, Y., Sanchez, Y., Schierl, T., Wenger, S., and M. [RFC7798] Wang, Y., Sanchez, Y., Schierl, T., Wenger, S., and M.
Hannuksela, "RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video Hannuksela, "RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video
Coding (HEVC)", RFC 7798, DOI 10.17487/RFC7798, March Coding (HEVC)", RFC 7798, DOI 10.17487/RFC7798, March
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7798>. 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7798>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered]
Wenger, S., Lennox, J., Burman, B., and M. Westerlund,
"Using Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual
Profile with Feedback with Layered Codecs", draft-ietf-
avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-01 (work in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-payload-vp9] [I-D.ietf-payload-vp9]
Uberti, J., Holmer, S., Flodman, M., Lennox, J., and D. Uberti, J., Holmer, S., Flodman, M., Lennox, J., and D.
Hong, "RTP Payload Format for VP9 Video", draft-ietf- Hong, "RTP Payload Format for VP9 Video", draft-ietf-
payload-vp9-02 (work in progress), March 2016. payload-vp9-03 (work in progress), March 2017.
[RFC7656] Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and [RFC7656] Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and
B. Burman, Ed., "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms B. Burman, Ed., "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms
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>.
[RFC8082] Wenger, S., Lennox, J., Burman, B., and M. Westerlund,
"Using Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual
Profile with Feedback with Layered Codecs", RFC 8082, DOI
10.17487/RFC8082, March 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8082>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jonathan Lennox Jonathan Lennox
Vidyo, Inc. Vidyo, Inc.
433 Hackensack Avenue 433 Hackensack Avenue
Seventh Floor Seventh Floor
Hackensack, NJ 07601 Hackensack, NJ 07601
US US
Email: jonathan@vidyo.com Email: jonathan@vidyo.com
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
15 lines changed or deleted 15 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/