draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-07.txt   draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-08.txt 
FEC Framework A. Begen FEC Framework A. Begen
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track December 21, 2009 Intended status: Standards Track January 8, 2010
Expires: June 24, 2010 Expires: July 12, 2010
RTP Payload Format for 1-D Interleaved Parity FEC RTP Payload Format for 1-D Interleaved Parity FEC
draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-07 draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-08
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a new RTP payload format for the Forward Error This document defines a new RTP payload format for the Forward Error
Correction (FEC) that is generated by the 1-D interleaved parity code Correction (FEC) that is generated by the 1-D interleaved parity code
from a source media encapsulated in RTP. The 1-D interleaved parity from a source media encapsulated in RTP. The 1-D interleaved parity
code is a systematic code, where a number of repair symbols are code is a systematic code, where a number of repair symbols are
generated from a set of source symbols and sent in a repair flow generated from a set of source symbols and sent in a repair flow
separate from the source flow that carries the source symbols. The separate from the source flow that carries the source symbols. The
1-D interleaved parity code offers a good protection against bursty 1-D interleaved parity code offers a good protection against bursty
packet losses at a cost of decent complexity. The new payload format packet losses at a cost of reasonable complexity. The new payload
defined in this document is used (with some exceptions) as a part of format defined in this document is used (with some exceptions) as a
the DVB Application-layer FEC specification. part of the DVB Application-layer FEC specification.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 24, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 12, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.1. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2. Overhead Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.2. Overhead Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3. Relation to Existing Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3. Relation to Existing Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.1. RFC 2733 and RFC 3009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3.1. RFC 2733 and RFC 3009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.2. SMPTE 2022-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3.2. SMPTE 2022-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.3. ETSI TS 102 034 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3.3. ETSI TS 102 034 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4. Scope of the Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Definitions, Notations and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. Definitions, Notations and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Source Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Source Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Repair Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Repair Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1.1. Registration of audio/1d-interleaved-parityfec . . . . 15 5.1.1. Registration of audio/1d-interleaved-parityfec . . . . 15
5.1.2. Registration of video/1d-interleaved-parityfec . . . . 16 5.1.2. Registration of video/1d-interleaved-parityfec . . . . 16
5.1.3. Registration of text/1d-interleaved-parityfec . . . . 17 5.1.3. Registration of text/1d-interleaved-parityfec . . . . 18
5.1.4. Registration of 5.1.4. Registration of
application/1d-interleaved-parityfec . . . . . . . . . 18 application/1d-interleaved-parityfec . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Mapping to SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.2. Mapping to SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.1. Offer-Answer Model Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.2.1. Offer-Answer Model Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.2. Declarative Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.2.2. Declarative Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Protection and Recovery Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6. Protection and Recovery Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2. Repair Packet Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.2. Repair Packet Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3. Source Packet Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.3. Source Packet Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3.1. Associating the Source and Repair Packets . . . . . . 24 6.3.1. Associating the Source and Repair Packets . . . . . . 24
6.3.2. Recovering the RTP Header and Payload . . . . . . . . 25 6.3.2. Recovering the RTP Header and Payload . . . . . . . . 25
7. Session Description Protocol (SDP) Signaling . . . . . . . . . 26 7. Session Description Protocol (SDP) Signaling . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8. Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12.1. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-07 . . . . . . 29 12.1. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-08 . . . . . . 29
12.2. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-06 . . . . . . 29 12.2. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-07 . . . . . . 29
12.3. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05 . . . . . . 29 12.3. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-06 . . . . . . 29
12.4. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-04 . . . . . . 29 12.4. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05 . . . . . . 29
12.5. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-03 . . . . . . 29 12.5. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-04 . . . . . . 30
12.6. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-02 . . . . . . 30 12.6. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-03 . . . . . . 30
12.7. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-01 . . . . . . 30 12.7. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-02 . . . . . . 30
12.8. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-00 . . . . . . 30 12.8. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-01 . . . . . . 30
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 12.9. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-00 . . . . . . 30
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document extends the Forward Error Correction (FEC) header This document extends the Forward Error Correction (FEC) header
defined in [RFC2733] and uses this new FEC header for the FEC that is defined in [RFC2733] and uses this new FEC header for the FEC that is
generated by the 1-D interleaved parity code from a source media generated by the 1-D interleaved parity code from a source media
encapsulated in RTP [RFC3550]. The resulting new RTP payload format encapsulated in RTP [RFC3550]. The resulting new RTP payload format
is registered by this document. is registered by this document.
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
2. The sender applies the XOR operation on the source symbols to 2. The sender applies the XOR operation on the source symbols to
generate the required number of repair symbols. generate the required number of repair symbols.
3. The sender packetizes the repair symbols and sends the repair 3. The sender packetizes the repair symbols and sends the repair
packet(s) along with the source packets to the receiver(s) (in packet(s) along with the source packets to the receiver(s) (in
different flows). The repair packets MAY be sent proactively or different flows). The repair packets MAY be sent proactively or
on-demand. on-demand.
Note that the source and repair packets belong to different source Note that the source and repair packets belong to different source
and repair flows, and the sender MUST provide a way for the receivers and repair flows, and the sender needs to provide a way for the
to demultiplex them, even in the case they are sent in the same receivers to demultiplex them, even in the case they are sent in the
transport flow (i.e., same source/destination address/port with UDP). same transport flow (i.e., same source/destination address/port with
This is required to offer backward compatibility (See Section 4). At UDP). This is required to offer backward compatibility (See
the receiver side, if all of the source packets are successfully Section 4). At the receiver side, if all of the source packets are
received, there is no need for FEC recovery and the repair packets successfully received, there is no need for FEC recovery and the
are discarded. However, if there are missing source packets, the repair packets are discarded. However, if there are missing source
repair packets can be used to recover the missing information. Block packets, the repair packets can be used to recover the missing
diagrams for the systematic parity FEC encoder and decoder are information. Block diagrams for the systematic parity FEC encoder
sketched in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. and decoder are sketched in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.
+------------+ +------------+
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ --> | Systematic | --> +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ --> | Systematic | --> +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ | Parity FEC | +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ | Parity FEC | +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
| Encoder | | Encoder |
| (Sender) | --> +==+ +==+ | (Sender) | --> +==+ +==+
+------------+ +==+ +==+ +------------+ +==+ +==+
Source Packet: +--+ Repair Packet: +==+ Source Packet: +--+ Repair Packet: +==+
+--+ +==+ +--+ +==+
skipping to change at page 6, line 35 skipping to change at page 6, line 35
number n and the interleaved (column) FEC packet with a sequence number n and the interleaved (column) FEC packet with a sequence
number m, respectively. number m, respectively.
1.1. Use Cases 1.1. Use Cases
We generate one interleaved FEC packet out of D non-consecutive We generate one interleaved FEC packet out of D non-consecutive
source packets. This repair packet can provide a full recovery of source packets. This repair packet can provide a full recovery of
the missing information if there is only one packet missing among the the missing information if there is only one packet missing among the
corresponding source packets. This implies that 1-D interleaved FEC corresponding source packets. This implies that 1-D interleaved FEC
protection performs well under bursty loss conditions provided that L protection performs well under bursty loss conditions provided that L
is chosen large enough, i.e., L-packet duration SHOULD NOT be shorter is chosen large enough, i.e., L-packet duration should not be shorter
than the duration of the burst that is intended to be repaired. than the duration of the burst that is intended to be repaired.
For example, consider the scenario depicted in Figure 4 where the For example, consider the scenario depicted in Figure 4 where the
sender generates interleaved FEC packets and a bursty loss hits the sender generates interleaved FEC packets and a bursty loss hits the
source packets. Since the number of columns is larger than the source packets. Since the number of columns is larger than the
number of packets lost due to the bursty loss, the repair operation number of packets lost due to the bursty loss, the repair operation
succeeds. succeeds.
+---+ +---+
| 1 | X X X | 1 | X X X
skipping to change at page 9, line 29 skipping to change at page 9, line 29
The baseline header format first proposed in [RFC2733] does not have The baseline header format first proposed in [RFC2733] does not have
fields to protect the P and X bits and the CC fields of the source fields to protect the P and X bits and the CC fields of the source
packets associated with a repair packet. Rather, the P bit, X bit packets associated with a repair packet. Rather, the P bit, X bit
and CC field in the RTP header of the repair packet are used to and CC field in the RTP header of the repair packet are used to
protect those bits and fields. This, however, may sometimes result protect those bits and fields. This, however, may sometimes result
in failures when doing the RTP header validity checks as specified in in failures when doing the RTP header validity checks as specified in
[RFC3550]. While this behavior has been fixed in [RFC5109] that [RFC3550]. While this behavior has been fixed in [RFC5109] that
obsoleted [RFC2733], the RTP payload format defined in this document obsoleted [RFC2733], the RTP payload format defined in this document
still allows for this behavior for legacy purposes. Implementations still allows for this behavior for legacy purposes. Implementations
following this specification MUST be aware of this potential issue following this specification must be aware of this potential issue
when RTP header validity checks are applied. when RTP header validity checks are applied.
1.3.3. ETSI TS 102 034 1.3.3. ETSI TS 102 034
In 2009, the Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) consortium published a In 2009, the Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) consortium published a
technical specification [ETSI-TS-102-034] through European technical specification [ETSI-TS-102-034] through European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). This specification Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). This specification
covers several areas related to the transmission of MPEG-2 transport covers several areas related to the transmission of MPEG-2 transport
stream-based services over IP networks. stream-based services over IP networks.
The Annex E of [ETSI-TS-102-034] defines an optional protocol for The Annex E of [ETSI-TS-102-034] defines an optional protocol for
Application-layer FEC (AL-FEC) protection of streaming media for Application-layer FEC (AL-FEC) protection of streaming media for
DVB-IP services carried over RTP [RFC3550] transport. AL-FEC DVB-IP services carried over RTP [RFC3550] transport. AL-FEC
protocol uses two layers for protection: a base layer that is protocol uses two layers for protection: a base layer that is
produced by a packet-based interleaved parity code, and an produced by a packet-based interleaved parity code, and an
enhancement layer that is produced by a Raptor code. While the use enhancement layer that is produced by a Raptor code
of the enhancement layer is optional, the use of the base layer is [I-D.ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec]. While the use of the enhancement
mandatory wherever AL-FEC is used. The DVB AL-FEC protocol is also layer is optional, the use of the base layer is mandatory wherever
described in [I-D.ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec]. AL-FEC is used. The DVB AL-FEC protocol is also described in
[I-D.ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec].
The interleaved parity code that is used in the base layer is a The interleaved parity code that is used in the base layer is a
subset of [SMPTE2022-1]. In particular, AL-FEC base layer uses only subset of [SMPTE2022-1]. In particular, AL-FEC base layer uses only
the 1-D interleaved FEC protection from [SMPTE2022-1]. The new RTP the 1-D interleaved FEC protection from [SMPTE2022-1]. The new RTP
payload format that is defined and registered in this document (with payload format that is defined and registered in this document (with
some exceptions listed in [I-D.ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec]) is used as some exceptions listed in [I-D.ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec]) is used as
the AL-FEC base layer. the AL-FEC base layer.
1.4. Scope of the Payload Format
The payload format specified in this document must only be used in
legacy applications where the limitations explained in Section 1.3.2
are known not to impact any system components or other RTP elements.
Whenever possible a payload format that is fully compliant with
[RFC3550], such as [RFC5109] or other newer payload formats, must be
used.
2. Requirements Notation 2. Requirements Notation
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].
3. Definitions, Notations and Abbreviations 3. Definitions, Notations and Abbreviations
The definitions and notations commonly used in this document are The definitions and notations commonly used in this document are
summarized in this section. summarized in this section.
skipping to change at page 11, line 11 skipping to change at page 11, line 20
o L: Number of columns of the source block. o L: Number of columns of the source block.
o D: Number of rows of the source block. o D: Number of rows of the source block.
4. Packet Formats 4. Packet Formats
This section defines the formats of the source and repair packets. This section defines the formats of the source and repair packets.
4.1. Source Packets 4.1. Source Packets
The source packets MUST contain the information that identifies the The source packets need to contain information that identifies the
source block and the position within the source block occupied by the source block and the position within the source block occupied by the
packet. Since the source packets that are carried within an RTP packet. Since the source packets that are carried within an RTP
stream already contain unique sequence numbers in their RTP headers stream already contain unique sequence numbers in their RTP headers
[RFC3550], we can identify the source packets in a straightforward [RFC3550], we can identify the source packets in a straightforward
manner and there is no need to append additional field(s). The manner and there is no need to append additional field(s). The
primary advantage of not modifying the source packets in any way is primary advantage of not modifying the source packets in any way is
that it provides backward compatibility for the receivers that do not that it provides backward compatibility for the receivers that do not
support FEC at all. In multicast scenarios, this backward support FEC at all. In multicast scenarios, this backward
compatibility becomes quite useful as it allows the non-FEC-capable compatibility becomes quite useful as it allows the non-FEC-capable
and FEC-capable receivers to receive and interpret the same source and FEC-capable receivers to receive and interpret the same source
skipping to change at page 12, line 31 skipping to change at page 12, line 50
field. field.
o Marker (M) Bit: This bit is equal to the XOR sum of the o Marker (M) Bit: This bit is equal to the XOR sum of the
corresponding M bits from the RTP headers of the source packets corresponding M bits from the RTP headers of the source packets
protected by this repair packet. protected by this repair packet.
o Payload Type: The (dynamic) payload type for the repair packets o Payload Type: The (dynamic) payload type for the repair packets
is determined through out-of-band means. Note that this document is determined through out-of-band means. Note that this document
registers a new payload format for the repair packets (Refer to registers a new payload format for the repair packets (Refer to
Section 5 for details). According to [RFC3550], an RTP receiver Section 5 for details). According to [RFC3550], an RTP receiver
that cannot recognize a payload type must discard it. This that cannot recognize a payload type must discard it. This action
provides backward compatibility. The FEC mechanisms can then be provides backward compatibility. The FEC mechanisms can then be
used in a multicast group with mixed FEC-capable and non-FEC- used in a multicast group with mixed FEC-capable and non-FEC-
capable receivers. If a non-FEC-capable receiver receives a capable receivers. If a non-FEC-capable receiver receives a
repair packet, it will not recognize the payload type, and hence, repair packet, it will not recognize the payload type, and hence,
discards the repair packet. discards the repair packet.
o Sequence Number (SN): The sequence number has the standard o Sequence Number (SN): The sequence number has the standard
definition. It MUST be one higher than the sequence number in the definition. It MUST be one higher than the sequence number in the
previously transmitted repair packet. The initial value of the previously transmitted repair packet. The initial value of the
sequence number SHOULD be random (unpredictable) [RFC3550]. sequence number SHOULD be random (unpredictable) [RFC3550].
skipping to change at page 29, line 15 skipping to change at page 29, line 22
11. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
A major part of this document is borrowed from [RFC2733], [RFC5109] A major part of this document is borrowed from [RFC2733], [RFC5109]
and [SMPTE2022-1]. Thus, the author would like to thank the authors and [SMPTE2022-1]. Thus, the author would like to thank the authors
and editors of these earlier specifications. The author also thanks and editors of these earlier specifications. The author also thanks
Colin Perkins for his constructive suggestions for this document. Colin Perkins for his constructive suggestions for this document.
12. Change Log 12. Change Log
12.1. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-07 12.1. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-08
The following are the major changes compared to version 07:
o Comments from the gen-art, media-type and IESG reviews have been
addressed.
12.2. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-07
The following are the major changes compared to version 06: The following are the major changes compared to version 06:
o The definition of "rate" in the media type registration has been o The definition of "rate" in the media type registration has been
clarified. clarified.
12.2. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-06 12.3. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-06
The following are the major changes compared to version 05: The following are the major changes compared to version 05:
o Comments from IETF LC have been addressed. o Comments from IETF LC have been addressed.
12.3. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05 12.4. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05
The following are the major changes compared to version 04: The following are the major changes compared to version 04:
o Comments from Vincent Roca have been addressed. o Comments from Vincent Roca have been addressed.
12.4. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-04 12.5. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-04
The following are the major changes compared to version 03: The following are the major changes compared to version 03:
o Further comments from AVT WG have been addressed. o Further comments from AVT WG have been addressed.
12.5. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-03 12.6. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-03
The following are the major changes compared to version 02: The following are the major changes compared to version 02:
o Comments from WGLC have been addressed. o Comments from WGLC have been addressed.
12.6. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-02 12.7. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-02
The following are the major changes compared to version 01: The following are the major changes compared to version 01:
o Some details were added regarding the use of CNAME field. o Some details were added regarding the use of CNAME field.
o Offer-Answer and Declarative Considerations sections have been o Offer-Answer and Declarative Considerations sections have been
completed. completed.
o Security Considerations section has been completed. o Security Considerations section has been completed.
12.7. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-01 12.8. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-01
The following are the major changes compared to version 00: The following are the major changes compared to version 00:
o The timestamp field definition has changed. o The timestamp field definition has changed.
12.8. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-00 12.9. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-00
This is the initial version, which is based on an earlier individual This is the initial version, which is based on an earlier individual
submission. The following are the major changes compared to that submission. The following are the major changes compared to that
document: document:
o Per the discussion in the WG, references to the FEC Framework have o Per the discussion in the WG, references to the FEC Framework have
been removed and the document has been turned into a pure RTP been removed and the document has been turned into a pure RTP
payload format specification. payload format specification.
o A new section is added for congestion control considerations. o A new section is added for congestion control considerations.
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
53 lines changed or deleted 72 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.37b. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/