One document matched: draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-01.txt
Network Working Group T. Schierl
Internet-Draft Fraunhofer HHI
Intended status: Standards Track S. Wenger
Expires: November 25, 2008 Nokia
May 25, 2008
Signaling media decoding dependency in Session Description Protocol
(SDP)
draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 November 25, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This memo defines semantics that allow for signaling the decoding
dependency of different media descriptions with the same media type in
the Session Description Protocol (SDP). This is required, for example,
if media data is separated and transported in different network streams
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
as a result of the use of a layered or multiple descriptive media coding
process.
A new grouping type "DDP" -- decoding dependency -- is defined, to be
used in conjunction with RFC 3388 entitled "Grouping of Media Lines in
the Session Description Protocol". In addition, an attribute is
specified describing the relationship of the media streams in a "DDP"
group indicated by media identification attribute(s) and media format
description(s).
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 4
2. Terminology ................................................... 5
3. Definitions ................................................... 5
4. Motivation, Use Cases, and Architecture ....................... 6
4.1. Motivation .................................................. 6
4.2. Use cases ................................................... 8
5. Signaling Media Dependencies .................................. 8
5.1. Design Principles ........................................... 8
5.2. Semantics ................................................... 9
5.2.1. SDP grouping semantics for decoding dependency ............ 9
5.2.2. Attribute for dependency signaling per media-stream ....... 9
6. Usage of new semantics in SDP ................................ 10
6.1. Usage with the SDP Offer/Answer Model ...................... 10
6.2. Declarative usage .......................................... 11
6.3. Usage with Capability Negotiation .......................... 11
6.4. Examples ................................................... 12
7. Security Considerations ...................................... 13
8. IANA Considerations........................................... 14
9. References ................................................... 15
9.1. Normative References ....................................... 15
9.2. Informative References ..................................... 15
Appendix A. Changes From Earlier Versions ....................... 16
Authors' Addresses ............................................... 17
Full Copyright Statement ......................................... 17
Intellectual Property Statement .................................. 17
Acknowledgements ................................................. 18
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
1. Introduction
An SDP session description may contain one or more media
descriptions, each identifying a single media stream. A media
description is identified by one "m=" line. Today, if more than one
"m=" lines exist indicating the same media type, a receiver cannot
identify a specific relationship between those media.
A Multiple Description Coding (MDC) or layered Media Bitstream
contains, by definition, one or more Media Partitions that are
conveyed in their own media stream. The cases we are interested in
are layered and MDC Bitstreams with two or more Media Partitions.
Carrying more than one Media Partition in its own session is one of
the key use cases for employing layered or MDC coded media. Senders,
network elements, or receivers can suppress
sending/forwarding/subscribing/decoding individual Media Partitions
and still preserve perhaps suboptimal, but still useful media
quality.
One property of all Media Bitstreams relevant to this memo is that
their Media Partitions have a well-defined usage relationship. For
example, in layered coding, "higher" Media Partitions are useless
without "lower" ones. In MDC coding, Media Partitions are
complementary -- the more Media Partitions one receives, the better a
reproduced quality may be. At present, SDP and its extensions lack
the means to express such a usage relationship.
Trigger for the present memo has been the standardization process of
the RTP payload format for the Scalable Video Coding extension to
ITU-T Rec. H.264 / MPEG-4 AVC [I-D.ietf-avt-rtp-svc]. When drafting
[I-D.ietf-avt-rtp-svc], it was observed that the aforementioned lack
in signaling support is one that is not specific to SVC, but applies
to all layered or MDC codecs. Therefore, this memo presents a
generic solution. Likely, the second technology utilizing the
mechanisms of this memo will be Multi-View video coding. In Multi
View Coding (MVC) [I-D.wang-avt-rtp-mvc] layered dependencies between
views are used to increase the coding efficiency, and, therefore, the
properties of MVC with respect to the SDP signaling are comparable to
those of SVC.
The mechanisms defined herein are media transport protocol dependent,
and applicable only in conjunction with the use of RTP [RFC3550].
The SDP grouping of Media Lines of different media types is out of
scope of this memo.
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
3. Definitions
Media stream:
As per [RFC4566].
Media Bitstream:
A valid, decodable stream, containing all media partitions generated
by the encoder. A Media Bitstream normally conforms to a media
coding standard.
Media Partition:
A subset of a Media Bitstream intended for independent
transportation. An integer number of Media Partitions forms a Media
Bitstream. In layered coding, a Media Partition represents one or
more layers that are handled as a unit. In MDC coding, a Media
Partition represents one or more descriptions that are handled as a
unit.
Decoding dependency:
The class of relationships media partitions have to each other. At
present, this memo defines two decoding dependencies: layered coding
and multiple description coding.
Layered coding dependency:
Each Media Partition is only useful (i.e. can be decoded) when all of
the Media Partitions it depends on are available. The dependencies
between the Media Partitions therefore create a directed graph.
Note: normally, in layered coding, the more Media Partitions are
employed (following the rule above), the better a reproduced quality
is possible.
Multi description coding (MDC) dependency:
N of M Media Partitions are required to form a Media Bitstream, but
there is no hierarchy between these Media Partitions. Most MDC
schemes aim at an increase of reproduced media quality when more
media partitions are decoded. Some MDC schemes require more than one
Media Partition to form an Operation point.
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
Operation point:
In layered coding, a subset of a layered Media Bitstream that
includes all Media Partitions required for reconstruction at a
certain point of quality, error resilience, or another property, and
does not include any other Media Partitions. In MDC coding, a subset
of an MDC Media Bitstream that is compliant with the MDC coding
standard in question.
4. Motivation, Use Cases, and Architecture
4.1. Motivation
This memo is concerned with two types of decoding dependencies:
layered and multi-description. The transport of layered and multi
description coding share as key motivators the desire for media
adaptation to network conditions, i.e., related to bandwidth, error
rates, connectivity of endpoints in multicast or broadcast scenarios,
and similar.
o Layered decoding dependency:
In layered coding, the partitions of a Media Bitstream are known as
media layers or simply layers. One or more layers may be
transported in different media streams in the sense of [RFC4566].
A classic use case is known as receiver-driven layered multicast,
in which a receiver selects a combination of media streams in
response to quality or bit-rate requirements.
Back in the mid 1990s, the then available layered media formats and
codecs envisioned primarily (or even exclusively) a one-dimensional
hierarchy of layers. That is, each so-called enhancement layer
referred to exactly one layer "below". The single exception has
been the base layer, which is self-contained. Therefore, the
identification of one enhancement layer fully specifies the
Operation point of a layered coding scheme, including knowledge
about all the other layers that need to be decoded.
SDP [RFC4566] contains rudimentary support for exactly this use
case and media formats, in that it allows for signaling a range of
transport addresses in a certain media description. By definition,
a higher transport address identifies a higher layer in the one-
dimensional hierarchy. A receiver needs only to decode data
conveyed over this transport address and lower transport addresses
to decode this Operation Point.
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
Newer media formats depart from this simple one-dimensional
hierarchy, in that highly complex (at least tree-shaped) dependency
hierarchies can be implemented. Compelling use cases for these
complex hierarchies have been identified by industry. Support for
it is therefore desirable. However, SDP, in its current form, does
not allow for the signaling of these complex relationships.
Therefore, receivers cannot make an informed decision on which
layers to subscribe (in case of layered multicast).
Layered decoding dependencies may also exist in a Multi View Coding
environment. Views may be coded using inter-view dependencies to
increase coding efficiency. This results in Media Bitstreams,
which logically may be separated into Media Partitions representing
different views of the reconstructed video signal. These Media
Partitions cannot be decoded independently, and, therefore, other
Media Partitions are required for reconstruction. To express this
relationship, the signaling needs to express the dependencies of
the views, which in turn are Media Partitions in the sense of this
document.
o Multi descriptive decoding dependency:
In the most basic form of MDC, each Media Partition forms an
independent representation of the media. That is, decoding of any
of the Media Partitions yields useful reproduced media data. When
more than one Media Partition is available, then a decoder can
process them jointly, and the resulting media quality increases.
The highest reproduced quality is available if all original Media
Partitions are available for decoding.
More complex forms of multiple description coding can also be
envisioned, i.e. where, as a minimum, N out of M total Media
Partitions need to be available to allow meaningful decoding.
MDC has not yet been embraced heavily by the media standardization
community, though it is subject of a lot of academic research. As
an example, we refer to [MDC].
In this memo, we cover MDC because we a) envision that MDC media
formats will come into practical use within the lifetime of this
memo, and b) the solution for its signaling is very similar to the
one of layered coding.
o Other decoding dependency relationships:
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
At the time of writing, no decoding dependency relationships beyond
the two mentioned above have been identified that would warrant
standardization. However, the mechanisms of this memo could be
extended by introducing new codepoints for a new decoding
dependency types, if a need could be shown. If such an extension
were becoming necessary, as formally required in section 5.2.2, the
new decoding dependency type MUST be documented in an IETF
standard's track document.
4.2. Use cases
o Receiver driven layered multicast:
This technology is discussed in [RFC3550] and references therein.
We refrain from elaborating further; the subject is well known and
understood.
o Multiple end-to-end transmission with different properties:
Assume a unicast and point-to-point topology, wherein one endpoint
sends media to another. Assume further that different forms of
media transmission are available. The difference may lie in the
cost of the transmission (free, charged), in the available
protection (unprotected/secure), in the quality of service
(guaranteed quality / best effort), or other factors.
Layered and MDC coding allow to match the media characteristics to
the available transmission path(s). For example, in layered
coding, it makes sense to convey the base layer over high QoS.
Enhancement layers, on the other hand, can be conveyed over best
effort, as they are "optional" in their characteristic -- nice to
have, but non-essential for media consumption. In a different
scenario, the base layer may be offered in a non-encrypted session
as a free preview. An encrypted enhancement layer references this
base layer and allows optimal quality play-back; however, it is
only accessible to users who have the key, which may have been
distributed by a conditional access mechanism.
5. Signaling Media Dependencies
5.1. Design Principles
The dependency signaling is only feasible between media descriptions
described with an "m="-line and with an assigned media identification
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
attribute ("mid"), as defined in [RFC3388]. All "m=" lines grouped
according to this specification MUST have the same media type.
5.2. Semantics
5.2.1. SDP grouping semantics for decoding dependency
This specification defines a new grouping semantic
Decoding Dependency "DDP":
DDP associates a media stream, identified by its mid attribute, with
a DDP group. Each media stream MUST be composed of an integer number
of Media Partitions. A media stream is identified by a session-
unique media format description (RTP payload type number) within a
"m="-line. In a DDP group, all media streams MUST have the same type
of decoding dependency (as signaled by the attribute defined in
5.2.2). All media streams MUST contain at least one Operation point.
The DDP group type informs a receiver about the requirement for
handling the media streams of the group according to the new media
level attribute "depend", as defined in 5.2.2.
When using multiple codecs, e.g. for Offer/Answer model, the media
streams MUST have the same dependency structure, regardless which
media format description (RTP payload type number) is used.
5.2.2. Attribute for dependency signaling per media-stream
This memo defines a new media-level attribute, "depend", with the
following ABNF [RFC5234]. The identification-tag is defined in
[RFC3388]. In the following ABNF, fmt, token, SP, and CRLF are used
as defined in [RFC4566].
depend-attribute =
"a=depend:" dependent-fmt SP dependency-tag
*(";" SP dependent-fmt SP dependency-tag) CRLF
dependency-tag =
dependency-type *1( SP identification-tag ":"
fmt-dependency *("," fmt-dependency ))
dependency-type = "lay"
/ "mdc"
/ token
dependent-fmt = fmt
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
fmt-dependency = fmt
dependent-fmt, indicates the media format description, as defined in
[RFC4566], that depends on one or more media format description in
the "m="-line indicated by the value of identification-tag within the
dependency-tag.
fmt-dependency, indicates the media format description in the "m="-
line identified by the identification-tag within the dependency-tag,
which the dependent-fmt of the dependent "m="-line depends on.
The depend-attribute describes the decoding dependency. The depend-
attribute MAY be followed by a sequence of dependency-tag fields
which identify all related media format description in all related
"m="-lines. The attribute MAY be used with multicast as well as with
unicast transport addresses. The following dependency-types values
are defined in this memo:
o lay: Layered decoding dependency -- identifies the described media
stream as one or more Media Partitions of a layered Media
Bitstream. When "lay" is used, all media streams required for
decoding the Operation Point MUST be identified by identification-
tag and fmt-dependency following the "lay" string.
o mdc: Multi descriptive coding dependency -- signals that the
described media stream is part of a set of a MDC Media Bitstream.
By definition, at least N out of M media streams of the group need
to be available to from an Operation Point. The values of N and M
depend on the properties of the Media Bitstream and are not
signaled within this context. When "mdc" is used, all required
media streams for the Operation point MUST be identified by
identification-tag and fmt-dependency following the "mdc" string.
Further dependency types MUST be defined in a standards-track
document.
6. Usage of new semantics in SDP
6.1. Usage with the SDP Offer/Answer Model
The backward compatibility in offer / answer is generally handled as
specified in [RFC3388], section 8.4, as summarized below.
Depending on the implementation, a node that does not understand DDP
grouping (either does not understand line grouping at all, or just
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
does not understand the DDP semantics) SHOULD respond to an offer
containing DDP 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 respond by
offering a single media stream that represents an Operation Point.
Note: in most cases, this will be the base layer of a layered Media
Bitstream, equally possible are Operation Points containing a set of
enhancement layers as long as all are part of a single media stream.
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
including only a single media stream.
6.2. Declarative usage
If an RTSP receiver understands signaling according to this memo, it
SHALL setup all media streams that are required to decode the
Operation Point of its choice.
If an RTSP receiver does not understand the signaling defined within
this memo, it falls back to normal SDP processing. Two likely cases
have to be distinguished: (1) if at least one of the media types
included in the SDP is within the receiver's capabilities, it selects
among those candidates according to implementation specific criteria
for setup, as usual. (2) If none of the media type included in the
SDP can be processed, then obviously no setup can occur.
Edt. Note: we received a comment from Joerg Ott as follows [JO: Maybe
double-check that the RTSP Transport: header is sufficiently explicit
to allow this kind of choice. SAVPF has some discussion on what do
with RTSP.]. Neither of us feels competent in following up this
point. Input of the MMUSIC WG is requested. If the WG feels that
there is no need to address this comment, perhaps we can remove this
whole paragraph? An alternative would be to use language comparable
to section 6.3 below, and leave the issue for further study. We DO
NOT want to see a normative dependency to RTSP v2 in this draft due
to timing and deployment considerations.
6.3. Usage with Capability Negotiation
This memo does not cover the interaction with Capability Negotiation
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-capability-negotiation]. This issue is for
further study and will be addressed in a different memo.
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
6.4. Examples
a.) Example for signaling layered decoding dependency:
The example shows a session description with three "m"-lines,
all of type video. Each of the "m"-lines include two possible
media format descriptions, in the example: RTP payload types.
The first "m"-line includes a H264 payload type as defined by
[RFC3984] and the other "m"-lines include H264-SVC payload
types. The example shows the dependencies of the RTP payload
types of the different "m"-lines indicated by "DDP" grouping,
"mid" and "depend" attributes.
v=0
o=svcsrv 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 host.example.com
s=LAYERED VIDEO SIGNALING Seminar
t=0 0
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1/127
a=group:DDP 1 2 3 4
m=video 40000 RTP/AVP 96 97
b=AS:90
a=framerate:15
a=rtpmap:96 H264/90000
a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
a=mid:1
m=video 40002 RTP/AVP 98 99
b=AS:64
a=framerate:15
a=rtpmap:98 H264-SVC/90000
a=rtpmap:99 H264-SVC/90000
a=mid:2
a=depend:98 lay 1:96,97; 99 lay 1:97
m=video 40004 RTP/AVP 100 101
b=AS:128
a=framerate:30
a=rtpmap:100 H264-SVC/90000
a=rtpmap:101 H264-SVC/90000
a=mid:3
a=depend:100 lay 1:96 2:98; 101 lay 1:97 2:99
m=video 40006 RTP/SAVP 102 103
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2/127
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
b=AS:512
k=uri:conditional-access-server.example.com
a=framerate:30
a=rtpmap:102 H264-SVC/90000
a=rtpmap:103 H264-SVC/90000
a=mid:4
a=depend:102 lay 1:96,97 2:98; 103 lay 1:97 2:99
b.) Example for signaling of multi descriptive coding dependency:
The example shows a session description with three "m"-lines,
all of type video. Each of the "m"-lines includes one media
format description, in the example: RTP payload type, with multi
descriptive decoding dependency. The example shows the
dependencies of the RTP payload types of the different "m"-lines
indicated by "DDP" grouping, "mid" and "depend" attributes.
v=0
o=mdcsrv 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 host.example.com
s=MULTI DESCRIPTION VIDEO SIGNALING Seminar
t=0 0
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1/127
a=group:DDP 1 2 3
m=video 40000 RTP/AVP 104
a=mid:1
a=depend:104 mdc 2:105 3:106
m=video 40002 RTP/AVP 105
a=mid:2
a=depend:105 mdc 1:104 3:106
m=video 40004 RTP/AVP 106
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2/127
a=mid:3
a=depend:106 mdc 1:104 2:105
7. Security Considerations
All security implications of SDP apply.
There may be a risk of manipulation the dependency signaling of a
session description by an attacker. This may mislead a receiver or
middle box, e.g. a receiver may try to compose a media bitstream out
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
of several RTP packet streams that does not form an Operation Point,
although the signaling made it believe it would form a valid
Operation Point, with potential fatal consequences for the media
decoding process. It is recommended that the receiver SHOULD perform
an integrity check on SDP and follow the security considerations of
SDP to only trust SDP from trusted sources.
8. IANA Considerations
The following contact information shall be used for all registrations
included here:
Contact: Thomas Schierl
mailto:schierl@hhi.fhg.de
tel:+49-30-31002-227
The following semantics have been registered by IANA in Semantics for
the "group" SDP Attribute under SDP Parameters
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters.
Semantics Token Reference
------------------- ----- ---------
Decoding Dependency DDP RFC XXXX
The SDP media level attribute "depend" has been registered by IANA in
Semantics for "att-field (media level only)".
SDP Attribute ("att-field (media level only)"):
Attribute name: depend
Long form: decoding dependency
Type of name: att-field
Type of attribute: media level only
Subject to charset: no
Purpose: RFC XXXX
Reference: RFC XXXX
Values: see this document and registrations below.
The following semantics have been registered by IANA in Semantics for
the "depend" SDP Attribute under SDP Parameters:
Semantics of the "depend" SDP attribute:
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
Semantics Token Reference
---------------------------- ----- ---------
Layered decoding dependency lay RFC XXXX
multi descriptive coding dependency mdc RFC XXXX
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V, and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC3388] Camarillo, G., Holler, J., and H. Schulzrinne, "Grouping of
Media Lines in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
RFC 3388, December 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 5234, January 2008.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-avt-rtp-svc]
Wenger, S., Wang Y.-K.,T. Schierl and A. Eleftheriadis,
"RTP Payload Format for SVC Video",
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-09 (work in progress), May 2008.
[MDC] Vitali, A., Borneo, A., Fumagalli, M., and R. Rinaldo,
"Video over IP using Standard-Compatible Multiple
Description Coding: an IETF proposal", Packet Video
Workshop, April 2006, Hangzhou, China
[I-D.wang-avt-rtp-mvc]
Wang, Y.-K. and T. Schierl, "RTP Payload Format
for MVC Video", draft-wang-avt-rtp-mvc-01 (work in
progress), February 2008.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-capability-negotiation]
Andreasen, F., "SDP Capability Negotiation",
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-capability-negotiation-08, (work in
progress), December 2007
[RFC3984] Wenger, S., Hannuksela, M., Stockhammer, T., Westerlund,M.,
and Singer, D., "RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC
3984, February 2005.
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
Appendix A. Changes From Earlier Versions
A.1 Changes from individual submission
19Dec06 / TS:
removed SSRC multiplexing and with that various information about RTP
draft title correction
corrected SDP reference
editorial modifications throughout the document
added Stephan Wenger to the list of authors
removed section "network elements not supporting dependency
signaling"
20-28Dec06 / TS, StW: Editorial improvements
3Mar07 / TS: adjustment for new I-D style, added Offer/Answer text,
corrected ABNF reference, added Security and IANA considerations,
added section Usage with existing entities not supporting new
signaling, added text for Declarative usage section, added Open
issues section.
21-Jun07: Numerous editorial changes and reworked section 6.
11-Nov07: Added Payload Type of media stream in question to
dependency signaling. Note on usage with Cap. Negotiation. Added
multi view coding (MVC) dependency as part of 'lay'-dependency. Added
ref. to MVC activity at ITU-T/MPEG.
A.2 Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-00 to
draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-01:
21-Feb08: Enhanced mechanism by multiple "payload-type-dependencies"
for the same "mid". Typically the case, when using different
packetization modes as defined in RFC3984.
25-Feb08: Modification throughout informative part of definition
section
Different codecs may be present within the same DDP group.
A.3 Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-01 to
draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02:
19-Mar08: Fixed PT# in example, removed unused references, updated
ABNF reference in text, IANA section updates, require std. track doc
for new dependencies, editorial changes
23-May08: Replacing payload-type with media format description/fmt,
renaming of dependent-payload-type to dependent-fmt, renaming
payload-type-dependency to fmt-dependency, editorial changes.
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
Authors' Addresses
Thomas Schierl
Fraunhofer HHI
Einsteinufer 37
D-10587 Berlin
Germany
Phone: +49-30-31002-227
Email: schierl@hhi.fhg.de
Stephan Wenger
Nokia
955 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA, 94304
USA
Phone: +1-650-862-7368
Email: stewe@stewe.org
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-02 May 2008
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgements
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Further, the author Thomas Schierl of Fraunhofer
HHI is sponsored by the European Commission under the contract number
FP7-ICT-214063, project SEA. We want to also thank Magnus Westerlund
and Joerg Ott for their valuable and constructive comments to this
memo.
Schierl & Wenger Expires November 25, 2008 [Page 18]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 02:38:10 |