70 likes | 204 Views
RTCP SDES SRCNAME. draft-westerlund-avtext-rtcp-sdes-srcname-01 Bo Burman. IPR Disclosure. For referred draft-westerlund-avtext-rtcp-sdes-srcname http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1638/ Unchanged since -00. Presentation Goal.
E N D
RTCP SDES SRCNAME draft-westerlund-avtext-rtcp-sdes-srcname-01 Bo Burman
IPR Disclosure • For referred draft-westerlund-avtext-rtcp-sdes-srcname • http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1638/ • Unchanged since -00
Presentation Goal • WG consensus that indication of RTP level stream relations is a desired feature • WG consensus on suitability of proposed solution • Adoption as WG draft
Changes Since -00 • First presented at IETF 82 in Taipei • http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/avtext-3.pdf • Received comments: • Support more than a single relation for a media stream • Possibility to distinguish which stream is which in a relation • Quicker discovery of relations on receiving streams • Changes: • Hierarchically structured SRCNAME • Placeholder for optional SRCNAME as RTP Header Extension
Relation Example View A Video Audio Parentrelation Simulcast FEC (a.video.fec) Hi-fidelity (a.audio.hifi) Siblingrelation Hi-res (a.video.sim.hires) Lo-res (a.video.sim.lores) Redundant (a.audio.hifi.red) FEC (a.video.sim.hires.fec) High framerate (a.video.sim.lores.hirate) FEC (a.video.sim.lores.fec) = Conceptual relation FEC (a.video.sim.lores.hirate.fec) = Actual media stream (sample SRCNAME)
Proposed Solution • RTCP SDES SRCNAME • Hierarchical SRCNAME format, enabling relations on different levels • “.” (period) delimiting hierarchy levels is the only content restriction • Compare SRCNAME for (partial) match left-to-right • Can express parent and sibling relations • Allow multiple SRCNAME for a stream, each describing one relation • Needed when relations has different hierarchy tree topologies • Optionally also in source-specific SDP [RFC 5576] • Optionally also as RTP Header Extension [RFC 5285]
Way Forward • Should the problem be solved? • Is the proposed solution favored by the WG? • Should the draft be adopted as a WG draft?