draft-ietf-avt-post-repair-rtcp-xr-03.txt   draft-ietf-avt-post-repair-rtcp-xr-04.txt 
AVT A. Begen AVT A. Begen
Internet-Draft D. Hsu Internet-Draft D. Hsu
Intended status: Standards Track M. Lague Intended status: Standards Track M. Lague
Expires: April 24, 2009 Cisco Systems Expires: April 30, 2009 Cisco Systems
October 21, 2008 October 27, 2008
Post-Repair Loss RLE Report Block Type for RTCP XR Post-Repair Loss RLE Report Block Type for RTCP XR
draft-ietf-avt-post-repair-rtcp-xr-03 draft-ietf-avt-post-repair-rtcp-xr-04
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
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 April 24, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2009.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a new report block type within the framework of This document defines a new report block type within the framework of
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Reports (XR). One of the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Reports (XR). One of the
initial XR report block types is the Loss Run Length Encoding (RLE) initial XR report block types is the Loss Run Length Encoding (RLE)
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
of the loss-repair methods in an aggregated fashion. To avoid any of the loss-repair methods in an aggregated fashion. To avoid any
ambiguity in the evaluation, it is RECOMMENDED that the post-repair ambiguity in the evaluation, it is RECOMMENDED that the post-repair
Loss RLE is generated for the source packets that have no further Loss RLE is generated for the source packets that have no further
chance of being repaired. If the loss-repair method(s) may still chance of being repaired. If the loss-repair method(s) may still
recover one or more missing source packets, the post-repair Loss RLE recover one or more missing source packets, the post-repair Loss RLE
SHOULD NOT be sent until the loss-recovery process has been SHOULD NOT be sent until the loss-recovery process has been
completed. completed.
Similar to the pre-repair Loss RLE, the post-repair Loss RLE conveys Similar to the pre-repair Loss RLE, the post-repair Loss RLE conveys
the receipt/loss events at the packet level and considers partially the receipt/loss events at the packet level and considers partially
repaired packets as unrepaired. Thus, methods that can do partially repaired packets as unrepaired. Thus, the methods that can partially
recover the missing data SHOULD NOT be evaluated based on the recover the missing data SHOULD NOT be evaluated based on the
information provided by the Post-repair Loss RLE Reports. information provided by the Post-repair Loss RLE Reports since such
information may underestimate the effectiveness of such methods.
Note that the idea of using pre-repair and post-repair Loss RLEs can Note that the idea of using pre-repair and post-repair Loss RLEs can
be further extended when multiple sequential loss-repair methods are be further extended when multiple sequential loss-repair methods are
applied to the primary source stream. Reporting the Loss RLEs before applied to the primary source stream. Reporting the Loss RLEs before
and after each loss-repair method can provide specific information and after each loss-repair method can provide specific information
about the individual performances of these methods. However, it can about the individual performances of these methods. However, it can
be a difficult task to quantify the specific contribution made by be a difficult task to quantify the specific contribution made by
each loss-repair method in hybrid systems, where different methods each loss-repair method in hybrid systems, where different methods
collectively work together to repair the lost source packets. Thus, collectively work together to repair the lost source packets. Thus,
in this specification we only consider reporting the Loss RLE after in this specification we only consider reporting the Loss RLE after
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 7 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/