From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 01 04:08:55 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DoGZz-0007l7-4w; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:08:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Do61o-0004L7-Vb for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:52:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22661 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com ([47.103.122.112]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Do6Re-0003ZW-DA for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:19:38 -0400 Received: from zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.97]) by zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j5UKqj823825; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:45 -0500 (CDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:52:29 -0400 Message-ID: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB048C3AC7@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: RFC3711 non-zero key derivation rate and the logic to update key derivation Thread-Index: AcV9taEAfFebUBgzQe2/aJptS2gtCg== From: "Guoqiang Lu" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 825e642946eda55cd9bc654a36dab8c2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:08:54 -0400 Cc: mcgrew@cisco.com, mats.naslund@ericsson.com Subject: [AVT] RFC3711 non-zero key derivation rate and the logic to update key derivation X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1969010836==" Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1969010836== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C57DB5.A13262D8" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C57DB5.A13262D8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I have a few questions about the key derivation as specified in RFC 3711. 1. What is the "r" in the sentence "...when r > 0, a key derivation is performed whenever index mod r equals zero ... "? Is it the one later defined: r =3D index DIV key_derivation_rate? 2. The logic for performing a new key derivation is only mentioned in the RFC 3711 as " .. a key derivation is performed whenever index mod r equals zero ". In reality, more complicated logic is probably needed considering the following scenarios: Assume: Key_derivation_rate =3D 4, ROC =3D 0 Scenario 1: For pakcet seq =3D 16, index =3D 16, r =3D 16 DIV 4 =3D 4, so 16 mod 4 = =3D 0 a new key is derived on the receiver side. But then packet seq =3D 14 arrived, = r =3D 14 DIV 4 =3D 3, but 14 mod 3 is not 0 so no new key derivation is performed. But we can't use the key derived for seq =3D 16, the old key should be used. So we need more complicated logic than the " index mod r =3D =3D 0 " to determine whether to use the old key for seq =3D 14 =20 Scenario 2: Same as above but assume packet 16 is lost and never reached the receiver, then for packet 17, r =3D 17 DIV 4 =3D 4, 17 mod 4 is not = zero and no new key is derived for packet 17 but on the sender side, packet 17 uses the new key.=20 Am I understanding it correctly? Thanks! Regards, Guoqiang ------_=_NextPart_001_01C57DB5.A13262D8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RFC3711 non-zero key derivation rate and the logic to update key = derivation

Hi,

I have a few questions about the key = derivation as specified in RFC 3711.

1. What is the "r" in the = sentence "...when r > 0, a = key derivation is performed whenever index mod r equals zero ... "? = Is it the one later defined:  r =3D index DIV = key_derivation_rate?

2. The logic for performing a = new key derivation is only mentioned in the RFC 3711 as " .. a key = derivation is performed whenever index mod r equals zero ". In = reality, more complicated logic is probably needed considering the = following scenarios:

Assume: Key_derivation_rate =3D 4, ROC = =3D 0
Scenario 1:
For pakcet seq =3D 16, index =3D 16, r = =3D 16 DIV 4 =3D 4, so 16 mod 4 =3D 0 a new key is derived on the = receiver side. But then packet seq =3D 14 arrived, r =3D 14 DIV 4 =3D 3, = but 14 mod 3 is not 0 so no new key derivation is performed. But we = can't use the key derived for seq =3D 16, the old key should be used. So = we need more complicated logic than the " index mod r =3D =3D 0 = " to determine whether to use the old key for seq =3D 14  =

Scenario 2: Same as above but assume = packet 16 is lost and never reached the receiver, then for packet 17, r = =3D 17 DIV 4 =3D 4, 17 mod 4 is not zero and no new key is derived for = packet 17 but on the sender side, packet 17 uses the new key. =

Am I understanding it correctly?

Thanks!

Regards,

Guoqiang

------_=_NextPart_001_01C57DB5.A13262D8-- --===============1969010836== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --===============1969010836==-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 01 04:17:02 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DoGhf-0001aa-V4; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:16:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DoGhd-0001aC-K2 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:16:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05647 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 04:16:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DoH7W-0007MG-MH for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:43:37 -0400 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.120]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 41C06D6C; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:16:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:16:37 +0200 Received: from ericsson.com ([147.214.118.190]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:16:37 +0200 Message-ID: <42C4FBE4.7040700@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:16:36 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mats_N=E4slund?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guoqiang Lu References: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB048C3AC7@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com> In-Reply-To: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB048C3AC7@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2005 08:16:37.0134 (UTC) FILETIME=[336112E0:01C57E15] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mcgrew@cisco.com, avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] Re: RFC3711 non-zero key derivation rate and the logic to update key derivation X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi Guoqiang, This is by far the most common "FAQ" for SRTP ;-) You are right, due e.g. to packet re-oredering it may not suffice to only perform derivation when "index mod r equals zero". This is informative text that describes the *principle*, but not the actual way to implement it. The normative text (later) is: "Key derivation SHALL be defined as follows ... The n-bit SRTP key (or salt) for this packet SHALL then be derived ... as follows:" Please notice the text "for *this* packet" which is intended to indicate that this is potentially a per-packet issue. Best, /Mats Guoqiang Lu wrote: > > I have a few questions about the key derivation as specified in RFC 3711. > > 1. What is the "r" in the sentence "...when r > 0, a key derivation is > performed whenever index mod r equals zero ... "? Is it the one later > defined: r = index DIV key_derivation_rate? > > 2. The logic for performing a new key derivation is only mentioned in > the RFC 3711 as " .. a key derivation is performed whenever index mod r > equals zero ". In reality, more complicated logic is probably needed > considering the following scenarios: > > Assume: Key_derivation_rate = 4, ROC = 0 > Scenario 1: > For pakcet seq = 16, index = 16, r = 16 DIV 4 = 4, so 16 mod 4 = 0 a new > key is derived on the receiver side. But then packet seq = 14 arrived, r > = 14 DIV 4 = 3, but 14 mod 3 is not 0 so no new key derivation is > performed. But we can't use the key derived for seq = 16, the old key > should be used. So we need more complicated logic than the " index mod r > = = 0 " to determine whether to use the old key for seq = 14 > > Scenario 2: Same as above but assume packet 16 is lost and never reached > the receiver, then for packet 17, r = 17 DIV 4 = 4, 17 mod 4 is not zero > and no new key is derived for packet 17 but on the sender side, packet > 17 uses the new key. > > Am I understanding it correctly? > > Thanks! > > Regards, > > Guoqiang _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 01 13:16:52 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DoP8G-0003cb-9b; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:16:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DoP8B-0003bs-HD; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:16:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16762; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DoPYC-00078t-2y; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:43:40 -0400 Received: from apache by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DoP8A-0002R7-Pn; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:16:46 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:16:46 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] Last Call: 'RTP Payload Format for AC-3 Audio' to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport WG to consider the following document: - 'RTP Payload Format for AC-3 Audio ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2005-07-15. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-ac3-07.txt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 02 11:16:30 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DojjK-00070k-IO; Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:16:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DojjI-0006z1-5q for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:16:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27130 for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 11:16:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Dok9S-0005v8-WE for avt@ietf.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:43:32 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:63648 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1Dojit-00085F-D2; Sat, 02 Jul 2005 16:16:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] syncing sessions Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:15:56 +0100 To: Matthew Romaine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On 27 Jun 2005, at 10:23, Matthew Romaine wrote: > I've got a question about synchronizing multiple sessions related > to a single payload format. > > I am working on a payload format which will support separation of > data into "required" and "enhancements" categories - aka a variant > on scalable streaming. In addition to sending all frame-based data > over one session, I would like to support sending over two sessions > (necessary data on one session, enhancement data on a second session). > > I'm sure this isn't anything new for many of you, but my Google > chops aren't serving me very well so I thought I would seek some > pointers/suggestions on payloads to use as a reference. (Not to > mention using an RFC as a reference last time was a mistake :) > > My main question is how to specify how one session "belongs" to > another - i.e., is there an SDP exchange to let a client calculate > which two receiving-end ports need to be "associated"? Or is this > all strictly an application-level implementation issue? (there is > enough data in each payload for a client to realize which session > they are dealing with (required or enhancement)). You can signal layered coding in SDP using the "slash" notation on either the "c=" or "m=" lines. For example, you might say: m=video 49170/2 RTP/AVP 31 specify that ports 49170 and 49171 form one RTP/RTCP pair and 49172 and 49173 form the second RTP/RTCP pair. Alternatively, you might use the grouping framework (RFC 3388). Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 02 11:18:39 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DojlP-00083n-Pn; Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:18:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DojlO-00083f-8v for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:18:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27314 for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 11:18:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DokBa-0006At-7I for avt@ietf.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:45:42 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:63663 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DojlE-0008JM-Rz; Sat, 02 Jul 2005 16:18:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60119FF70@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> References: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60119FF70@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:18:23 +0100 To: Vladimir Ulybin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Vladimir, You might review draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt, which discusses this issue and proposes an RTP-friendly approach to retransmission. Colin On 30 Jun 2005, at 09:31, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > In T.38 UDPTL protocol, every primary fax packet has a unique > sequence number. > > To immune a fax session of packet loss in the network, gateways use > redundancy and packet retransmissions. > > When a T.38 UDPTL packet is retransmitted, the sequence number is > unchanged. > > In T.38 over RTP protocol, the RTP sequence number must be used. > The RFC 3550 defines the sequence number as monotonically > incremented by one for every packet sent to the network. > > > If RTP sequence number is incremented per every retransmission, > then the retransmission of fax packets containing T.38 DATA packets > in primary or redundant RTP payloads is problematic because the T. > 30 data may be re-modulated incorrectly. > > The problem exists also for retransmission of T.38 INDICATOR > packets: If a primary T.38 INDICATOR is lost, the retransmitted T. > 38 INDICATOR arrived with a gap in RTP sequence number may be > delayed in packet recovery module, so the start of corresponding > fax signal may be delayed when it should not. > > > The obvious solution is to increment RTP sequence number > conditionally by the same way as in T.38 UDPTL: > > The RTP sequence number is to be incremented per every new primary > fax packet, but remains unchanged if RTP packet transfers a > retransmitted primary fax packet. > > > The questions: > > Does this conflict with some RTP protocol? > > What kind of interoperability problems (excluding RTCP statistics > of packet loss) may exist? > > > Thanks, > > Vladimir Ulybin > > AudioCodes Ltd. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 03 01:21:54 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DowvS-0004Fi-9S; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:21:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DowvQ-0004Er-K7 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:21:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA07173 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 01:21:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m205-236.dsl.tsoft.com ([198.144.205.236] helo=hawaii.herlein.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DoxLk-00033c-0M for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:49:04 -0400 Received: by hawaii.herlein.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 78EE78CC202; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hawaii.herlein.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768C48CC1FE for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:14:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Greg Herlein To: avt@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Subject: [AVT] Syncronization of co-located clients? X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org I've got a scenario where I need to multicast RTP streams to multiple clients, and some of those may be within visual (and worse, audible) range of another client. Is there a profile or other trick to help ensure syncronization *between* the clients? In other words, ensure that the presentation of the material from one client is in sync with the others nearby? I have some approaches to this, and have been hunting for other ideas. Any links, references, research papers - whatever - would be appreciated. Greg _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 03 10:44:44 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dp5i8-00007g-3q; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:44:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dp5i6-000072-LZ for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:44:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04720 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 10:44:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=imss.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Dp68S-000401-1y for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 11:11:58 -0400 Received: from aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com ([10.1.0.8]) by imss with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:47:14 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:44:53 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A03EF@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcV/GWOSJB+r3e0BS5Wl3lLa79FlRgAtApEg From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2beba50d0fcdeee5f091c59f204d4365 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Colin, Possibly I used the term "retransmission" non-correctly for T.38 over RTP. In the draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt, the term "retransmission" is applied to packets retransmitted as a response onto the request of packet receiver detected packet lost. Such retransmission reduces a reliability of fax relay, because enlarges the round-trip delay of fax commands and responses. But I assume a simple packet repetition following an original packet transmission to improve a reliability of delivering important T.30 commands or responses. This repetition shall be done without any request on retransmission from remote side. In T.38 UDPTL protocol the packet repetition is widely used by different gateway vendors. For example, the original fax packet "t38-v21-preamble-flags" is sent with sequence number SN at time offset To. Waiting for "v21-hdlc-data" with SN'=3DSN+1 for redundant transmission "t38-v21-preamble-flags" is = not a good solution for reliable fax relay, because if the original "t38-v21-preamble-flags" is lost in the network, then the redundant "t38-v21-preamble-flags" may reach the packet receiver when a linked fax disconnects on timeout or the V.21 re-modulation cannot be started. The repetition of primary "t38-v21-preamble-flags" done one ore more times k>=3D1 at offsets To + k*T (where T is a short interval = T=3D0..Nms) with the same SN solves the problem of packet lost in a best way. The incrementing SN as it is recommended in RFC 3550 cannot be accepted for this case because reduces reliability of V.21 relay in conditions of packet lost. The same is valid for some other T.38 packets like "fcs-OK"/"sig-end/no-signal", etc. Furthermore, incrementing SN for repeated "fcs-OK"/"sig-end/no-signal" containing T.30 data as secondary packets may cause incorrect data modulation toward a fax machine. Taking into account for T.38-over-RTP that 1. Fax relay is asynchronous communication having long periods of packet absence; 2. The redundancy and repetition of important fax packets significantly improves the fax session reliability; 3. Incrementing RTP sequence number for repeated T.38 packets cannot be accepted; 4. Reliability of fax session has a much higher priority vs. a correct RTCP statistics; I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is repeated. Regards, Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]=20 Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 6:18 PM To: Vladimir Ulybin Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Vladimir, You might review draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt, which =20 discusses this issue and proposes an RTP-friendly approach to =20 retransmission. Colin On 30 Jun 2005, at 09:31, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > In T.38 UDPTL protocol, every primary fax packet has a unique =20 > sequence number. > > To immune a fax session of packet loss in the network, gateways use =20 > redundancy and packet retransmissions. > > When a T.38 UDPTL packet is retransmitted, the sequence number is =20 > unchanged. > > In T.38 over RTP protocol, the RTP sequence number must be used. =20 > The RFC 3550 defines the sequence number as monotonically =20 > incremented by one for every packet sent to the network. > > > If RTP sequence number is incremented per every retransmission, =20 > then the retransmission of fax packets containing T.38 DATA packets =20 > in primary or redundant RTP payloads is problematic because the T.=20 > 30 data may be re-modulated incorrectly. > > The problem exists also for retransmission of T.38 INDICATOR =20 > packets: If a primary T.38 INDICATOR is lost, the retransmitted T.=20 > 38 INDICATOR arrived with a gap in RTP sequence number may be =20 > delayed in packet recovery module, so the start of corresponding =20 > fax signal may be delayed when it should not. > > > The obvious solution is to increment RTP sequence number =20 > conditionally by the same way as in T.38 UDPTL: > > The RTP sequence number is to be incremented per every new primary =20 > fax packet, but remains unchanged if RTP packet transfers a =20 > retransmitted primary fax packet. > > > The questions: > > Does this conflict with some RTP protocol? > > What kind of interoperability problems (excluding RTCP statistics =20 > of packet loss) may exist? > > > Thanks, > > Vladimir Ulybin > > AudioCodes Ltd. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 03 13:05:35 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dp7uR-00036M-H3; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:05:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dp7uQ-00036H-8E for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:05:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16932 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 13:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gateway0.eecs.berkeley.edu ([169.229.60.93]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Dp8Kp-0006OC-Kd for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:32:52 -0400 Received: from [128.32.34.73] (dhcp-34-73.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.34.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j63H5V4K003802 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 10:05:32 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) In-Reply-To: <20050703160528.3B51235ACS@mxtreme0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> References: <20050703160528.3B51235ACS@mxtreme0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: lazzaro Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 10:06:02 -0700 To: avt@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [AVT] Re: Syncronization of co-located clients? X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 3, 2005, at 9:05 AM Greg Herlein wrote: > I've got a scenario where I need to multicast RTP streams to > multiple clients, and some of those may be within visual (and > worse, audible) range of another client. > > Is there a profile or other trick to help ensure syncronization > *between* the clients? In other words, ensure that the > presentation of the material from one client is in sync with the > others nearby? > > I have some approaches to this, and have been hunting for other ideas. > > Any links, references, research papers - whatever - would be > appreciated. For a fixed installation, the simplest solution is low-tech: http://www.auralex.com/ If this isn't quite what you had in mind ... One technical approach is to run tightly synchronized clocks everywhere, and communicate an absolute presentation time to all clients. This will require mechanisms for doing perceptually unobjectionable time slips to handle clock drifts in the audio D/A conversion for each host. We had a good discussion about this topic on AVT a few years ago. See: http://www.opensoundcontrol.org/papers/clock_sync_in_music_systems/ for a good summary of the clock synchronization part of the problem. A second way is to use a feed-forward approach instead of synced clocks. This works if the network media has reliable nominal latency (outlier late packets are OK, if there are methods of detecting them with good reliability). For N > 2 hosts, algorithms exist that estimate the one-way latency between host pairs with good accuracy (no references handy, maybe someone can post ...). If you have a good estimate of one-way latencies, it can substitute for tightly synchronized clocks ... To my knowledge, no support exists in RTP/SDP/SIP/RTSP stack to implement either [1] or [2] above in an interoperable way ... but the stack does support adding carefully placed foam panels onsite :-). --- John Lazzaro http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu --- _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 03 14:02:04 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dp8n6-0001ps-Rp; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:02:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dp8n4-0001pn-Ia for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:02:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22733 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 14:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.packetdesign.com ([65.192.41.10] helo=mailman.packetdesign.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Dp9DT-0002Rt-GU for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:29:20 -0400 Received: from packetdesign.com (main-fw-eth1.packetdesign.com [192.168.0.254]) by mailman.packetdesign.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j63I1Za2043536; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 11:01:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from casner@acm.org) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 11:01:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Casner To: Greg Herlein Subject: Re: [AVT] Syncronization of co-located clients? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050703105831.L9967@oak.packetdesign.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Greg Herlein wrote: > I've got a scenario where I need to multicast RTP streams to > multiple clients, and some of those may be within visual (and > worse, audible) range of another client. > > Is there a profile or other trick to help ensure syncronization > *between* the clients? In other words, ensure that the > presentation of the material from one client is in sync with the > others nearby? > > I have some approaches to this, and have been hunting for other > ideas. > > Any links, references, research papers - whatever - would be > appreciated. The following paper describes a nice synchronization protocol developed by Julio Escobar and colleagues at BBN which allows specifying the synchronization goals and dynamically determining the offsets needed to achieve sync: Julio Escobar, Craig Partridge, Debra Deutsch, "Flow Synchronization Protocol" IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol.2, No. 2, pp.111-121, April 1994. This may be more academic than you want; it defines a synchronization model and what information needs to be communicated, rather than providing a detailed protocol specification. This protocol was discussed in AVT for a while to consider whether RTP itself needed any changes to support more general synchronization, but we concluded that it did not. This synchronization protocol was used in a demonstration of distributed music performance that I helped implement at the ACM Multimedia Conference 1994. The music was a Haydn trio performed from three different locations across the country. Since only two performers were available, one part was recorded. That part was transmitted over the network and played out simultaneously at the two other locations. The two live performers played their parts along with that first one, not hearing each other. All three parts were multicast to multiple receivers, each of which synchronized the three streams to play out the trio in unison. The synchronization was achieved through the timestamps on the media packets in combination with delay offsets calculated by the synchronization protocol. The synchronization goal for this demo is different from yours, but the protocol is general. You may find that you need to implement something specific for your application, and this paper will give you the theory behind it so you know what information needs to be communicated where. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 03 16:17:53 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpAuX-0002To-2w; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:17:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpAuV-0002QO-0G for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:17:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06755 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:17:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m205-236.dsl.tsoft.com ([198.144.205.236] helo=hawaii.herlein.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpBKv-0003Pt-3C for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:45:10 -0400 Received: by hawaii.herlein.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 785E78CC20D; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hawaii.herlein.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7608E8CC20C for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Greg Herlein To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT] Syncronization of co-located clients? In-Reply-To: <20050703105831.L9967@oak.packetdesign.com> Message-ID: References: <20050703105831.L9967@oak.packetdesign.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org I found this as well - might provide a mechanism for sync based on SMPTE time code: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-singer-smpte-rtp-01.txt Assuming all clients controlled the playout buffer using the SMPTE time code, this could likely do it. My particular application is on a local LAN (a controlled VLAN actually) so I am not expecting the network to present significant problems. I've yet to review the recommended reading and products - I very much look forward to it. If possible, I'd like to generalize a solution to this problem - which may indeed be something that the wider AVT audience wants to participate in. I'd welcome that. I'll also be shifting my participation in AVT to my work email (greg_herlein@prn.com) since this project is work and not personal. I'd been active here using this email before so thought I'd use personal mail for my initial posts. Greg _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 03 17:46:16 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpCI4-0006bd-M5; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:46:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpCI2-0006bS-B5 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:46:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14019 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:46:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.63]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpCiT-0001eI-F9 for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:13:34 -0400 Received: from or-67-76-145-81.sta.sprint-hsd.net (HELO erols.com) (67.76.145.81) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2005 17:46:07 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,254,1115006400"; d="scan'208"; a="54677830:sNHT19377400" Message-ID: <42C85C92.23D59931@erols.com> Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:45:54 -0700 From: Chuck Harrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Herlein Subject: Re: [AVT] Syncronization of co-located clients? References: <20050703105831.L9967@oak.packetdesign.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Greg, This is definitely an area of interest to me. Let's continue the discussion here on AVT. Peace, Chuck Greg Herlein wrote: > [...]> > I've yet to review the recommended reading and products - I very > much look forward to it. If possible, I'd like to generalize a > solution to this problem - which may indeed be something that the > wider AVT audience wants to participate in. I'd welcome that. > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 03 19:08:25 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpDZZ-000390-K2; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 19:08:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpDZY-00038v-FU for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 19:08:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22799 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 19:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.202]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpE00-0007to-7W for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 19:35:45 -0400 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i6so612615wra for ; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:08:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GGkCy2rq9a+uLUDuXvzK1csYk+bFHvNlQiwrLIei5c3VV+EbOGcFUi5Qgwd0y9uggQZtS/v1Rt9H0VjSiHJjnwF4SMpwc7RzXojNFPTNKn9vDYiE5wPK3bn+Wh17VBisf1FZWfNLCK14bppdCNxRVYX+SAIwOboLCEYKZMA3IL8= Received: by 10.54.11.25 with SMTP id 25mr3187522wrk; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.63.20 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2729632a05070316087858205d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:08:14 -0700 From: To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT] Syncronization of co-located clients? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: skillzero@gmail.com List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On 7/2/05, Greg Herlein wrote: > I've got a scenario where I need to multicast RTP streams to > multiple clients, and some of those may be within visual (and > worse, audible) range of another client. >=20 > Is there a profile or other trick to help ensure syncronization > *between* the clients? In other words, ensure that the > presentation of the material from one client is in sync with the > others nearby? I may be oversimplifying your problem, but have you looked into using the NTP and RTP timestamp information in RTCP sender/receiver reports to synchronize? These RTCP reports allow you to determine the relative offset of each client to the reference clock of the sender. Using this, each client can adjust its playout delay to play at an absolute time that is the same as the other clients. I'm certainly not an expert, but this is what I am doing to play an RTP audio stream in sync to multiple clients within audible range of each other. What I found helpful is the book "RTP: Audio and Video for the Internet" by Colin Perkins (ISBN 0-672-32248-8). The chapter on Lip Synchronization describes the process of syncing streams using RTCP reports. It would be great to hear about other techniques, experiences, and reading material. _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 03 19:22:46 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpDnS-0005O3-0Y; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 19:22:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpDnQ-0005Nt-1X for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 19:22:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23829 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 19:22:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.packetdesign.com ([65.192.41.10] helo=mailman.packetdesign.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpEDs-0000Zj-LQ for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 19:50:05 -0400 Received: from packetdesign.com (main-fw-eth1.packetdesign.com [192.168.0.254]) by mailman.packetdesign.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j63NMOa2048632; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:22:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from casner@acm.org) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Casner To: Greg Herlein Subject: Re: [AVT] Syncronization of co-located clients? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050703161251.N9967@oak.packetdesign.com> References: <20050703105831.L9967@oak.packetdesign.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Greg Herlein wrote: > I found this as well - might provide a mechanism for sync based > on SMPTE time code: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-singer-smpte-rtp-01.txt > > Assuming all clients controlled the playout buffer using the > SMPTE time code, this could likely do it. My particular > application is on a local LAN (a controlled VLAN actually) so I > am not expecting the network to present significant problems. I don't think the SMPTE timecodes help unless they are representing an absolute time in the future, where the sender has made a prediction about the amount of time needed for propagation to all receivers and buffering time within each receiver. That might work in a controlled LAN environment, but it is not a general solution. The BBN Synchronization Protocol that I mentioned is based on using synchronized clocks at the receivers (e.g., using NTP). Each receiver relates its earliest possible playout time for a media timestamp to real time, and communicates that back to the controller. The controller finds the latest of these times and informs all the receives so they can choose the same playout time. There's more to it than that, of course. Sync "epochs" were used to deal with media clock drifts, etc. [I state the above without having read the paper in a long time. I seem to remember a centralized controller, but it could be done in a distributed manner as well.] -- Steve _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 03 21:11:10 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpFUM-00070R-2F; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:11:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpFUK-00070M-D2 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:11:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02467 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 21:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gateway0.eecs.berkeley.edu ([169.229.60.93]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpFun-0007yj-4Q for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:38:30 -0400 Received: from [128.32.34.73] (dhcp-34-73.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.34.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j641Ave2004999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <844C1EF2-9904-454F-A92C-697B259EA6F9@eecs.berkeley.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: avt@ietf.org From: lazzaro Subject: Re: [AVT] Syncronization of co-located clients? Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:11:28 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Stephen Casner writes: > I don't think the SMPTE timecodes help unless they are representing an > absolute time in the future, where the sender has made a prediction > about the amount of time needed for propagation to all receivers and > buffering time within each receiver. That might work in a controlled > LAN environment, but it is not a general solution. I think it might make sense to revisit the ideas in the BBN protocol, but start with the latency model of a modern wired and wireless LAN, and define a simplified protocol for this special case. Zeroconf is an example of a protocol that limited itself to "networking in the small" and was very successful, and I think speaker synchronization could be just as successful ... --- John Lazzaro http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu --- _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 03:21:36 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpLGq-0004es-3z; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:21:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpLGn-0004ek-Bx for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:21:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA26526 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 03:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpLhI-0006Fu-Fg for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:48:58 -0400 Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id A48EDE57; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 09:21:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.174]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 09:21:28 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.71] ([147.214.34.71]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 09:21:28 +0200 Message-ID: <42C8E378.1070108@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:21:28 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vladimir Ulybin Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number References: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A03EF@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A03EF@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2005 07:21:28.0685 (UTC) FILETIME=[FEA111D0:01C58068] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > > I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new > primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is repeated. > There exist at least two possible ways of performing this without screwing up the RTCP statistics and fulfilling your other requirements: The first one is to use FEC to provide the packet repetition. I would suggest that you use RFC 2733 to provide repetition in a smarter way. This way one FEC packet can cover a few RTP packets. If this is done using RFC 2198 packetization then you don't even need to run two RTP sessions. The second is actually to use that Retransmission RTP payload format for repetitions. The payload format is really for repetitions and the spec provides with necessary information on bind and sync. Simple skip the NACK process. Cheers Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 04:32:06 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpMN4-0001Fm-4w; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:32:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpMN1-0001F0-Nx for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:32:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05862 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 04:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=imss.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpMnW-0003NU-Ie for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:59:29 -0400 Received: from aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com ([10.1.0.8]) by imss with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:34:42 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:32:19 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A0533@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWAaRhrtrDpCU39QpSvsDtizf8meAAAX4Ig From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: "Magnus Westerlund" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Thanks. Magnus Westerlund wrote: > The first one is to use FEC to provide the packet repetition...=20 > The second is actually to use that Retransmission RTP payload format for=20 > repetitions... But, 1. Not all gateways support FEC. 2. The RTP payload retransmission is under consideration (draft document) and is not supported by all gateways. Also, the using it may give additional interoperability conflicts, when one gateway supports NACK but the other ignores it.=20 Regards, Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 10:21 AM To: Vladimir Ulybin Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Vladimir Ulybin wrote: >=20 > I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new > primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is repeated. >=20 There exist at least two possible ways of performing this without=20 screwing up the RTCP statistics and fulfilling your other requirements: The first one is to use FEC to provide the packet repetition. I would=20 suggest that you use RFC 2733 to provide repetition in a smarter way.=20 This way one FEC packet can cover a few RTP packets. If this is done=20 using RFC 2198 packetization then you don't even need to run two RTP=20 sessions. The second is actually to use that Retransmission RTP payload format for repetitions. The payload format is really for repetitions and the spec=20 provides with necessary information on bind and sync. Simple skip the=20 NACK process. Cheers Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 04:49:37 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpMe0-0004Yz-Tj; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:49:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpMdy-0004YY-Mz for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:49:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08333 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 04:49:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpN4T-0004nc-6n for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 05:17:00 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:63571 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DpMdb-0008Mc-6l; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:49:11 +0100 In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A03EF@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> References: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A03EF@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <651BD409-AD1A-4BA6-825F-318B13A83817@csperkins.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 09:49:05 +0100 To: Vladimir Ulybin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > Possibly I used the term "retransmission" non-correctly for T.38 over > RTP. In the draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt, the term > "retransmission" is applied to packets retransmitted as a response > onto > the request of packet receiver detected packet lost. Such > retransmission > reduces a reliability of fax relay, because enlarges the round-trip > delay of fax commands and responses. > > But I assume a simple packet repetition following an original packet > transmission to improve a reliability of delivering important T.30 > commands or responses. This repetition shall be done without any > request > on retransmission from remote side. In T.38 UDPTL protocol the packet > repetition is widely used by different gateway vendors. As Magnus says, the RFC 2733 FEC format is appropriate, or the retransmission draft I suggested. > Taking into account for T.38-over-RTP that > > 1. Fax relay is asynchronous communication having long periods of > packet > absence; > 2. The redundancy and repetition of important fax packets > significantly > improves the fax session reliability; > 3. Incrementing RTP sequence number for repeated T.38 packets > cannot be > accepted; > 4. Reliability of fax session has a much higher priority vs. a correct > RTCP statistics; > > I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new > primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is > repeated. Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the sequence numbers to be unique. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 05:58:40 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpNiq-00075s-82; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 05:58:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpNio-00075P-R8 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 05:58:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17492 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 05:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=imss.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpO9K-0004Hq-BR for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 06:26:04 -0400 Received: from aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com ([10.1.0.8]) by imss with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:01:10 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 12:58:47 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A059D@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWAdVcEdc3rCQYPRKiN3Atvb0ZodgAALpjw From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: "Colin Perkins" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: >> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of >> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new >> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is =20 >> repeated. Colin Perkins wrote: > Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the sequence =20 > numbers to be unique. 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 as a basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does not use SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC 2833bis were the MUST is used).=20 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to the same fax signal state or the same binary data cannot be considered as unique. 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The blind assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full compatible with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, because gateways may not repeat fax packets. 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted RTCP statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than to loose connection during fax relay. Regards, Vladimir Ulybin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 06:30:49 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpODx-00049x-8a; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 06:30:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpODv-00048l-Fv for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 06:30:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20762 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 06:30:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=imss.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpOb6-0007kq-GC for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 06:54:46 -0400 Received: from aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com ([10.1.0.8]) by imss with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:29:53 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:27:31 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A05AD@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWAdVcEdc3rCQYPRKiN3Atvb0ZodgAALpjwAAKlLHA= From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: "Colin Perkins" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Corrected item 3: 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to a fax state (or binary data) detected (or demodulated) at ONE moment of time cannot be considered as unique, because the one fax state will share some different packets. There is no mutual correspondence. Sorry, Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Vladimir Ulybin=20 Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 12:59 PM To: 'Colin Perkins' Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: >> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of >> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new >> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is =20 >> repeated. Colin Perkins wrote: > Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the sequence =20 > numbers to be unique. 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 as a basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does not use SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC 2833bis were the MUST is used).=20 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to the same fax signal state or the same binary data cannot be considered as unique. 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The blind assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full compatible with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, because gateways may not repeat fax packets. 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted RTCP statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than to loose connection during fax relay. Regards, Vladimir Ulybin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 06:47:56 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpOUW-00078v-QX; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 06:47:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpOUU-00078M-Nu for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 06:47:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23341 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 06:47:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpOj0-0000jO-R9 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 07:02:56 -0400 Received: from alor.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.247.84]:49310) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DpOII-0001ke-Cy; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:35:18 +0100 In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A059D@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> References: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A059D@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:35:15 +0100 To: Vladimir Ulybin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On 4 Jul 2005, at 10:58, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: >>> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of >>> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new >>> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is >>> repeated. > > Colin Perkins wrote: >> Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the sequence >> numbers to be unique. > > 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 > as a > basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. > 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does > not use > SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC > 2833bis > were the MUST is used). The RTP specification says "The sequence number increments by one for each RTP data packet sent". > 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to a fax state (or binary > data) detected (or demodulated) at ONE moment of time cannot be > considered as unique, because the one fax state will share some > different packets. There is no mutual correspondence. Using either RFC 2733, the RTP retransmission framework, or RTP over TCP will retain the sequence number. This is not a problem. > 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The > blind > assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full compatible > with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, > because > gateways may not repeat fax packets. As you say, gateways may not repeat the packets. This is because RTP requires all packets to have a unique sequence number - a gateway which suppresses the duplicates is behaving correctly. > 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the > only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted RTCP > statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than to > loose connection during fax relay. The AVT working group has developed three alternatives to improve the quality of the media: RFC 2733, the RTP retransmission framework, or RTP over TCP. I believe one of those would be appropriate for your usage. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 11:19:09 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpSiz-00075K-9r; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:19:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpSix-00074s-Ig for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:19:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00356 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56] helo=zcars04e.ca.nortel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpT9X-0003IS-84 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:46:36 -0400 Received: from zcard303.ca.nortel.com (zcard303.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.59]) by zcars04e.ca.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j64FHXX02449 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (acart264.ca.nortel.com [47.130.17.133]) by zcard303.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id MRAFQQ58; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:18:44 -0400 Message-ID: <42C95352.7080108@nortel.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:18:42 -0400 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: avt@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [AVT] V.8 bis events in 2833bisdata X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org I'm rewriting the V.8 bis events in 2833bisdata based on recent discussion. I'm hoping no one is wedded to the previous codepoints. Please let me know if there is a problem. Here are the changes, pending comment. I have a separate question on ESi and ESr which I pose below. "Old meaning" includes two tone segments in the same event. "New meaning" includes only one segment, either the first or the second. Codepoint Old Meaning New Meaning 41 CRdi CRd (seg 2) 42 CRdr unused 43 CRe CRe (seg 2) 44 ESi unused?? 45 ESr unused?? 46 MRdi MRd (seg 2) 47 MRdr unused 48 MRe MRe (seg 2) 65 unused V8bisInit (seg 1) 66 unused V8bisResp (seg 1) The question marks on ESi and ESr are because when they are isolated to a single segment they become identical (except for duration) to V.21 '1' bits in low and high channel respectively. I am wondering if I should therefore assign the same codepoints (38 and 40) to them as are assigned to the V.21 bits. Any concerns or objections? Tom Taylor _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 05 15:47:10 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DptNt-00018a-NK; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:47:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DptNp-00013s-G2 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:47:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13969 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu ([128.8.129.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DptjX-0003ll-Hf for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:09:32 -0400 Received: from MINDLAP2 (mindlap2.cs.umd.edu [172.16.0.37]) (authenticated bits=0) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j65JfWtX017067 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:41:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200507051941.j65JfWtX017067@carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu> From: "Moustafa Youssef" To: Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:41:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: dbb8771284c7a36189745aa720dc20ab Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [AVT] 1st CFP: 2nd IEEE Workshop on Dependability and Security in Sensor Networks and Systems X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org (Our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP) ------------------------------------------------------------- First Call for Papers Second IEEE Workshop on Dependability and Security in Sensor Networks and Systems (DSSNS=922006) http://www.dssns.org In conjunction with 2nd NASA/IEEE Systems and Software Week 30th NASA/IEEE Software Engineering Workshop (SEW=922006) April 24-28, 2006 Recently, there has been a growing interest in the potential use of networked sensors in applications such as smart environments,=20 disaster management, combat field reconnaissance, and security=20 surveillance. While the initial view of the community was that=20 networked sensors will play a complementary role that enhances=20 the quality of these applications, recent research results have=20 encouraged practitioners to envision an increased reliance on sensor=20 networks and systems (SN&S) in such critical and sensitive applications. Therefore to realize their potential, necessary dependability and=20 security (D&S) measures have to be incorporated in the design and=20 during the operation of SN&S. Dependability is usually specified=20 using attributes like reliability, survivability, safety, maintainability,=20 and availability in presence of failure, while security is specified by=20 attributes like integrity, authenticity, confidentiality, and availability=20 in presence of attacks. D&S services accomplish tasks for attack and failure prevention, detection and response. The scope of D&S services may span the deployed sensors to command nodes and likely beyond. It also=20 involves D&S support at, and cross-cutting, the protocol stack layers=20 from physical to application. Achieving dependability and security in SN&S will require non-conventional=20 mechanisms due to many factors including: (1) sensors are significantly constrained in the amount of available resources such as energy, storage and computation; (2) sensors are expected to be deployed in very large numbers in normal as well as harsh/hostile environments; (3) sensor networks suffer from structural weakness and limited physical protection, and (4) localization of impact is complicated due to the un-tethered nature of SN&S and of the potential attackers. In addition, D&S requirements may vary according to mission defined over a multi-dimensional context, such as field of deployment (e.g., hostile versus friendly), type of application (e.g., monitoring, tracking, data collection), mode of operation (e.g., normal, exception, post-event recovery), and time. This workshop will foster a forum for discussing and presenting recent research results on dependability and security in SN&S. Topics of interest include, although not limited to, the following: - Fault and intrusion-tolerant architectures, middleware and operational models=20 - Robust routing, storage, and processing of sensed data - D&S architectures, protocols and tools - Vulnerabilities, attacks and countermeasures - Monitoring and evaluation techniques - Robust clustering techniques - Self-awareness and context-awareness=20 - Resilient virtual infrastructures - Autonomic and adaptive D&S support. - Formal representation and verification of D&S properties - Network inference support for D&S - Quality of service provisioning - Models, metrics, and measurements for D&S - Privacy-aware D&S services - Testbeds, simulation and visualization=20 - Agent-based D&S management=20 - SN&S support for D&S in larger information grids - SN&S application development environments Submission Guidelines --------------------- For guidelines regarding paper submission, please refer to the workshop=92s website (http://www.dssns.org). Papers should contain original material and not be previously published, or currently submitted for consideration elsewhere. The manuscript should not exceed 20 single-column double-space pages in PDF format, font size 11 or larger. The first page should include title, authors' contact information, abstract and five keywords.=20 Important Dates ---------------- Submission deadline: November 7, 2004 Decision notification: December 20, 2004 Final manuscript due: January 20, 2005 The best paper will be recognized and selected papers will be invited to a Special Issue of the Journal of Ad Hoc and Sensor Wireless Networks.=20 Workshop Co-Chairs ------------------- Mohamed Eltoweissy Virginia Tech, USA E-mail: toweissy@vt.edu=20 Mohamed Younis University of Maryland Baltimore County, USA E-mail: younis@csee.umbc.edu=20 Publicity Co-Chairs -------------------- Denis Gracanin Virginia Tech, USA E-mail: gracanin@vt.edu Moustafa Youssef University of Maryland at College Park, USA E-mail: moustafa@cs.umd.edu=20 Program Committee ------------------ Farooq Anjum, Telcordia & U of Penn, USA David Carman, Johns Hopkins Univ.=96 Applied Physics Lab, USA Ing-Ray Chen, Virginia Tech, USA M. Nazih Elderini, Alexandria Univ, Egypt Sushil Jajodia, George Mason Univ., USA Shivakant Mishra, Univ, of Colorado, USA Peng Ning, North Carolina State U, USA Stephan Olariu, Old Dominion Univ., USA David Simplot-Ryl, Univ. Lille, INRIA Futurs, France John A. Stankovic, University of Virginia, USA Ivan Stojmenovic, Univ. of Ottawa, Canada Cliff Wang, Army Research Office, USA Stephen D. Wolthusen, Fraunhofer-IGD, Germany Albert Zomaya, Univ. of Sydney, Australia _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 07 03:40:12 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqQzU-0004fM-OC; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 03:40:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqQzT-0004f2-5x for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 03:40:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA07904 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 03:40:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqRQa-0007Lc-BE for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 04:08:14 -0400 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id D9BEC149F for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 09:40:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 09:40:06 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.71] ([147.214.34.71]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 09:40:05 +0200 Message-ID: <42CCDC55.7010604@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:40:05 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF AVT WG Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050708030402000401010209" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2005 07:40:05.0995 (UTC) FILETIME=[17D64BB0:01C582C7] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7118f330e2af0a096ba071c5e99ca10e Subject: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050708030402000401010209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is relevant for AVT. Cheers Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com --------------050708030402000401010209 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt" X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Received: from esealmw105.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.68]) by esealmw103.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:53:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58264.7323E580" Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by esealmw105.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:49:29 +0200 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([130.100.184.163]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:53:58 +0200 Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.59]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:53:57 +0200 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 3C247450009; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:53:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqFup-0008Ld-Jk; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:50:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqFuH-0007zA-6x for i-d-announce@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:50:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10070 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqGLH-000862-MJ for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:18:00 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DqFuE-000884-48 for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:50:02 -0400 Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2005 19:53:57.0726 (UTC) FILETIME=[72617FE0:01C58264] Errors-To: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) List-Post: List-Id: i-d-announce.ietf.org X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:50:02 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt Thread-Index: AcWCZHM8cveeT6CIQaqBia9mxT7Rog== List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , From: Sender: To: Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58264.7323E580 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C58264.7323E580" ------_=_NextPart_002_01C58264.7323E580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. Title : RTP Payload Format for Video Codec 1 (VC-1) Author(s) : A. Klemets Filename : draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2005-7-6 =09 This memo specifies an RTP payload format for encapsulating Video=20 Codec 1 (VC-1) compressed bit streams, as defined by the proposed=20 Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) standard,=20 SMPTE 421M. SMPTE is the main standardizing body in the motion=20 imaging industry and the proposed SMPTE 421M standard defines a=20 compressed video bit stream format and decoding process for=20 television. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to=20 i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of = the message. =20 You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce=20 to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the = username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html=20 or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt". =09 NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. =09 =09 Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ------_=_NextPart_002_01C58264.7323E580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line = Internet-Drafts directories.


        Title   =         : RTP Payload Format for = Video Codec 1 (VC-1)
        = Author(s)       : A. Klemets
        = Filename        : = draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt
        Pages   =         : 21
        Date    =         : 2005-7-6
       
   This memo specifies an RTP payload format for encapsulating = Video
   Codec 1 (VC-1) compressed bit streams, as defined by the = proposed
   Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) = standard,
   SMPTE 421M.  SMPTE is the main standardizing body in = the motion
   imaging industry and the proposed SMPTE 421M standard = defines a
   compressed video bit stream format and decoding process = for
   television.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt=

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of = the message. 
You can also visit https://www1= .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the = username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After = logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
        "get = draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html<= /A>
or
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/iet= f/1shadow-sites.txt


Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
        mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
        "FILE = /internet-drafts/draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt".
       
NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document = in
        MIME-encoded form by using = the "mpack" utility.  To use this
        feature, insert the command = "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
        command.  To decode the = response(s), you will need "munpack" or
        a MIME-compliant mail = reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
        exhibit different behavior, = especially when dealing with
        "multipart" MIME = messages (i.e. documents which have been split
        up into multiple messages), = so check your local documentation on
        how to manipulate these = messages.
        =        
        =        
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

------_=_NextPart_002_01C58264.7323E580-- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58264.7323E580 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="ATT501586.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: ATT501586.TXT Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT501586.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Q29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBNZXNzYWdlL0V4dGVybmFsLWJvZHk7IGFjY2Vzcy10eXBlPSJtYWlsLXNl cnZlciI7DQoJc2VydmVyPSJtYWlsc2VydkBpZXRmLm9yZyINCg0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0 L3BsYWluDQpDb250ZW50LUlEOiA8MjAwNS03LTYxMjI5MDYuSS1EQGlldGYub3JnPg0KDQpFTkNP RElORyBtaW1lDQpGSUxFIC9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJhZnQta2xlbWV0cy1hdnQtcnRwLXZj MS0wMC50eHQNCg== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58264.7323E580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; name="draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RklMRSBERUxFVEVEDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KV2FybmluZyENCg0KVGhlIGF0dGFjaGVkIGZp bGUgZHJhZnQta2xlbWV0cy1hdnQtcnRwLXZjMS0wMC5VUkwgaGFzIG5vdCBiZWVuIGRlbGl2ZXJl ZC4NCg0KVGhlIHJlYXNvbiBpcyBkdWUgdG8gdGhlIEZJTEUgRklMVEVSPSAqLnVybCBvbiBtYWls c2VydmVyIEVTRUFMTVcxMjguDQoNClBsZWFzZSBjb250YWN0IElUIFNlcnZpY2UgRGVzayBpZiB5 b3UgaGF2ZSBmdXJ0aGVyIHF1ZXN0aW9ucy4NCg0KSFA= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58264.7323E580 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT501587.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: ATT501587.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT501587.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkktRC1Bbm5v dW5jZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCkktRC1Bbm5vdW5jZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cxLmll dGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaS1kLWFubm91bmNlDQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58264.7323E580-- --------------050708030402000401010209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --------------050708030402000401010209-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 07 06:43:38 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqTqz-0007c0-W6; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 06:43:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqTqx-0007ay-1B for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 06:43:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21525 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 06:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.201]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqUI5-0005dz-Hi for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:11:39 -0400 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i18so171871wra for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 03:43:19 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=MtLdHouSR9VZuNMq100TLiZ62QQ77LlnD7VmnOYQidiyagMWecQ/tff0sS6Kp+H1rz0ofQz7zVl5WfGnArfIfSxHE+G4mqTyidWEh8R6hPFqOoWo6Omeh3mYVpvmHaQXkWqoaDL7hWcYfSRJKlJSvyHXB6Wi6swnAg7LemTFkK8= Received: by 10.54.39.29 with SMTP id m29mr555851wrm; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 03:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.63.20 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 03:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2729632a0507070343273a7d0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 03:43:19 -0700 From: To: avt@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [AVT] RTCP for synchronization X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: skillzero@gmail.com List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org I have a few questions RTCP sender/receiver reports for synchronization: 1. Section 6.1 of RFC 3550 indicates that an RR packet must be sent instead of an SR packet if no data has been sent yet. The problem for me is that I need to establish the NTP/RTP timing relationship before I start playing audio. Otherwise, the receiver would either need to start playing out-of-sync then later correct when it receives an SR (glitch in the audio) or it would need to wait until it has received an SR to start playing (initial samples dropped). I'm playing prerecorded music so either option has noticeable effects. Is there a specific reason an SR isn't legal for a soon-to-be sender? Is there a better way to handle this, other than doing something like sending silence packet(s) first such that an SR would be legal? 2. My receiving clients were previously also RTP senders so they were sending and receiving RTCP SR's and RR's and this allowed me to calculate an accurate, absolute time (figure 2 in RFC 3550) when an audio sample should be presented so all clients played in-sync. My receiving clients no longer send RTP data and therefore no longer send SR's or receive RR's to determine the round-trip time. Is it possible with RTP/RTCP for non-senders to determine an accurate, absolute presentation time (at least with respect to other receivers of this RTP stream)? I can get close by using the NTP/RTP relationship from the SR combined with the RTP timestamp offset estimate I maintain, but since this RTP timestamp offset is only an estimate (jitter, etc. affect it), it doesn't play sample-accurate between clients; there is a slight reverb effect when the speakers are next to each other. The documents I've read so far all seem to use a separate protocol (MBUS, NTP, etc.) to either publish the playout delay or synchronize clocks. It seems like RTP has all the facilities to do this via SR/RR packets, but it doesn't seem to be allowed by the spec for my situation. Or I just misunderstand it, which is actually quite likely :) Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 07 14:47:48 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqbPY-0002rX-BG; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:47:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqbPW-0002pz-CD; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:47:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07574; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cs.columbia.edu ([128.59.16.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqbqi-0005zA-43; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:15:55 -0400 Received: from cnr.cs.columbia.edu (cnr.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.19.133]) by cs.columbia.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j67Ilbsw019684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cnr.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cnr.cs.columbia.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j67Ilb38087690; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:47:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lennox@cnr.cs.columbia.edu) Received: (from lennox@localhost) by cnr.cs.columbia.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j67Ilbvg087687; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:47:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lennox) From: Jonathan Lennox MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17101.30921.48827.630095@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:47:37 -0400 To: lazzaro In-Reply-To: References: <20050707160632.05BB8693M1@mxtreme1.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mmusic@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] RE: Draft -04 of Comedia over TLS submitted. Ready for WGLC? X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On Thursday, July 7 2005, "lazzaro" wrote to "mmusic@ietf.org" saying: > From this I-D: > > This document does not define any mechanism for securely transporting > RTP and RTCP packets over a connection-oriented channel. There was > no consensus in the working group as to whether it would be better to > send Secure RTP packets [22] over a connection-oriented transport > [23], or whether it would be better to send standard unsecured RTP > packets over TLS using the mechanisms described in this document. > The group consensus was to wait until a use-case requiring secure > connection-oriented RTP was presented. > > --- > > I agree this accurately represents the discussion that went on in the > working groups. > > But, I thought it would be good to excerpt it and post it, to remind > everyone that this is the decision that was made. Given the lead time > of the IETF process, it's a decision we'll all be living with for the next > few years (at least). If there's a group change of heart on the issue > that is about to happen, having it happen now saves the community > one cycle through the standards process. I agree it's worth considering. I also noticed that the recent AVT recharter contained the bullet point: - to provide a framing mechanism for RTP over TCP and TLS Was inserting TLS just someone's "this seems like a good idea" as part of describing draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans for the charter, or did was this decision actually made at some point? My own implementation of TCP/TLS (developed alongside the draft) actually implements TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP, so I'd certainly be inclined to lean that way. -- Jonathan Lennox lennox@cs.columbia.edu _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 07 16:01:22 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqcYk-0007vS-8x; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:01:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqcYj-0007v4-0H; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:01:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15921; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gateway0.eecs.berkeley.edu ([169.229.60.93]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqczv-0006K4-EQ; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:29:30 -0400 Received: from [128.32.34.73] (dhcp-34-73.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.34.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j67K1FkX000161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2E2A5716-791F-4C40-9583-13F95C325B3F@eecs.berkeley.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: lazzaro Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:01:48 -0700 To: mmusic@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] MMUSIC stage and studio requirements I-D ... X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi everyone, I just sent an new individual I-D submission off to Internet-Drafts, that is targeted to MMUSIC: ---- Requirements for a Stage and Studio Multimedia Framework Abstract Is the IETF multimedia stack appropriate for use in the digital audio equipment found in recording studios and concert halls? To help answer this question, this memo lists the requirements for a session management framework for stage and studio devices. Download URL for an advance copy: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/sa/pubs/txt/current-sands.txt ---- Some background may be helpful. RTP MIDI has many potential applications. Many are WAN-oriented, and SIP and RTSP as is will work well for these. The RTP MIDI I-D includes interoperability advice for those apps. The application described in the above abstract -- networking together professional audio equipment in recording studios and concert stages -- is a "networking in the small" problem (the network spans the rooms of a recording studio or concert venue) and has unique requirements. MMUSIC may be the right place to design a framework for session management for this application. Or, maybe not -- maybe a new custom protocol done by an audio-centric standards body is more appropriate, free from our legacy-compatibility constraints. Or, maybe there is room for both types of protocols, as the potential devices span from the very simple (powered by 8-bit micros) to very complex (expensive multiprocessor implementations of mixing consoles). I decided the best way to start the discussion on this topic was to write a list of requirements for the domain as seen by the authors. Thus this I-D. Even if the work of doing the framework is not appropriate for MMUSIC, MMUSIC may be the right place to host the discussion of the requirements for the application. If the WG agrees, then elevating this I-D to WG item would be the way to express this agreement. I won't be in Paris, but if the chairs wish to hold a discussion there, I'd be happy to make up slides to guide their presentation. Finally, AVT'ers should note this is an MMUSIC I-D -- I CC'd this initial posting to both lists, but discussion should occur on MMUSIC. --- John Lazzaro http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu --- _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 07 16:43:32 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqdDY-0005Zh-C8; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:43:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqdDV-0005Xj-0U for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:43:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03651 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:43:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqdej-0006nA-Ss for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:11:39 -0400 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2005 13:43:15 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,270,1115017200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="196972567:sNHT61607516" Received: from vtg-um-e2k6.sj21ad.cisco.com (vtg-um-e2k6.cisco.com [171.70.93.77]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j67KhB6r006819; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klantz-w2k02.cisco.com ([128.107.171.159]) by vtg-um-e2k6.sj21ad.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:43:11 -0700 Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050707134148.0304a328@vtg-um-e2k6.cisco.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:43:08 -0700 To: Magnus Westerlund From: Keith Lantz Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] In-Reply-To: <42CCDC55.7010604@ericsson.com> References: <42CCDC55.7010604@ericsson.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2005 20:43:11.0345 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D49BE10:01C58334] X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bacfc6c7290e34d410f9bc22b825ce96 Cc: IETF AVT WG X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0239909235==" Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --===============0239909235== Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Indeed...

I don't suppose anyone can provide a copy of SMPTE 421M? It doesn't appear to be available (yet) from smpte.org.

Thx, Keith

At 12:40 AM 7/7/2005, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
This is relevant for AVT.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com


X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Received: from esealmw105.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.68]) by
         esealmw103.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft
         SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:53:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58264.7323E580"
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by
         esealmw105.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft
         SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:49:29 +0200
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([130.100.184.163]) by
         esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft
         SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:53:58 +0200
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.59]) by
         esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft
         SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:53:57 +0200
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by
         mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id
         3C247450009; Wed,  6 Jul 2005 21:53:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by
         megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqFup-0008Ld-Jk;
        Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:50:39 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by
         megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqFuH-0007zA-6x
        for i-d-announce@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:50:05 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org
         (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10070 for
         <i-d-announce@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:50:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with
        esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqGLH-000862-MJ for i-d-announce@ietf.org;
        Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:18:00 -0400
Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id
         1DqFuE-000884-48 for i-d-announce@ietf.org;
        Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:50:02 -0400
Return-Path: <i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2005 19:53:57.0726 (UTC)
         FILETIME=[72617FE0:01C58264]
Errors-To: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/)
List-Post: < mailto:i-d-announce@ietf.org>
List-Id: i-d-announce.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:50:02 +0200
Message-ID: <E1DqFuE-000884-48@newodin.ietf.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcWCZHM8cveeT6CIQaqBia9mxT7Rog==
List-Help: < mailto:i-d-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: < https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>,
         < mailto:i-d-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: < https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>,
         < mailto:i-d-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org>
Sender: <i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org>
To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.


        Title           : RTP Payload Format for Video Codec 1 (VC-1)
        Author(s)       : A. Klemets
        Filename        : draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt
        Pages           : 21
        Date            : 2005-7-6
      
   This memo specifies an RTP payload format for encapsulating Video
   Codec 1 (VC-1) compressed bit streams, as defined by the proposed
   Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) standard,
   SMPTE 421M.  SMPTE is the main standardizing body in the motion
   imaging industry and the proposed SMPTE 421M standard defines a
   compressed video bit stream format and decoding process for
   television.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
        "get draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt


Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
        mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
        "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt".
      
NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
        MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
        feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
        command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
        a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
        exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
        "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
        up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
        how to manipulate these messages.
              
              
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.



_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
--===============0239909235== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --===============0239909235==-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 07 23:50:06 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqjsL-000887-QV; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:50:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqjsJ-00083P-6V; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:50:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01151; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 23:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gateway0.eecs.berkeley.edu ([169.229.60.93]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqkJb-0004Yd-OU; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:18:17 -0400 Received: from [128.32.34.73] (dhcp-34-73.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.34.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j683nwnf004674 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 20:49:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <011101c58367$438113d0$1101a8c0@shigpfhx45cdn7> References: <2E2A5716-791F-4C40-9583-13F95C325B3F@eecs.berkeley.edu> <011101c58367$438113d0$1101a8c0@shigpfhx45cdn7> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) X-Priority: 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: lazzaro Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 20:50:31 -0700 To: mmusic@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Shigeru Aoki Subject: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC stage and studio requirements I-D ... X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Shigeru Aoki wrote: > Have you checked the AES (Audio Engineering Society) standard > before your submission? > The AES is the international organization of standardizing the > studio or stage (generally referred to as "professional") audio. As > far as I read your draft, you'd better take a look at the Internet > Audio Delivery System WG in the AES. Yes I did check. Here is the meeting report for the Internet Audio Delivery System WG at the San Francisco AES meeting last fall: http://www.aes.org/standards/b_reports/b_meeting-reports/aes117- sc-02-14-report.cfm The meeting report doesn't seem to describe a group whose ongoing work is a close match for a project to do a session management framework for IETF protocols. Also, the report says the WG has no new projects and no new business apart from AES-X074, and is slated to be folded into another group soon. Their charter is written in an open-ended way, indeed it it would cover most of AVT's audio work. But in practice the group doesn't seem to be doing that sort of Internet standards work. --- John Lazzaro http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu --- _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 03:12:18 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqn22-0004fI-Nd; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 03:12:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqn21-0004fA-7B; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 03:12:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04660; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 03:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqnTM-0006m3-4V; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 03:40:32 -0400 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.120]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 18006117C; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:12:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:12:09 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.71] ([147.214.34.71]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:12:09 +0200 Message-ID: <42CE2749.70907@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:12:09 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Lennox Subject: Re: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] RE: Draft -04 of Comedia over TLS submitted.Ready for WGLC? References: <20050707160632.05BB8693M1@mxtreme1.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> <17101.30921.48827.630095@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> In-Reply-To: <17101.30921.48827.630095@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2005 07:12:09.0528 (UTC) FILETIME=[5AFF7B80:01C5838C] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: lazzaro , mmusic@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi Jonathan, Can you please remind where and when the decision was taken to not define TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP? All I find is some loose discussion without conclusion about the topic, but nothing I can interpret as an WG consensus on this. I am in favor of defining both TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP and TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF. I would also consider if TCP/TLS/RTP/SAVP is a good idea or not. I would consider TCP/TLS/RTP/SAVP a possibility in cases that requires a secure TCP/TLS connection, for example due to end point authentication, which however is a gateway to an SRTP session. If that is relevant or not is another matter. I also agree with Lazzaro that with the current IETF lead time the only reasonable way of providing for future use cases the market wants to select it to have it ready. I don't want to be the part blocking actual deployment of security. Thus I think we should consider both TCP/RTP/SAVP and TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP. As I see it TCP/RTP/SAVP and TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP have somewhat different security properties. TLS provides a secured transport channel with possibility to end-point authentication. The SRTP based solution provides instead group security and can be done without a trusted gateway. So they definitely are applicable in different use cases. Jonathan Lennox wrote: > I also noticed that the recent AVT recharter contained the bullet point: > > - to provide a framing mechanism for RTP over TCP and TLS > > Was inserting TLS just someone's "this seems like a good idea" as part of > describing draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans for the charter, or did was > this decision actually made at some point? Again doing some searching in the archives I find that this formulation was part of the proposed charter update I sent out 2003-09-02. It is probably something we who wrote it felt was an good idea and reflected our understanding of what was going to happen. I would interpret such that we are allowed and expected to do what the charter says. However if we do have motivation why we wouldn't, we probably can get away without doing the work. My conclusion is that we need to discuss this topic again. Cheers Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 05:58:39 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqpd1-0002Fw-9r; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:58:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqhFv-0001hv-SG for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:02:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21632 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail3.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.123]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqhhD-0006Jf-P6 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:30:28 -0400 Received: from mailout2.microsoft.com ([157.54.1.120]) by mail3.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:02:05 -0700 Received: from red-hub-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.2.25]) by mailout2.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:02:05 -0700 Received: from win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.39]) by red-hub-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:02:03 -0700 Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.88]) by win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:02:04 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:01:59 -0700 Message-ID: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0B24CBA1@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] thread-index: AcWDNNZjYNuJPiqdSTiVGvq8vQiWwgAILkXw From: "Anders Klemets" To: "Keith Lantz" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2005 01:02:04.0117 (UTC) FILETIME=[A78AA850:01C58358] X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1449ead51a2ff026dcb23465f5379250 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:58:38 -0400 Cc: IETF AVT WG X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0276875135==" Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0276875135== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58358.A62FA374" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58358.A62FA374 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable SMPTE 421M is in Final Committee Draft status and is not yet publicly available. However, SMPTE members should be able to obtain a copy from the members-only area on the SMPTE web site. The spec is being developed by Technology Committee C24 on Video Compression Technology. =20 ________________________________ From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Lantz Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 1:43 PM To: Magnus Westerlund Cc: IETF AVT WG Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] =20 Indeed... I don't suppose anyone can provide a copy of SMPTE 421M? It doesn't appear to be available (yet) from smpte.org. Thx, Keith ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58358.A62FA374 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

SMPTE 421M is in Final Committee = Draft status and is not yet publicly available.  However, SMPTE members = should be able to obtain a copy from the members-only area on the SMPTE web = site.  The spec is being developed by Technology Committee C24 on Video Compression Technology.

 


From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Lantz
Sent: Thursday, July 07, = 2005 1:43 PM
To: Magnus Westerlund
Cc: IETF AVT WG
Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: = I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt]

 

Indeed...

I don't suppose anyone can provide a copy of SMPTE 421M? It doesn't = appear to be available (yet) from smpte.org.

Thx, Keith

------_=_NextPart_001_01C58358.A62FA374-- --===============0276875135== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --===============0276875135==-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 05:58:39 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqpd1-0002HS-S0; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:58:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqitU-0002E1-HP for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:47:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA28045 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 22:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ps46.suite2.arena.ne.jp ([210.153.23.2]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqjKi-0007i0-5r for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:15:25 -0400 Received: (qmail 19189 invoked by SAV 20050707.053); 8 Jul 2005 11:46:33 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO shigpfhx45cdn7) (210.150.180.211) by ps46.suite2.arena.ne.jp (210.153.23.166) with SMTP; 8 Jul 2005 11:46:33 +0900 Message-ID: <011101c58367$438113d0$1101a8c0@shigpfhx45cdn7> From: "Shigeru Aoki" To: "lazzaro" , References: <2E2A5716-791F-4C40-9583-13F95C325B3F@eecs.berkeley.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:46:31 +0900 Organization: Japan FM Network MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a87a9cdae4ac5d3fbeee75cd0026d632 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:58:38 -0400 Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC stage and studio requirements I-D ... X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hello Lazzaro, Have you checked the AES (Audio Engineering Society) standard before your submission? The AES is the international organization of standardizing the studio or stage (generally referred to as "professional") audio. As far as I read your draft, you'd better take a look at the Internet Audio Delivery System WG in the AES. All the best, Shigeru Aoki Senior Technologist, The Japan FM Network ----- Original Message ----- From: "lazzaro" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 5:01 AM Subject: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC stage and studio requirements I-D ... > Hi everyone, > > I just sent an new individual I-D submission > off to Internet-Drafts, that is targeted to MMUSIC: > > ---- > > Requirements for a Stage and Studio Multimedia Framework > > > Abstract > > Is the IETF multimedia stack appropriate for use in the digital > audio equipment found in recording studios and concert halls? > To help answer this question, this memo lists the requirements > for a session management framework for stage and studio > devices. > > Download URL for an advance copy: > > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/sa/pubs/txt/current-sands.txt > > ---- > > Some background may be helpful. RTP MIDI has many > potential applications. Many are WAN-oriented, and SIP > and RTSP as is will work well for these. The RTP MIDI > I-D includes interoperability advice for those apps. > > The application described in the above abstract -- > networking together professional audio equipment in > recording studios and concert stages -- is a "networking > in the small" problem (the network spans the rooms of > a recording studio or concert venue) and has unique > requirements. > > MMUSIC may be the right place to design a framework > for session management for this application. > > Or, maybe not -- maybe a new custom protocol done by > an audio-centric standards body is more appropriate, > free from our legacy-compatibility constraints. > > Or, maybe there is room for both types of protocols, > as the potential devices span from the very simple > (powered by 8-bit micros) to very complex (expensive > multiprocessor implementations of mixing consoles). > > I decided the best way to start the discussion on this > topic was to write a list of requirements for the domain > as seen by the authors. Thus this I-D. Even if the work of > doing the framework is not appropriate for MMUSIC, > MMUSIC may be the right place to host the discussion > of the requirements for the application. If the WG agrees, > then elevating this I-D to WG item would be the way to > express this agreement. > > I won't be in Paris, but if the chairs wish to hold a > discussion there, I'd be happy to make up slides to > guide their presentation. > > Finally, AVT'ers should note this is an MMUSIC > I-D -- I CC'd this initial posting to both lists, but > discussion should occur on MMUSIC. > > --- > John Lazzaro > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro > lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu > --- > > > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 08:26:03 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqrve-0005Sq-Ug; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:26:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqqOm-0003Oe-QF for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 06:48:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19323 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ps46.suite2.arena.ne.jp ([210.153.23.2]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqqq8-0002u0-Gd for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 07:16:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 10434 invoked by SAV 20050708.005); 8 Jul 2005 19:47:55 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO shigpfhx45cdn7) (210.150.180.211) by ps46.suite2.arena.ne.jp (210.153.23.166) with SMTP; 8 Jul 2005 19:47:55 +0900 Message-ID: <003201c583aa$82fa7c20$1101a8c0@shigpfhx45cdn7> From: "Shigeru Aoki" To: , References: <2E2A5716-791F-4C40-9583-13F95C325B3F@eecs.berkeley.edu> <011101c58367$438113d0$1101a8c0@shigpfhx45cdn7> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:48:01 +0900 Organization: Japan FM Network MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:26:01 -0400 Cc: Subject: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC stage and studio requirements I-D ... X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org First of all, You should not include your matter into the AES-X074 since it has different intention from yours. Your requirements draft should be proposed to the WG for the discussion in the WG. if you would like to work for professional audio, you'd better propose to the AES too. By the way, The WG has been moved to SC-02-14 from SC-06-04 already. The new report of the meeting which was held in this May will be posted soon. Shig. ----- Original Message ----- From: "lazzaro" To: ; Cc: "Shigeru Aoki" Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC stage and studio requirements I-D ... > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Shigeru Aoki wrote: >> Have you checked the AES (Audio Engineering Society) standard before your >> submission? >> The AES is the international organization of standardizing the studio or stage >> (generally referred to as "professional") audio. As far as I read your draft, >> you'd better take a look at the Internet Audio Delivery System WG in the AES. > > Yes I did check. Here is the meeting report for the > Internet Audio Delivery System WG at the > San Francisco AES meeting last fall: > > http://www.aes.org/standards/b_reports/b_meeting-reports/aes117- > sc-02-14-report.cfm > > The meeting report doesn't seem to describe a > group whose ongoing work is a close match for > a project to do a session management framework > for IETF protocols. Also, the report says the > WG has no new projects and no new business > apart from AES-X074, and is slated to be > folded into another group soon. Their charter > is written in an open-ended way, indeed it > it would cover most of AVT's audio work. But > in practice the group doesn't seem to be doing > that sort of Internet standards work. > > --- > John Lazzaro > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro > lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu > --- > > > > > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 08:26:03 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqrvf-0005TH-Nu; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:26:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqqTq-0004ta-3d for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 06:53:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19654 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns4.sony.co.jp ([137.153.0.44]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqqvB-0003Oo-GA for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 07:21:31 -0400 Received: from mail6.sony.co.jp (mail6.sony.co.jp [43.0.1.208]) Received: from mail6.sony.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail6.sony.co.jp (R8/Sony) with ESMTP id j68Ar9rc011668 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:53:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from jptkyxim02.jp.sony.com (jptkyxim02.jp.sony.com [43.15.17.88]) by mail6.sony.co.jp (R8/Sony) with ESMTP id j68Ar82u011660 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:53:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from jptkyxwa03.jp.sony.com ([43.15.31.3]) by jptkyxim02.jp.sony.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:53:08 +0900 Received: from [43.13.117.153] ([43.13.117.153]) by jptkyxwa03.jp.sony.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:53:08 +0900 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v721) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <3B54E6BB-BF62-43CB-A90F-E98C2BA38553@jp.sony.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: avt@ietf.org From: Matthew Romaine Subject: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:51:35 +0900 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.721) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2005 10:53:08.0130 (UTC) FILETIME=[39BD9820:01C583AB] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a15e98e3cfbc19675e9168ae498aa0df Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:26:01 -0400 X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org fellow avt'ers, I have submitted draft -04 of our ATRAC family payload for your consideration, and enclosed it below incase the editors don't get around to submitting the link before the weekend. The main changes are: - removal of any auxiliary data features - additional support for a new ATRAC codec -- ATRAC Advanced Lossless -- which supports multiplexed and multi-session streaming - updated SDP sections to reflect support for the above mentioned new codec. Would greatly appreciate comments so that presentation time at IETF 63 can be used most effectively. Incidentally, if things go well, you all may get to walk home with a free SDK for this codec :) Have a great weekend, Matt Audio/Video Transport M. Romaine Internet-Draft M. Hatanaka Expires: December 3, 2005 J. Matsumoto SONY June 2005 RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04 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 December 3, 2005. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract This document describes an RTP payload format for efficient and flexible transporting of audio data encoded with the Adaptive TRansform Audio Codec (ATRAC) family of codecs. Recent enhancements to the ATRAC family of codecs support high quality audio coding with multiple channels. The RTP payload format as presented in this document also includes support for data fragmentation, elementary redundancy measures, and a variation on scalable streaming. Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Codec Specific Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. RTP Packetization and Transport of ATRAC-Family Streams . . . 5 4.1 ATRAC Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2 Concatenation of Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3 Frame Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.4 Transmission of Redundant Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.5 Global Structure of Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.6 Scalable Lossless Streaming (High-Speed Transfer mode) . . 6 4.6.1 Scalable Multiplexed Streaming . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.6.2 Scalable Multi-Session Streaming . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1 Usage of RTP Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2 RTP Payload Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2.1 ATRAC Header Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2.2 Redundant Data Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2.3 ATRAC Frames Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Packetization Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1 Example Multi-frame Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2 Example Fragmented ATRAC Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1 ATRAC3 MIME Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2 ATRAC-X MIME Registraion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.3 ATRAC Advanced Lossless MIME Registration . . . . . . . . 15 7.4 Channel Mapping Configuration Table . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.5 Mapping MIME Parameters into SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.5.1 For MIME subtype ATRAC3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.5.2 For MIME subtype ATRAC- X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.5.3 For MIME subtype ATRAC Advanced Lossless . . . . . . . 19 7.6 Offer-Answer Model Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.6.1 For All Three MIME Subtypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.6.2 For MIME subtype ATRAC3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.6.3 For MIME subtype ATRAC- X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.6.4 For MIME subtype ATRAC Advanced Lossless . . . . . . . 21 7.7 Usage of declarative SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.8 Example SDP Session Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.9 Example Offer-Answer Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9.1 Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.2 Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.3 Decoding Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 28 Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 1. Introduction The ATRAC family of perceptual audio codecs are designed to address numerous needs for high-quality, low bit-rate audio transfer. ATRAC technology can be found in many consumer and professional products and applications, including MD players, CD players, voice recorders, and mobile phones. The need for real-time streaming of audio data has grown, and this document details our efforts in increasing the product and application space for the ATRAC family of codecs. Recent advances in ATRAC technology allow for multiple channels of audio to be encoded in customizable groupings. This should allow for future expansions in scaled streaming. To provide the greatest flexibility in streaming any one of the ATRAC family member codecs however, this payload format does not distinguish between the codecs on a packet level. This simplified payload format contains only the basic information needed to disassemble a packet of ATRAC audio in order to decode it. Timestamps are in sample units, with audio data currently encoded into frames of 512, 1024 or 2048 samples depending on the ATRAC version. There is also basic support for fragmentation and redundancy, as ATRAC frames MAY exceed an MTU size of 1500 octets. Although streaming of multi-channel audio is supported depending on the ATRAC version used, all encoded audio for a given time period is contained within a single frame. Therefore, there is no interleaving nor splitting of audio data on a per-channel basis to be concerned with. 2. Conventions 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 RFC 2119 [4]. 3. Codec Specific Details Early versions of the ATRAC codec handled only two channels of audio at 44.1kHz sampling frequency, with typical bit-rates between 66kbps and 132kbps. The latest version allows for a maximum 8 channels of audio, up to 96kHz in sampling frequency, and a lossless encoding option which can be transmitted in either a scalable (also known as High-Speed Transfer mode) or standard (aka Standard mode) format. The feasible bit-rate range has also expanded, allowing from a low of 8kbps up to 1400kbps in lossy encoding modes. Depending on the version of ATRAC used, the sample-frame size is Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 either 512, 1024 or 2048 samples. While the lossy and Standard mode lossless formats are encoded as sequential single audio frames, High- Speed Transfer mode lossless data comprises two layers -- a lossy base layer and an enhancement layer. 4. RTP Packetization and Transport of ATRAC-Family Streams 4.1 ATRAC Frames For transportation of compressed audio data, ATRAC uses the concept of frames. ATRAC frames are the smallest data unit for which timing information is attributed. Frames are octect-aligned by definition. 4.2 Concatenation of Frames It is often possible to carry multiple frames in one RTP packet. This can be useful in audio, where on a LAN with a 1500 byte MTU, an average of 7 complete 64kbps ATRAC frames could be carried in a single RTP packet, as each ATRAC frame would be approximately 200 bytes. ATRAC frames may be of fixed or variable length. To facilitate parsing in the case of multiple frames in one RTP packet, the size of each frame is made known to the receiver by carrying "in band" the frame size for each contained frame in an RTP packet. However, to simplify the implementation of RTP receivers, it is required that when multiple frames are carried in an RTP packet, each frame MUST be complete, i.e., the number of frames in an RTP packet MUST be integral. 4.3 Frame Fragmentation The ATRAC codec can handle very large frames. As most IP networks have significantly smaller MTU sizes than the frame sizes ATRAC can handle, this payload format allows for the fragmentation of an ATRAC frame over multiple RTP packets. However, to simplify the implementation of RTP receivers, an RTP packet SHALL either carry one or more complete ATRAC frames or a single fragment of one ATRAC frame. In other words, RTP packets MUST NOT contain fragments of multiple ATRAC frames and MUST NOT contain a mix of complete and fragmented frames. 4.4 Transmission of Redundant Frames As RTP does not guarantee reliable transmission, receipt of data is not assured. Loss of a packet can result in a "decoding gap" by the receiver. One method to remedy this problem is to allow time- shifted copies of ATRAC frames to be sent along with current data. For a modest cost in latency and implementation complexity, error resiliency to packet loss can be achieved. Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 4.5 Global Structure of Payload Format The RTP payload following the RTP header contains three octet- aligned data sections, of which the second MAY be empty: +------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ |RTP | ATRAC Header | Redundant | ATRAC Frames | |Header| Section | Data Section | Section | +------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ < ----------- RTP Packet Payload --------- > The first data section is the ATRAC Header, containing just one header with information for the whole packet. The second section is for redundant ATRAC frames; this section MAY be empty. The third section is where the encoded ATRAC frames are stored. This may contain either a single fragment of one ATRAC frame, or one or more complete ATRAC frames. The ATRAC Frames Section MUST NOT be empty. To benefit from ATRAC's High-Speed Transfer mode lossless encoding capability, the RTP payload can be split across two sessions, with one transmitting an essential base layer and the other transmitting enhancement data. However in either case, the above structure still applies. 4.6 Scalable Lossless Streaming (High-Speed Transfer mode) As ATRAC supports a variation on scalable encoding, this payload format provides a mechanism for transmitting essential data (also referred to as the base layer) with its enhancement data in two ways -- multiplexed through one session or separated over two sessions. In either method, only the base layer is essential in producing audio data. The enhancement layer carries the remaining audio data needed to decode lossless audio data. So in situations of limited bandwidth, the sender may choose not to transmit enhancement data yet still provide a client with enough data to generate lossily-encoded audio through the base layer. 4.6.1 Scalable Multiplexed Streaming In multiplexed streaming, the base layer and enhancement layer are coupled together in each packet, utilizing only one session. While the packet may begin with either layer type, the two layer types MUST interleave. +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ |Base|Enhancement|--|Base|Enhancement|--|Base|Enhancement| ... +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ N N+1 N+2 : Packet Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 4.6.2 Scalable Multi-Session Streaming In multi-session streaming, the base layer and enhancement layer are sent over two seperate sessions, allowing clients with certain bandwidth limitations to receive just the base layer for decoding. While there may be alternative methods for synchronization of the layers, it is RECOMMENDED that the timestamp be used for synchronizing the base layer with its enhancement. Applications can determine which sessions are paired together through use of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) (RFC 2327) [2]. Further details are discussed in the section titled "Usage of declarative SDP". Session 1: +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | Base |--| Base |--| Base |--| Base | ... +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ N N+1 N+2 N+3 : Packet Session 2: +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ | Enhancement |--| Enhancement |--| Enhancement | ... +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ N N+1 N+2 : Packet 5. Payload Format 5.1 Usage of RTP Header Fields 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |V=2|P|X| CC |M| PT | sequence number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | timestamp | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | synchronization source (SSRC) identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | contributing source (CSRC) identifiers | | ..... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Marker (M): 1 bit Set to zero as silence suppression is currently not used. Payload Type (PT): 7 bits The assignment of an RTP payload type for this packet format is outside the scope of this document; it is specified by the RTP Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 profile under which this payload format is used, or signaled dynamically out-of-band (e.g., using SDP). Timestamp: 32 bits A timestamp representing the sampling time of the first sample of the first ATRAC frame in the RTP packet. When using SDP, the clock rate of the RTP timestamp MUST be expressed using the "rtpmap" attribute. For ATRAC3 the RTP timestamp rate MUST be 44100Hz. For ATRAC-X the RTP timestamp rate is defined out-of-band. 5.2 RTP Payload Structure 5.2.1 ATRAC Header Section The ATRAC family payload header is one byte. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |C|FrgNo|NFrames| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Continuous flag (C): 1 bit Set to 1 if this is part of a fragmented packet. The last packet in a series would have this bit set to 0. Fragment Number (FrgNo): 3 bits In the event of data fragmentation, this value is 1 for the first packet, and increases sequentially for the remaining fragmented data packets. Number of Frames (NFrames): 4 bits The number of frames in this packet. This allows for a maximum of 16 ATRAC-encoded audio frames per packet, with 0 indicating one frame. Each frame must be complete. Only the first frame is allowed to be fragmented, in which case this MUST NOT be anything other than 0 for subsequent packets containing the fragmented frame. 5.2.2 Redundant Data Section The Redundant Data Section provides a rudimentary mechanism to compensate for occasional packet loss. As every packet's timestamp corresponds to the first audio frame regardless of whether it is redundant or not, and because we know how many frames of audio each packet encapsulates, if two successive packets are successfully transmitted, we can calculate the number of redundant frames being sent. The result gives the client a sense of how the server is responding to RTCP reports and to expand its buffer size if necessary. Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 As an example of using the Redundant Data Section, refer to Figure 1. In this example, the server has determined that for the next few number of packets, it should send the last two frames from the previous packet due to recent RTCP reports. Thus, between packets N and N+1, there is a redundancy of two frames (which the client may choose to dispose of). The benefit arises when packets N+2 and N+3 do not arrive at all, after which eventually packet N+4 arrives with successive necessary audio frame data. This field SHOULD NOT be used in packets containing fragmented data. |-Fr1-|-Fr2-|-Fr3-| Packet N, TS=1 |-Fr2-|-Fr3-|-Fr4-| Packet N+1, TS=2 |-Fr5-|-Fr6-|-Fr7-| Packet N+4, TS=5 5.2.3 ATRAC Frames Section The ATRAC Frames Section contains an integer number of complete ATRAC frames or a single fragment of one ATRAC frame. Each ATRAC frame is preceeded by a one-bit flag indicating the layer type and a Block Length field indicating the size in bytes of the ATRAC frame. If more than one ATRAC frame is present, then the frames are concatenated into a contiguous string of bit-flag, Block Length, and ATRAC frame. This section MUST NOT be empty. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Block Length | ATRAC frame |... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Layer Type Flag: 1 bit Set to 1 if the corresponding ATRAC frame is from an enhancement layer. 0 indicates a base layer encoded frame. Block length: 15 bits The byte length of encoded audio data for the following frame. This is so that in the case of fragmentation, if only a subsequent packet is received, decoding can still occur. 15 bits allows for a maximum block length of 32,767 bytes. If there are multiple frames in a packet, a block-length field exists before each frame data. ATRAC frame: The encoded ATRAC audio data. 5.2.3.1 Frame Fragmentation Each RTP packet SHALL contain either an integer number of ATRAC encoded audio frames (with a maximum of 16), or one ATRAC frame fragment. In the former case, as many complete ATRAC frames as can Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 9] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 fit in a single path-MTU SHOULD be placed in an RTP packet. However, if even a single ATRAC frame will not fit into a complete RTP packet, the ATRAC frame SHOULD be fragmented. The start of a fragmented frame gets placed in its own RTP packet, its Continuous bit (C) set to one, and its Fragment Number (FragNo) set to one. As the frame must be the only one in the packet, the Number of Frames field is zero. Subsequent packets are to contain the remaining fragmented frame data, with the Fragment Number increasing sequentially and the Continuous bit (C) consistently set to one. As subsequent packets do not contain any new frames, the Number of Frames field SHOULD be ignored. The last packet of fragmented data MUST have the Continuous bit (C) set to zero. In addition to the Continuous bit and Fragment Number fields indicating fragmentation and a means to reorder the packets, the timestamp can be used to determine which packets go together. Thus, packets containing related fragmented frames MUST have identical timestamps. In the event of fragmentation, the basic redundancy measures MUST NOT be used. This means the Frame Offset field MUST be ignored. 6. Packetization Examples 6.1 Example Multi-frame Packet Multiple encoded audio frames are combined into one packet. Note how for this example, only base layer frames are sent redundantly, but are followed by interleaved base layer and enhancement layer frames. Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 10] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |V=2|P|X| CC |M| PT | sequence number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | timestamp | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | synchronization source (SSRC) identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | contributing source (CSRC) identifiers | | ..... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| 0 | 5 |0| Block Length | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | (redundant) base layer frame 1 data... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| Block Length |(redundant) base layer frame 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | (cont.) |0| Block Length | base layer frame 3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | (cont.) |1| Block Length | enhancment frame 3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| Block Length | base layer frame 4... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 6.2 Example Fragmented ATRAC Frame The encoded audio data frame is split over three RTP packets. The following points are highlighted in the example below: o transition from one to zero of the Continuous bit (C) o sequential increase in the Fragment Number Packet 1: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |V=2|P|X| CC |M| PT | sequence number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | timestamp | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | synchronization source (SSRC) identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 11] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 | contributing source (CSRC) identifiers | | ..... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1| 1 | 0 |1| Block Length | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | enhancement data... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Packet 2: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |V=2|P|X| CC |M| PT | sequence number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | timestamp | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | synchronization source (SSRC) identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | contributing source (CSRC) identifiers | | ..... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1| 2 | 0 |1| Block Length | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ...more enhancement data... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Packet 3: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |V=2|P|X| CC |M| PT | sequence number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | timestamp | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | synchronization source (SSRC) identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | contributing source (CSRC) identifiers | | ..... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| 3 | 0 |1| Block Length | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ...the last of the enhancement data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 7. Payload Format Parameters Certain parameters will need to be defined before ATRAC family Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 12] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 encoded content can be streamed. Other optional parameters may also be defined to take advantage of specific features relevant to certain ATRAC versions. Parameters for ATRAC3, ATRAC-X, and ATRAC Advanced Lossless are defined here as part of the MIME subtype registration process. A mapping of these parameters into the Session Description Protocol (SDP) (RFC 2327) [2] is also provided for applications that utilize SDP. The data format and parameters are specified for real-time transport in RTP. 7.1 ATRAC3 MIME Registration The MIME subtype for the Adaptive TRansform Codec version 3 (ATRAC3) is allocated from the Vendor tree since this codec is intended to be used with commercial products, and use of any ATRAC family codec requires a license from Sony Corporation, the vendor. Note, any unspecified parameter MUST be ignored by the receiver. Media Type name: audio Media subtype name: vnd.sony.atrac3 Required parameters: baseLayer: Indicates the encoded bit-rate for the audio data to be streamed. Permissible values are 66, 105, and 132. Optional parameters: maxRedundantFrames: The maximum number of redundant frames that may be sent during a session in any given packet under the redundant framing mechanism detailed in the draft. Allowed values are integers in the range of 0 to 15, inclusive. If this parameter is not used, a default of 15 MUST be assumed. maxptime: The maximum amount of media which can be encapsulated in each packet, expressed as time in milliseconds. The time SHALL be calculated as the sum of the time the media present in the packet represents. For frame based codecs, the time MUST be an integer multiple of the frame size. If this parameter is not present, the sender MAY encapsulate a maximum of 16 encoded frames into one RTP packet. ptime: see RFC 2327 [2] Encoding considerations: This type is defined for transfer via RTP Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 13] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 RFC 3550 [1]. Security considerations: Please refer to section 7 of this draft. Public specifications: Please refer to section 7 of this draft. Macintosh file type code: none Object identifier or OID: none Person & email address to contact for further information: Mitsuyuki Hatanaka hatanaka@av.crl.sony.co.jp Intended usage: COMMON Author/Change controller: hatanaka@av.crl.sony.co.jp 7.2 ATRAC-X MIME Registraion The MIME subtype for the Adaptive TRansform Codec version X (ATRAC-X) is allocated from the Vendor tree since this codec is intended to be used with commercial products, and use of any ATRAC family codec requires a license from Sony Corporation, the vendor. Note, any unspecified parameter MUST be ignored by the receiver. Media Type name: audio Media subtype name: vnd.sony.atrac-x Required parameters: sampleRate: Represents the sampling frequency in Hz of the original audio data. Permissible values are 32000, 44100, 48000, 88200, 96000. baseLayer: Indicates the encoded bit-rate for the audio data to be streamed. Permissible values are 48, 64, 96, 128, 160, 192, 256, and 320. channelID: Indicates the number of channels and channel layout according to the table in Section 5.3. Note that this layout is different from that proposed in RFC 3551 [3]. However, as channelID = 0 defines an ambiguous channel layout, the channel mapping defined in Section 4.1 of [3] could be used. Permissible values are 0, 1, 2, Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 14] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Optional parameters: maxRedundantFrames: The maximum number of redundant frames that may be sent during a session in any given packet under the redundant framing mechanism detailed in the draft. Allowed values are integers in the range 0 to 15, inclusive. If this parameter is not used, a default of 15 MUST be assumed. delayMode: Indicates a desire to use low-delay features, in which case the decoder will process received data accordingly based on this value. Permissible values are 2 and 4. maxptime: The maximum amount of media which can be encapsulated in a payload packet, expressed as time in milliseconds. The time is calculated as the sum of the time the media present in the packet represents. The time MUST be a multiple of the frame size. If this parameter is not present, the sender MAY encapsulate a maximum of 16 encoded frames into one RTP packet. ptime: see RFC 2327 [2] Encoding considerations: This type is defined for transfer via RTP (RFC 3550) [1]. Security considerations: Please refer to section 7 of this draft. Public specifications: Please refer to section 7 of this draft. Macintosh file type code: none Object identifier or OID: none Person & email address to contact for further information: Mitsuyuki Hatanaka hatanaka@av.crl.sony.co.jp Intended usage: COMMON Author/Change controller: hatanaka@av.crl.sony.co.jp 7.3 ATRAC Advanced Lossless MIME Registration The MIME subtype for the Adaptive TRansform Codec Lossless version (ATRAC Advanced Lossless) is allocated from the Vendor tree since Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 15] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 this codec is intended to be used with commercial products, and use of any ATRAC family codec requires a license from Sony Corporation, the vendor. Note, any unspecified parameter MUST be ignored by the receiver. Media Type name: audio Media subtype name: vnd.sony.atrac-advanced-lossless Required parameters: sampleRate: Represents the sampling frequency in Hz of the original audio data. Permissible values are 32000, 44100, 48000, 88200, 96000. baseLayer: Indicates the encoded bit-rate for the base layer in High-Speed Transfer mode lossless encodings. For Standard lossless mode this value MUST be 0. Permissible values are 0, 48, 64, 66, 96, 105, 128, 132, 160, 192, 256, and 320. blockLength: Indicates the block length being used for Standard lossless mode. When "baseLayer=0", this value MUST be one of either 512, 1024, or 2048. If the "baseLayer" parameter is not "0", this parameter MUST be ignored. channelID: Indicates the number of channels and channel layout according to the table in Section 5.3. Note that this layout is different from that proposed in RFC 3551 [3]. However, as channelID = 0 defines an ambiguous channel layout, the channel mapping defined in Section 4.1 of [3] could be used. Permissible values are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Optional parameters: maxRedundantFrames: The maximum number of redundant frames that may be sent during a session in any given packet under the redundant framing mechanism detailed in the draft. Allowed values are integers in the range 0 to 15, inclusive. If this parameter is not used, a default of 15 MUST be assumed. maxptime: The maximum amount of media which can be encapsulated in a payload packet, expressed as time in milliseconds. The time is calculated as the sum of the time the media present in the packet represents. The time MUST be a multiple of the frame size. If this parameter is not present, the sender MAY encapsulate a maximum of 16 encoded frames into one RTP packet. Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 16] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 ptime: see RFC 2327 [2] Encoding considerations: This type is defined for transfer via RTP (RFC 3550) [1]. Security considerations: Please refer to section 7 of this draft. Public specifications: Please refer to section 7 of this draft. Macintosh file type code: none Object identifier or OID: none Person & email address to contact for further information: Mitsuyuki Hatanaka hatanaka@av.crl.sony.co.jp Intended usage: COMMON Author/Change controller: hatanaka@av.crl.sony.co.jp 7.4 Channel Mapping Configuration Table The following is a table explaining the mapping between the channelID as passed during SDP negotiations, and the speaker mapping the value represents. Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 17] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | channelID | Number of | Default Speaker | | | Channels | Mapping | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 0 | max 64 | undefined | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | 1 | front: center | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 2 | 2 | front: left, right | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 3 | 3 | front: left, right | | | | front: center | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 4 | 4 | front: left, right | | | | front: center | | | | rear: surround | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 5 | 5+1 | front: left, right | | | | front: center | | | | rear: left, right | | | | LFE | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 6 | 6+1 | front: left, right | | | | front: center | | | | rear: left, right | | | | rear: center | | | | LFE | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 7 | 7+1 | front: left, right | | | | front: center | | | | rear: left, right | | | | side: left, right | | | | LFE | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 7.5 Mapping MIME Parameters into SDP The information carried in the MIME media type specification has a specific mapping to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [2], which is commonly used to describe RTP sessions. When SDP is used to specify sessions employing the ATRAC family of codecs, the following mapping rules according to the ATRAC codec apply: 7.5.1 For MIME subtype ATRAC3 o The MIME type ("audio") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 18] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 o The MIME subtype (payload format name) goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the encoding name. ATRAC3 supports only mono or stereo signals, so a corresponding number of channels SHALL also be included in this attribute. o The "baseLayer" parameter goes in SDP "a=fmtp". This parameter MUST be present. "maxRedundantFrames" may follow, but if no value is transmitted, the receiver SHOULD assume a default value of "15". o The parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP "a=ptime" and "a=maxptime" attributes, respectively. 7.5.2 For MIME subtype ATRAC-X o The MIME type ("audio") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name o The MIME subtype (payload format name) goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the encoding name. This should be followed by the "sampleRate" (as the RTP clock rate), and then the actual number of channels regardless of the channelID parameter. o The parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP "a=ptime" and "a=maxptime" attributes, respectively. o Any remaining parameters go in the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by copying them directly from the MIME media type string as a semicolon separated list of parameter=value pairs. The "baseLayer" parameter must be the first entry on this line. It is recommened that the "channelID" parameter be the next entry. The receiver MUST assume a default value of "15" for "maxRedundantFrames". 7.5.3 For MIME subtype ATRAC Advanced Lossless o The MIME type ("audio") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name o The MIME subtype (payload format name) goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the encoding name. This should be followed by the "sampleRate" (as the RTP clock rate), and then the actual number of channels regardless of the channelID parameter. o The parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP "a=ptime" and "a=maxptime" attributes, respectively. Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 19] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 o Any remaining parameters go in the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by copying them directly from the MIME media type string as a semicolon separated list of parameter=value pairs. The "baseLayer" parameter must be the first entry on this line. If "baseLayer=0", the "blockLength" parameter MUST follow and be one of either 512, 1024, or 2048. It is recommended that the "channelID" parameter be the next entry. The receiver MUST assume a default value of "15" for "maxRedundantFrames". 7.6 Offer-Answer Model Considerations Some options for encoding and decoding ATRAC audio data will require either or both the sender and receiver to comply with certain specifications. In order to establish an interoperable transmission framework, an Offer-Answer negotiation in SDP should observe the following considerations: 7.6.1 For All Three MIME Subtypes o Each combination of the RTP payload transport format configuration parameters (baseLayer and blockLength, sampleRate, channelID) is unique in its bit-pattern and not compatible with any other combination. When creating an offer in an application desiring to use the more advanced features (sample rates above 44100kHz, more than two channels), the offerer is RECOMMENDED to also offer a payload type containing only the lowest set of necessary requirements. If multiple configurations are of interest to the application they may all be offered, however care should be taken not to offer too many payload types. o The parameters "maxptime" and "ptime" will in most cases not affect interoperability, however the setting of the parameters can affect the performance of the application. The SDP offer-answer handling of the "ptime" parameter is described in RFC3264. The "maxptime" parameter MUST be handled in the same way. 7.6.2 For MIME subtype ATRAC3 o In response to an offer, downgraded subsets of "baseLayer" are possible. However for best performance, we suggest the answer contain the highest possible values offered. 7.6.3 For MIME subtype ATRAC-X Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 20] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 o When creating an offer with considerably high requirements (such as 8 channels at 96kHz), it is RECOMMENDED that the offer also contain a configuration with lower requirements (such as a stereo only option). Although multiple alternative configurations may be offered, care should be taken not to offer too many payload types. o In response to an offer, downgraded subsets of "sampleRate", "baseLayer", and "channelID" are possible. For best performance, we suggest an answer SHALL NOT contain any values requiring further capabilities than the offer contains, but is RECOMMENDED to provide values as close as possible to those in the offer. o The "maxRedundantFrames" is a suggested minimum. This value MAY be increased in an answer (with a maximum of 15), but SHALL NOT be reduced. o The optional parameter "delayMode" is non-negotiable. If the Answerer cannot comply with the offered value, the session must be deemed inoperable. 7.6.4 For MIME subtype ATRAC Advanced Lossless o When creating an offer with considerably high requirements (such as 8 channels at 96kHz), it is RECOMMENDED that the offer also contain a configuration with lower requirements (such as a stereo only option). Although multiple alternative configurations may be offered, care should be taken not to offer too many payload types. o In response to an offer, downgraded subsets of "sampleRate", "baseLayer", and "channelID" are possible. For best performance, we suggest an answer SHALL NOT contain any values requiring further capabilities than the offer contains, but is RECOMMENDED to provide values as close as possible to those in the offer. o There are no requirements when negotiating "blockLength", other than that both parties must be in agreement. o The "maxRedundantFrames" is a suggested minimum. This value MAY be increased in an answer (with a maximum of 15), but SHALL NOT be reduced. 7.7 Usage of declarative SDP In declarative usage, like SDP in RTSP [9] or SAP [10], the parameters SHALL be interpreted as follows: Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 21] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 o The payload format configuration parameters (baseLayer, sampleRate, channelID) are all declarative and a participant MUST use the configuration(s) that is provided for the session. More than one configuration may be provided if necessary by declaring multiple RTP payload types, however the number of types should be kept small. o Any "maxptime" and "ptime" values should be selected with care to ensure that the session's participants can achieve reasonable performance. For transmission of scalable multi-session streaming of ATRAC Advanced Lossless content, section 6 of the Session Description Protocol (RFC 2327) [2] defines attributes for notifying applications of hierarchically encoded streams. For multicast sessions, the base layer and enhancement layer are transmitted over seperate multicast groups, thus requiring multiple multicast addresses. For this scenario, SDP slash notation as defined in RFC 2327 [2] for the "c=" field should be followed. For IP unicast addresses, it will be necessary to specify multiple transport ports. This is done with slash notation in the "m=" field similarly defined in RFC 2327 [2]. 7.8 Example SDP Session Descriptions Example usage of ATRAC-X with stereo at 44100Hz: m=audio 49120 RTP/AVP 99 a=rtpmap:99 ATRAC-X/44100/2 a=fmtp:99 baseLayer=128; channelID=2; delayMode=2 a=maxptime:20 Example usage of ATRAC-X with 5.1 setup at 48000Hz: m=audio 49120 RTP/AVP 99 a=rtpmap:99 ATRAC-X/48000/6 a=fmtp:99 baseLayer=320; channelID=5 a=maxptime:30 Example usage of ATRAC-Advanced-Lossless in Standard mode: m=audio 49200 RTP/AVP 99 a=rtpmap:99 ATRAC-ADVANCED-LOSSLESS/44100/2 a=fmtp:99 baseLayer=0; blockLength=1024; channelID=2 a=maxptime:30 Example usage of ATRAC-Advanced-Lossless in High-Speed mode (note slash notation for multiple port-pairings): Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 22] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 m=audio 49200/2 RTP/AVP 99 a=rtpmap:99 ATRAC-ADVANCED-LOSSLESS/48000/2 a=fmtp:99 baseLayer=128; blockLength=0; channelID=2 a=maxptime:30 7.9 Example Offer-Answer Exchange The following Offer/Answer example shows how a desire to stream multi-channel content is turned down by the receiver, who answers with only the ability to receive stereo content: Offer: m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 98 99 a=rtpmap:98 ATRAC-X/44100/6 a=fmtp:98 baseLayer=320; channelID=5 a=rtpmap:99 ATRAC-X/44100/6 a=fmtp:99 baseLayer=160; channelID=5 Answer: m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 99 a=rtpmap:99 ATRAC-X/44100/2 a=fmtp:99 baseLayer=160; channelID=2 The following Offer/Answer example shows the receiver answering with a selection of supported parameters: Offer: m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 97 98 99 a=rtpmap:97 ATRAC-X/44100/2 a=fmtp:97 baseLayer=128; channelID=2 a=rtpmap:98 ATRAC-X/44100/6 a=fmtp:98 baseLayer=128; channelID=5 a=rtpmap:99 ATRAC-X/48000/6 a=fmtp:99 baseLayer=320; channelID=5 Answer: m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 97 98 a=rtpmap:97 ATRAC-X/44100/2 a=fmtp:97 baseLayer=128; channelID=2 a=rtpmap:98 ATRAC-X/44100/6 a=fmtp:98 baseLayer=128; channelID=5 The following Offer/Answer example shows an exchange in trying to resolve using ATRAC-Advanced-Lossless. The offer contains three Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 23] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 options: multi-session High-Speed Transfer mode, multiplexed High- Speed Transfer mode, and Standard mode. Offer: m=audio 49170/2 RTP/AVP 97 a=rtpmap:97 ATRAC-ADVANCED-LOSSLESS/44100/2 a=fmtp:97 baseLayer=64; blockLength=0; channelID=2 m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 98 a=rtpmap:98 ATRAC-ADVANCED-LOSSLESS/44100/2 a=fmtp:98 baseLayer=256; blockLength=0; channelID=2 m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 99 a=rtpmap:99 ATRAC-ADVANCED-LOSSLESS/48000/2 a=fmtp:99 baseLayer=0; blockLength=1024; channelID=2 Answer: m=audio 49170/2 RTP/AVP 97 a=rtpmap:97 ATRAC-ADVANCED-LOSSLESS/44100/2 a=fmtp:97 baseLayer=64; blockLength=0; channelID=2 m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 98 a=rtpmap:98 ATRAC-ADVANCED-LOSSLESS/44100/2 a=fmtp:98 baseLayer=256; blockLength=0; channelID=2 m=audio 0 RTP/AVP 99 Note that payload format (encoding) names are commonly shown in upper case. MIME subtypes are commonly shown in lower case. These names are case-insensitive in both places. Similarly, parameter names are case-insensitive both in MIME types and in the default mapping to the SDP a=fmtp attribute. 8. IANA Considerations Two new MIME subtypes, for ATRAC3 and ATRAC-X, are requested to be registered (see Section 5). 9. Security Considerations Certain security precautions may be desired to protect copyrighted material. The payload format as described in this document is subject to the security considerations defined in RFC3550 [1] and any applicable profile, for example RFC 3551 [3]. This payload format however does not implement any security mechanisms of its own. External means, such as SRTP [5], MAY be used since the audio compression scheme follows an end-to-end model. Since the data transported is audio that is already encoded, the main security issues are confidentiality, integrity, and authentication of Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 24] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 the actual audio. 9.1 Confidentiality To ensure confidentiality of ATRAC encoded audio, the audio frames will have to be encrypted. Encryption of the payload header, however, is not as neccessary, and in fact may not be preferrable if the information could be useful to some third party application. Because the audio compression scheme follows an end-to-end model, encryption may be performed after packet encapsulation. As multi- channel transmissions are contained in single encoded audio frames, there is no concern for encryption affecting interleaving data. 9.2 Authentication Transmitted data may be tampered or altered due malicious attempts, such as man-in-the-middle attacks. Such attacks may result in depacketization and/or decoding errors that could decimate audio quality. As this payload format does not include its own means for sender authentication and integrity protection, an external mechanism must be used. It is RECOMMENDED, however, that the chosen mechanism protect more than just the audio data bits. For example, to protect against a man-in-the-middle attack, the payload header and RTP header SHOULD be protected. 9.3 Decoding Validation Verification of the received encoded audio packets should be performed so as to ensure a minimal level of audio quality. As a most primitive implementation, if the receiver calculates a packet size differing from the payload length based on data in the payload header fields, the receiver SHOULD discard the packet. 10. References 10.1 Normative References [1] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobsen, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 3550, STD 64, July 2003. [2] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998. [3] Schulzrinne, H., "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 25] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 with Minimal Control", RFC 3551, STD 65, July 2003. [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels, BCP 14", RFC 2119, March 1997. 10.2 Informative References [5] Kerr, P., "RTP Payload Format for Vorbis Encoded Audio", October 2003. [6] Sjoberg, J., "Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload Format and File Storage Format for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adpative Multi-Rate Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs", RFC 3267, June 2002. [7] Baugher, M., Carrara, E., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., and Norrman, "The Secure Real Time Transport Protocol", July 2003. [8] Rosenberg, J. and Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with the Session Description Protocl (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002. [9] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, and Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998. [10] Handley, M., Perkins, and Whelan, "Session Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000. Authors' Addresses Matthew Romaine Sony Corporation, Japan 6-7-35 Kitashinagawa Shinagawa-ku Tokyo 141-0001 Japan Email: Matthew.Romaine@jp.sony.com Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 26] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 Mitsuyuki Hatanaka Sony Corporation, Japan 6-7-35 Kitashinagawa Shinagawa-ku Tokyo 141-0001 Japan Email: hatanaka@av.crl.sony.co.jp Jun Matsumoto Sony Corporation, Japan 6-7-35 Kitashinagawa Shinagawa-ku Tokyo 141-0001 Japan Email: jun@av.crl.sony.co.jp Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 27] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family June 2005 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 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. Disclaimer of Validity 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 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. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Romaine, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 28] _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 10:06:24 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqtUm-00082d-2a; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:06:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqtUk-00082G-9p; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:06:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04067; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cs.columbia.edu ([128.59.16.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqtw8-0001vJ-Cb; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:34:41 -0400 Received: from cnr.cs.columbia.edu (cnr.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.19.133]) by cs.columbia.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j68E65sw010969 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:06:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cnr.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cnr.cs.columbia.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j68E65SM008064; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:06:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lennox@cnr.cs.columbia.edu) Received: (from lennox@localhost) by cnr.cs.columbia.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j68E64cZ008061; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:06:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lennox) From: Jonathan Lennox MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17102.34892.865008.753397@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:06:04 -0400 To: Magnus Westerlund Subject: Re: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] RE: Draft -04 of Comedia over TLS submitted.Ready for WGLC? In-Reply-To: <42CE2749.70907@ericsson.com> References: <20050707160632.05BB8693M1@mxtreme1.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> <17101.30921.48827.630095@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> <42CE2749.70907@ericsson.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: lazzaro , mmusic@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On Friday, July 8 2005, "Magnus Westerlund" wrote to "Jonathan Lennox, lazzaro, mmusic@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org" saying: > Hi Jonathan, > > Can you please remind where and when the decision was taken to not > define TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP? All I find is some loose discussion without > conclusion about the topic, but nothing I can interpret as an WG > consensus on this. It was at the MMusic meeting in San Diego (August 2004), following my initial presentation of comedia-tls. Here's the relevant paragraph from the minutes: An open issue is that this defines only TCP/TLS, not TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP. Similarly, nothing defines TCP/RTP/SAVP. What should be the preferred way of doing secure connection-oriented RTP? Steve Casner suggested that it might be appropriate to wait until there is a use case for SRTP over connection oriented media, rather than trying to specify it now. As I recall, Steve's comment got a rough nodding of heads. So I wouldn't say that a decision was explicitly taken not to define this, so much as that no decision was taken *to* define it. > I am in favor of defining both TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP and TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF. TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP, yes. I'm not sure what the use-case is for TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF -- I thought most of the motivation for AVPF was for bandwidth adaptation and improved delivery reliablity, both of which seem to be redundant for something transmitted over TCP. > I would also consider if TCP/TLS/RTP/SAVP is a good idea or not. I would > consider TCP/TLS/RTP/SAVP a possibility in cases that requires a secure > TCP/TLS connection, for example due to end point authentication, which > however is a gateway to an SRTP session. If that is relevant or not is > another matter. I'm dubious about sending Secure RTP over TLS -- I think it would need to be pretty strongly motivated with real use-cases. For both these cases, their motivations are significantly stronger if you're envisioning implementing a UDP<->TCP<->UDP tunnel scenario. Is that what you're thinking of? > I also agree with Lazzaro that with the current IETF lead time the only > reasonable way of providing for future use cases the market wants to > select it to have it ready. I don't want to be the part blocking actual > deployment of security. Thus I think we should consider both > TCP/RTP/SAVP and TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP. Fair enough. > As I see it TCP/RTP/SAVP and TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP have somewhat different > security properties. TLS provides a secured transport channel with > possibility to end-point authentication. The SRTP based solution > provides instead group security and can be done without a trusted > gateway. So they definitely are applicable in different use cases. I'm not sure what you mean by a "trusted gateway", and I'm not sure how useful group security is for a point-to-point connection-oriented protocol, again unless you're envisioning tunneling. (Would it be worthwhile to restrict this discussion just to the avt list?) -- Jonathan Lennox lennox@cs.columbia.edu _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 10:35:18 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqtwk-0007HW-Lv; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:35:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqtwi-0007Gu-Kd for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:35:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07008 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DquO4-0003QP-Ht for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:03:34 -0400 Received: from zcard303.ca.nortel.com (zcard303.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.59]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j68EYtW01661; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (acart256.ca.nortel.com [47.130.17.125]) by zcard303.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id MRAFR2RN; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:34:56 -0400 Message-ID: <42CE8F0B.5040205@nortel.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:34:51 -0400 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: avt@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: scott.petrack@edial.com, hgs@cs.columbia.edu Subject: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-02.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org I have submitted another update of the 2833bis data event draft. This update includes the following changes: 1. Changed the V.8 bis event scheme as I proposed in a previous E-mail, so that the first and second segments of the signals are reported as separate events. While I was at it, I streamlined the description of V.8 bis operation, mainly because the previous description had inaccuracies and it didn't seem appropriate to add the complexity necessary to tell the complete and correct story. 2. Added a section on handling of congestion for each application. 3. Added the V.32/V.32bis calling and called pattern events agreed in earlier discussion, along with a general description of the modem startup sequence. 4. For text messaging, deleted mention of Q.23 but noted the DTMF text terminal application, which is now described in the main 2833bis document along with DTMF events. 5. Added the XCIMark event for text messaging, as agreed in previous discussion. 6. Truncated the description of V.18 but added a description of the XCI signal and use of XCIMark, as agreed in previous discussion. 7. Ensured it was clear in the second example of section 4 that the voice content covered the same content as the events for the same period. 8. Updated the event registry in Table 9 according to the changes described in the previous items of this note. 9. Added references for V.32 and V.32 bis, and updated the references for CLEARMODE and text (RFC 4103). 10. Updated Scott Petrack's affiliation. _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 12:33:41 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqvnJ-00034f-47; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:33:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqvnI-00034a-Gp for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:33:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26256 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com ([216.82.255.211]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqwEc-0004T4-PR for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:02:01 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: gash@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1120840402!3339395!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.15; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [192.128.167.69] Received: (qmail 15588 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2005 16:33:23 -0000 Received: from almso1.att.com (HELO almso1.proxy.att.com) (192.128.167.69) by server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 2005 16:33:23 -0000 Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.38.62.9]) by almso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MLO-6.0) with ESMTP id j68GX7Px011244 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:33:22 -0400 Received: from kcclust06evs1.ugd.att.com (135.38.164.89) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (7.2.052) id 42BED27600262564 for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:33:22 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:33:22 -0500 Message-ID: <9473683187ADC049A855ED2DA739ABCA060CE668@KCCLUST06EVS1.ugd.att.com> Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt Thread-Index: AcWD0YbHU77AD7LDTN2AdZ1EHqnoVgAAEz7A From: "Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" To: "IETF AVT WG" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" Subject: [AVT] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi All, Please review and comment on the (significantly) updated draft 'Protocol Extensions for Header Compression over MPLS' (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol -01.txt). Note that a work item and milestone were recently added to the AVT charter on this work: "- in collaboration with the MPLS and ROHC WGs, to develop a solution for header compression of RTP across MPLS networks that avoid decompression and compression at each MPLS node. ... Dec 05 Submit any extensions for RTP HC on MPLS networks for Proposed Standard"=20 The updated I-D responds to comments on the AVT list from Lars-Erik Jonsson and Colin Perkins: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05408.html http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05419.html http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05428.html http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05433.html http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05530.html The main changes are as follows: 1. Lars-Erik's suggested outline is used, in particular: - Section 2 'Terminology' is added - Section 3 'Header Compression over MPLS Protocol Overview' is added - Section 4 'Protocol Specifications' is reorganized 2. Pseudowire (PW) setup and header compression session configuration are covered in Sections 3.1 and 4.1. In particular, the PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV is used to signal header compression session setup and header compression parameter negotiation, such as described for header-compression-over-PPP mechanisms [RFC3241, RFC3544]. 3. Encapsulation of header compressed packets is covered in Sections 3.2 and 4.2. See in particular Figure 3 illustrating 'Header Compression over MPLS Media Stream Transport'. 4. A PW type has been assigned to each header compression scheme, as discussed in Section 4.1 and [IANA] (http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-11.txt) . Once again, please review and comment on the updated draft. It will be good to have some discussion on the list in anticipation of proposing this as an AVT WG document at the IETF-63/AVT meeting. Thanks, Jerry -----Original Message----- From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:50 AM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt=20 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Protocol Extensions for Header Compression over MPLS Author(s) : J. Ash, et al. Filename : draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2005-7-8 =09 VoIP typically uses the encapsulation voice/RTP/UDP/IP. When MPLS Labels are added, this becomes voice/RTP/UDP/IP/MPLS-labels. For an MPLS VPN, the packet header is typically 48 bytes, while the voice payload is often no more than 30 bytes, for example. Header compression can significantly reduce the overhead through various compression mechanisms. MPLS is used to route header-compressed (HC) packets over an MPLS LSP without compression/decompression cycles at each router. Such an HC over MPLS capability increases the bandwidth efficiency as well as processing scalability of the maximum number of simultaneous compressed flows that use HC at each router. MPLS pseudowires are used to transport the HC context and other control messages between the ingress and egress MPLS label switched router (LSR), and the pseudowires define a point to point instance of each HC session at the header decompressor. Standard HC methods (e.g., ECRTP, ROHC, etc.) are re-used to determine the context. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol- 01.txt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 13:49:45 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqwyv-0006HP-0x; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:49:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqwys-0006H7-9G for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:49:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01025 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqxQH-0007jM-Th for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:18:03 -0400 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2005 10:49:29 -0700 Received: from imail.cisco.com (imail.cisco.com [128.107.200.91]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j68HnPVX025334; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.32.245.152] (stealth-10-32-245-152.cisco.com [10.32.245.152]) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with SMTP id j68HmMSW027762; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:48:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0B24CBA1@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0B24CBA1@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9DEAF4F4-5286-46D5-B2CF-D43304BE9904@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David R Oran Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0400 To: Anders Klemets X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) IIM-SIG: v:"1.1"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; d:"cisco.com"; z:"home"; m:"krs"; t:"1120844903.754359"; x:"432200"; a:"rsa-sha1"; b:"nofws:856"; e:"Iw=="; n:"sQYarK2E51MdcTiUqeif3F7cWdxIfoCiXhdfb9vD5ee/j0jXL15gbFxF2p" "XIweAblu0N6XAgK7k+wrbr7bQDJaCDqOmzqpRUBjIRQAXQ7NzadpmR3pUL6wxaRUtW+c43sl9jC" "50Qg1sXHpPjt8Y+Y16ioyQAQAdSunM4YhevURc="; s:"W6CU5QuJs+3sO+WkJpRFzZQ9WfV0qyuLld9pH7UqWjhvKSybuDFfj7ticRgta+nANwSabKSV" "YOOn/cZdqRFMTTzlwqNDm5mYwGK/ljfnQM2lovNMUkEdRaWz0A3msDiJLvgad8jOe4TKUrRyKbQ" "WHAz5U9el59982mykJcbCb+s="; c:"From: David R Oran "; c:"Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt" "]"; c:"Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0400" IIM-VERIFY: s:"y"; v:"y"; r:"60"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; c:"message from imail.cisco.com verified; " X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF AVT WG X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Perhaps it would be wise for AVT to wait to discuss this draft until the codec spec is publically avaible? Any idea when this will happen? On Jul 7, 2005, at 9:01 PM, Anders Klemets wrote: > SMPTE 421M is in Final Committee Draft status and is not yet > publicly available. However, SMPTE members should be able to > obtain a copy from the members-only area on the SMPTE web site. > The spec is being developed by Technology Committee C24 on Video > Compression Technology. > > > > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Keith Lantz > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 1:43 PM > To: Magnus Westerlund > Cc: IETF AVT WG > Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] > > > > Indeed... > > I don't suppose anyone can provide a copy of SMPTE 421M? It doesn't > appear to be available (yet) from smpte.org. > > Thx, Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 15:50:32 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqyro-0007GS-DA; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:50:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqyrT-00078n-ID; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:50:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11702; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:50:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqzIs-0004VF-Ig; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:18:31 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DqyrK-0002r8-0k; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:50:02 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:50:02 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF. Title : RTP Payload Format for ATRAC Family Author(s) : M. Romaine, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2005-7-8 This document describes an RTP payload format for efficient and flexible transporting of audio data encoded with the Adaptive TRansform Audio Codec (ATRAC) family of codecs. Recent enhancements to the ATRAC family of codecs support high quality audio coding with multiple channels. The RTP payload format as presented in this document also includes support for data fragmentation, elementary redundancy measures, and a variation on scalable streaming. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-8124217.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-8124217.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --NextPart-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 16:39:18 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqzd0-0007OG-Ju; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:39:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqzd0-0007OB-2v for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:39:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26510 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:39:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail3.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.123]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dr04R-00028v-JB for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:07:40 -0400 Received: from mailout2.microsoft.com ([157.54.1.120]) by mail3.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:39:07 -0700 Received: from red-hub-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.2.25]) by mailout2.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:39:07 -0700 Received: from win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.84]) by red-hub-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:39:07 -0700 Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.88]) by win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:39:07 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:38:58 -0700 Message-ID: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0B24D1A6@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] thread-index: AcWD5W/L3hSAT2BBQaiCnaec5q91PwAFHqsg From: "Anders Klemets" To: "IETF AVT WG" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2005 20:39:07.0201 (UTC) FILETIME=[162E1310:01C583FD] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org If memory serves me right, AVT began considering RTP payload formats for AVC and MPEG-4 before those specs were publicly available, so there is precedence for this. I can't say for sure when SMPTE 421M will be published, but the spec needs to reach Draft Standard status first. If I understand things correctly, once a spec reaches Draft Standard status, they only allow editorial changes, and specs are then approved for publication in relatively short order. I think it is possible that SMPTE C24 will decide to have a ballot about whether or not to elevate the VC-1 spec to Draft Standard status, at their meeting next week. I will post something on this mailing list once I learn more about the progression of the spec. Anders -----Original Message----- From: David R Oran [mailto:oran@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:49 AM To: Anders Klemets Cc: Keith Lantz; IETF AVT WG Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Perhaps it would be wise for AVT to wait to discuss this draft until =20 the codec spec is publically avaible? Any idea when this will happen? _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 19:40:08 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dr2S0-0001yR-LS; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 19:40:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dr2Ry-0001s1-2h; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 19:40:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17212; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gateway0.eecs.berkeley.edu ([169.229.60.93]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dr2tQ-0002fZ-25; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:08:30 -0400 Received: from [128.32.34.73] (dhcp-34-73.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.34.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j68NdvBn015189 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <0D2BA9C7-09B9-4177-A45B-0D2ABD1FB81E@eecs.berkeley.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: lazzaro Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:40:32 -0700 To: mmusic@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Shigeru Aoki Subject: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC stage and studio requirements I-D ... X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Shigeru Aoki" writes: > First of all, You should not include your matter into the AES-X074 > since it has different intention from yours. Your requirements > draft should be proposed to the WG for the discussion in the WG. if > you would like to work for professional audio, you'd better propose > to the AES too. I think it is premature. MMUSIC first has to decide if it has interest in the topic, and in particular, if it is open to considering extensions to the transport protocols over which it owns change control (RTSP and SDP) to support requirements that this I-D may suggest. I am expecting significant MMUSIC opposition to the concept, given the changes some of the proposed requirements would mandate (MMUSIC folk: read the I-D for details). However, If there is MMUSIC interest, then I think its time to contact AES and the MMA and let them know of the new IETF work starting. It takes exceptional circumstances for the IETF to open a standardization collaboration with another body. A recent example is 3GPP: http://www.3gpp.org/tb/Other/IETF.htm Instead, the way the IETF would prefer to work in this case is for individuals that participate in the AES standards process to participate in MMUSIC, and lend their expertise to the effort in that way. This is fair because the MMA and SMPTE could also participate in the same way, as MIDI and SMPTE video streams could also be managed by a stage and studio RTSP. Whereas a 4-way standards collaboration would be hopeless. And so, our initial AES contact would be an invitation to join in our effort, with the hopes that the AES would adopt our final documents as standards without change. If there was not AES interest in working this way, my guess the IETF would decide to drop the effort, and I would hand off responsibility for RTP MIDI session management protocols for stage and studio work (which is my personal reason for proposing this I-D) to the MMA and end my leadership role. --- John Lazzaro http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu --- _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 09 12:45:09 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrIRx-0000Fx-29; Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:45:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dquy5-0006yZ-43; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:40:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22295; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:40:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bbcr.uwaterloo.ca ([129.97.34.2]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqvPS-0001t5-Jn; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:09:05 -0400 Received: from Casablanca (casablanca.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.34.146]) (authenticated bits=0) by bbcr.uwaterloo.ca (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j68Fe3lL003754; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200507081540.j68Fe3lL003754@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca> From: "Youssef Iraqi" To: Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:39:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcWD00xsCQDrUg4GRROXsu4ssWnD/A== X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (bbcr.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.34.2]); Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:40:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Miltered: at aeacus with ID 42CE9E78.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.85.1, clamav-milter version 0.85 on localhost X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 48472a944c87678fcfe8db15ffecdfff Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:45:07 -0400 Cc: Subject: [AVT] CFP: IEEE HWN-RMQ'06 X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP,=20 but please forward to anyone you believe may be interested -- thanks!] =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 CALL FOR = PAPERS =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 First IEEE International Workshop on Heterogeneous Wireless Networks: Resource Management and QoS =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = (HWN-RMQ=9206) http://www.ieee-ccnc.org/2006/conf_program/hwn-rmq_workshop/index.htm =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 In conjunction = with IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC=9206) =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 7-10 January 2006 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Scope The fourth generation (4G) of wireless communications is expected to integrate a potentially large number of different heterogeneous wireless technologies in what could be considered a huge step forward towards universal wireless access and omnipresent computing through seamless mobility. Even though 4G standard is currently not defined, there are = many current outlooks that delineate the vision of the new wireless = technologies. Based on the emergent trends of mobile communication, 4G will have = larger bandwidth, higher data rates, smoother and quicker handoff and will = focus on guaranteeing faultless service and seamless handoff across a multitude = of wireless networks. The key concept is integrating the 4G capabilities = with all of the existing mobile technologies. Special maneuvers will be = necessary amongst different access systems in terms of horizontal (intra-system) = and vertical (inter-system) handoff as well as seamless mobility, Quality of Service (QoS), dependability and security. In this workshop, we solicit high quality papers from leading = researchers that present state-of-the-art research in heterogeneous wireless = networks dealing with resource management techniques and QoS provisioning. Topics of Interest =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=20 Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: - Interworking with 2.5G, 3G, and other wireless networks - QoS provisioning for heterogeneous wireless networks - End-to-End QoS Architectures - Location, Mobility and Handoff Management - Seamless vertical handoff techniques between different wireless = networks - Network selection criteria - Resource management/allocation=20 - Bandwidth adaptation=20 - Power control and management=20 - Load, admission, and flow control=20 - Architecture design alternatives for heterogeneous wireless networks - Performance analysis and experimentation of heterogeneous wireless networks - Pricing and billing issues - Security techniques and methods for heterogeneous wireless networks=20 - Heterogeneous wireless networks applications and measurements - Simulation study of heterogeneous wireless networks - Scalability of heterogeneous wireless networks - Implementation and testbed experiments - Standardization activities for heterogeneous wireless networks - Heterogeneous multi-hop wireless networks Important Dates=20 - Paper = submission:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 15 = August=A0=A0=A0 2005 - Notification of acceptance: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 15 September 2005 - Final Paper submission: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 14 = October=A0=A0 2005 Paper Submissions =A0 Submitted papers must represent original material that is not currently under review in any other conference or journal, and has not been = previously published. Paper length should not exceed five-page technical paper manuscript. Please see author information page for submission guidelines = at CCNC=9206 website (http://www.ieee-ccnc.org). Papers should be submitted = in a .pdf format through EDAS at http://edas.info/Paper.cgi?c=3D4602. = Submissions should include a cover page with authors' names, affiliations, fax and telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. All accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings. At least one author of accepted papers is required to register at the full registration rate. Workshop Co-Chairs: - Name=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Nidal = Nasser=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Mieso Denko - E-mail=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0nasser@cis.uoguelph.ca=A0=A0=A0 = denko@cis.uoguelph.ca - URL=A0=A0http://www.cis.uoguelph.ca/~nasser=A0 = http://www.cis.uoguelph.ca/~denko - Affiliation=A0=A0=A0University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada Publicity Chair: Youssef Iraqi=20 University of Waterloo, Canada iraqi@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca=20 http://bcr2.uwaterloo.ca/~iraqi/=20 Technical Program Committee (In progress) - Khalid Al-Begain=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of = Glamorgan=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 UK - Hakim Badis=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of Paris-Sud = XI=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 France=20 - Tarek Bejaoui=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of Paris-Sud = XI=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 France=20 - Jiannong Cao=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Hong Kong Polytechnic = University=A0=A0=A0 Hong Kong - Soumaya Cherkaoui=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of Sherbrooke = =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Canada=20 - Yuh-Shyan Chen=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 National Chung Cheng University = =A0=A0=A0 Taiwan=20 - Javier Gozalvez=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University Miguel = Hernandez=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Spain - Christian Hartmann=A0=A0=A0 Technische Universitat = Munchen=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Germany=20 - Youssef Iraqi=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of Waterloo = =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Canada=20 - Anup Kumar=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of Louisville = =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 USA=20 - Wei Li=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The University of = Toledo=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 USA=20 - Jelena Misic=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of Manitoba = =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Canada=20 - Mohamed Ould-Khaoua=A0 University of Glasgow = =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 UK=20 - Burkhard Stiller=A0 =A0=A0=A0 University of Zurich and ETH Zurich=A0 = Switzerland=20 - Abd-Elhamid M. Taha=A0=A0 Queen's = University=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Canada=20 - Ljiljana Trajkovic =A0=A0 Simon Fraser University = =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Canada=20 - Duc A. Tran=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of Dayton = =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 USA=20 - Shahrokh Valaee =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of = Toronto=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Canada - Quanhong Wang=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Queen's = University=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Canada=20 - Kui Wu=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of = Victoria =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Canada=20 - Jingyuan Zhang=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The University of = Alabama=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 USA=20 - Weihua Zhuang=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 University of Waterloo = =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Canada=20 _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 10 06:18:33 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrYtN-0007uj-C0; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:18:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrYlJ-00051F-Ie; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:10:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21480; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrZD4-0000YD-Ol; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:38:56 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:61876 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DrYl2-0000hV-Q3; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:09:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: <17102.34892.865008.753397@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> References: <20050707160632.05BB8693M1@mxtreme1.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> <17101.30921.48827.630095@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> <42CE2749.70907@ericsson.com> <17102.34892.865008.753397@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <580534F1-F812-4A7D-BBDA-4AA7B900C34B@csperkins.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] RE: Draft -04 of Comedia over TLS submitted.Ready for WGLC? Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:09:52 +0100 To: Jonathan Lennox X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:18:31 -0400 Cc: Magnus Westerlund , IETF MMUSIC working group , lazzaro Lazzaro X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org [avt list bcc'd -- discussion on mmusic] On 8 Jul 2005, at 15:06, Jonathan Lennox wrote: > On Friday, July 8 2005, "Magnus Westerlund" wrote: >> Can you please remind where and when the decision was taken to not >> define TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP? All I find is some loose discussion without >> conclusion about the topic, but nothing I can interpret as an WG >> consensus on this. > > It was at the MMusic meeting in San Diego (August 2004), following my > initial presentation of comedia-tls. Here's the relevant paragraph > from the > minutes: > > An open issue is that this defines only TCP/TLS, not TCP/TLS/ > RTP/AVP. > Similarly, nothing defines TCP/RTP/SAVP. What should be the > preferred > way of doing secure connection-oriented RTP? Steve Casner > suggested > that it might be appropriate to wait until there is a use case for > SRTP over connection oriented media, rather than trying to > specify it > now. > > As I recall, Steve's comment got a rough nodding of heads. So I > wouldn't > say that a decision was explicitly taken not to define this, so > much as that > no decision was taken *to* define it. > >> I am in favor of defining both TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP and TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF. > > TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP, yes. I'm not sure what the use-case is for > TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF -- I thought most of the motivation for AVPF was for > bandwidth adaptation and improved delivery reliablity, both of > which seem to > be redundant for something transmitted over TCP. As an additional factor in the discussion, I note that the comedia- tls draft is normatively referenced by the MRCPv2 spec, which is nearing completion. I don't want to prevent useful additions to the comedia-tls draft, but we shouldn't add features with only theoretical usefulness if doing so will significantly delay a draft with present needs. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 10 06:33:57 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrZ8H-0003Yn-Pp; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:33:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrZ8G-0003Wb-FX for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:33:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22195 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrZa3-0001FM-0l for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:02:39 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:61921 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DrZ87-0001yO-6L; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:33:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0B24D1A6@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0B24D1A6@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:33:42 +0100 To: Anders Klemets X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF AVT WG X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Anders, Dave, This is an individual draft at present, so I don't see a problem. However, the working group would need access to the specification (or to sufficient details for us to conduct a meaningful review) before accepting this as a work item. In any case, I'd certainly encourage SMPTE to make the details of the codec available for review before its definition is made final, in case there are unexpected features that make transport of the codec in RTP difficult. Colin On 8 Jul 2005, at 21:38, Anders Klemets wrote: > If memory serves me right, AVT began considering RTP payload > formats for > AVC and MPEG-4 before those specs were publicly available, so there is > precedence for this. > > I can't say for sure when SMPTE 421M will be published, but the spec > needs to reach Draft Standard status first. If I understand things > correctly, once a spec reaches Draft Standard status, they only allow > editorial changes, and specs are then approved for publication in > relatively short order. > > I think it is possible that SMPTE C24 will decide to have a ballot > about > whether or not to elevate the VC-1 spec to Draft Standard status, at > their meeting next week. I will post something on this mailing list > once I learn more about the progression of the spec. > > Anders > > -----Original Message----- > From: David R Oran [mailto:oran@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:49 AM > To: Anders Klemets > Cc: Keith Lantz; IETF AVT WG > Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] > > Perhaps it would be wise for AVT to wait to discuss this draft until > the codec spec is publically avaible? > > Any idea when this will happen? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 10 07:47:35 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DraHX-0004lO-Qf; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:47:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DraHW-0004lJ-MK for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:47:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25801 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mout01.kundenservices.net ([81.169.163.77]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrajJ-0003tW-Bz for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:16:17 -0400 Received: from smtp20.kundenservices.net ([81.169.163.79]) by mout01.kundenservices.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1DraHH-0003yp-F8; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:19 +0200 Received: from stewe.org ([81.169.171.175] helo=gurke) by smtp20.kundenservices.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1DraHH-0004ph-6F; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:19 +0200 From: "Stephan Wenger" To: "'Anders Klemets'" , "'IETF AVT WG'" Subject: RE: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:47:05 +0300 Message-ID: <000301c58545$18a9dc70$1a01a8c0@gurke> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 In-Reply-To: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0B24D1A6@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi Anders, Minor correction: at least the H.264/AVC working drafts were publicly available from even before the forming of JVT.=20 Regards, Stephan -----Original Message----- From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Anders Klemets Sent: Freitag, 8. Juli 2005 23:39 To: IETF AVT WG Subject: RE: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] If memory serves me right, AVT began considering RTP payload formats for AVC and MPEG-4 before those specs were publicly available, so there is precedence for this. I can't say for sure when SMPTE 421M will be published, but the spec needs to reach Draft Standard status first. If I understand things correctly, once a spec reaches Draft Standard status, they only allow editorial changes, and specs are then approved for publication in relatively short order. I think it is possible that SMPTE C24 will decide to have a ballot about whether or not to elevate the VC-1 spec to Draft Standard status, at their meeting next week. I will post something on this mailing list once I learn more about the progression of the spec. Anders -----Original Message----- From: David R Oran [mailto:oran@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:49 AM To: Anders Klemets Cc: Keith Lantz; IETF AVT WG Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Perhaps it would be wise for AVT to wait to discuss this draft until =20 the codec spec is publically avaible? Any idea when this will happen? _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 10 07:57:04 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DraQi-0007Dr-8H; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:57:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DraQg-0007Az-Lw for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:57:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26111 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from relay1.mail.vrmd.de ([81.28.232.18]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrasS-0004A7-RG for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:25:46 -0400 Received: from [87.78.9.184] (helo=[192.168.1.23]) by vm8.bln2.vrmd.de with asmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1DraQD-0003Sa-Ol for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:56:34 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) References: <000301c58545$18a9dc70$1a01a8c0@gurke> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: <36174852-EA01-451D-882B-33860BB83052@let.de> From: Marc Manthey Subject: Fwd: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:56:38 +0200 To: IETF AVT WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Relay-User: marc@let.de X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 31247fb3be228bb596db9127becad0bc X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0709854148==" Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --===============0709854148== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-9-955479694; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" --Apple-Mail-9-955479694 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Begin forwarded message: > I will post something on this mailing list > once I learn more about the progression of the spec. good idea, have agreat day marc -- "In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?" www.let.de www.cuseeme.de www.applehelpers.com --Apple-Mail-9-955479694 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIHHzCCA0kw ggKyoAMCAQICDgpqAAEAAntSGyw2RRVxMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMIG8MQswCQYDVQQGEwJERTEQ MA4GA1UECBMHSGFtYnVyZzEQMA4GA1UEBxMHSGFtYnVyZzE6MDgGA1UEChMxVEMgVHJ1c3RDZW50 ZXIgZm9yIFNlY3VyaXR5IGluIERhdGEgTmV0d29ya3MgR21iSDEiMCAGA1UECxMZVEMgVHJ1c3RD ZW50ZXIgQ2xhc3MgMSBDQTEpMCcGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYaY2VydGlmaWNhdGVAdHJ1c3RjZW50ZXIu ZGUwHhcNMDUwNTA5MTQzMjQ4WhcNMDYwNTA5MTQzMjQ4WjBAMQswCQYDVQQGEwJERTEVMBMGA1UE AxMMTWFyYyBNYW50aGV5MRowGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFgttYXJjQGxldC5kZTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAvwCjxxISYuhol4fmTuqlvYN3JOLxcceKV3T8OzmBqQVkbKvmkqh+d5ue O+Dz4ZD9sYKbvbAcQmfLqra94of91kM20oPlAalNcSNe8HUEDEVb4GHdqPVwmaVK9jJ5BUPDMheq W5TR5X/ATEfQU7oCZSI/7+h9Ww3anbUXIZeCCOMCAwEAAaOByDCBxTAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA4G A1UdDwEB/wQEAwIF4DAzBglghkgBhvhCAQgEJhYkaHR0cDovL3d3dy50cnVzdGNlbnRlci5kZS9n dWlkZWxpbmVzMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFoDBdBglghkgBhvhCAQMEUBZOaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu dHJ1c3RjZW50ZXIuZGUvY2dpLWJpbi9jaGVjay1yZXYuY2dpLzBBNkEwMDAxMDAwMjdCNTIxQjJD MzY0NTE1NzE/MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GBAE94N6LMW8iv8HvV9RC77acqqCw4JyLYB6pcgTK9 bpEYxkdggTJRUnCMzz8TOOzVvfA2mzEmwoKDnMYUFugAxdLbFPuxsw4aJ9vMZPdppz28nBDdx1jt lmoJvm3fogTLCGfhWyrd68/tqneYNf540iiXPkp9bwVs8qvQFyEUa8Y8MIIDzjCCAzegAwIBAgIP AJn2AAAAAtbxQYHMGpdhMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMIG8MQswCQYDVQQGEwJERTEQMA4GA1UECBMH SGFtYnVyZzEQMA4GA1UEBxMHSGFtYnVyZzE6MDgGA1UEChMxVEMgVHJ1c3RDZW50ZXIgZm9yIFNl Y3VyaXR5IGluIERhdGEgTmV0d29ya3MgR21iSDEiMCAGA1UECxMZVEMgVHJ1c3RDZW50ZXIgQ2xh c3MgMSBDQTEpMCcGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYaY2VydGlmaWNhdGVAdHJ1c3RjZW50ZXIuZGUwHhcNMDUw MjA0MTY0ODQ3WhcNMDYwMjA0MTY0ODQ3WjBAMQswCQYDVQQGEwJERTEVMBMGA1UEAxMMTWFyYyBN YW50aGV5MRowGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFgttYXJjQGxldC5kZTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEP ADCCAQoCggEBANL2cTdJD0oNKje7z4466yUIRX8DJbmjCZBMLtnmHiEqMrpK2rQps8Gcmp3ueB+d o7lGwU7YH3m676a5XhyvcaYwmu1C2gLfBiOzbijbZLP95vP0Aowf9HyuO6iTS42el73q+6MKCY8h O1px1R1blj9cxFeGfFXiG8Oz2QOi7sfJHB+Vp9WVU8ZI1I8NibF/wAN8HzZSdbKkEArGarBCYZ8J Em9C7UZpxc3fx61PePP/z5j4GeQVt+iI5FzBMlg0T7W5X16D0yQuLQb2ajeYJhstFC0KrbO+v9eV WnOsXzOYo+PkPH4O6tOKyX14GFITKYWTwyU6It03XrO/lAvn80kCAwEAAaOByDCBxTAMBgNVHRMB Af8EAjAAMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIF4DAzBglghkgBhvhCAQgEJhYkaHR0cDovL3d3dy50cnVzdGNl bnRlci5kZS9ndWlkZWxpbmVzMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFoDBdBglghkgBhvhCAQMEUBZOaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudHJ1c3RjZW50ZXIuZGUvY2dpLWJpbi9jaGVjay1yZXYuY2dpLzk5RjYwMDAwMDAw MkQ2RjE0MTgxQ0MxQTk3NjE/MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GBAF3ZoITTnsH5RDnrDWReZJPv9WUF yGPjjKIUHQlGeEg+JY4T5b8SrHJGkyxyoc2dj3E5G7iJ173mz5IK42YizLRNCcw3gZcSJQl8SqiL L7VN/xdOZfbZKFhDStraQXghJ9tvoD5CNzFKblW71W0iv2f1R7GPwR+lKB9S5ZejZj+CMYIDoTCC A50CAQEwgc8wgbwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkRFMRAwDgYDVQQIEwdIYW1idXJnMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdIYW1i dXJnMTowOAYDVQQKEzFUQyBUcnVzdENlbnRlciBmb3IgU2VjdXJpdHkgaW4gRGF0YSBOZXR3b3Jr cyBHbWJIMSIwIAYDVQQLExlUQyBUcnVzdENlbnRlciBDbGFzcyAxIENBMSkwJwYJKoZIhvcNAQkB FhpjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZUB0cnVzdGNlbnRlci5kZQIOCmoAAQACe1IbLDZFFXEwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCC AicwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMDUwNzEwMTE1NjQw WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUpwyLUo4kVw2Xc5InXBBEhjZuUMMwgeEGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDGB0zCB 0DCBvDELMAkGA1UEBhMCREUxEDAOBgNVBAgTB0hhbWJ1cmcxEDAOBgNVBAcTB0hhbWJ1cmcxOjA4 BgNVBAoTMVRDIFRydXN0Q2VudGVyIGZvciBTZWN1cml0eSBpbiBEYXRhIE5ldHdvcmtzIEdtYkgx IjAgBgNVBAsTGVRDIFRydXN0Q2VudGVyIENsYXNzIDEgQ0ExKTAnBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWGmNlcnRp ZmljYXRlQHRydXN0Y2VudGVyLmRlAg8AmfYAAAAC1vFBgcwal2EwgeMGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYHT oIHQMIG8MQswCQYDVQQGEwJERTEQMA4GA1UECBMHSGFtYnVyZzEQMA4GA1UEBxMHSGFtYnVyZzE6 MDgGA1UEChMxVEMgVHJ1c3RDZW50ZXIgZm9yIFNlY3VyaXR5IGluIERhdGEgTmV0d29ya3MgR21i SDEiMCAGA1UECxMZVEMgVHJ1c3RDZW50ZXIgQ2xhc3MgMSBDQTEpMCcGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYaY2Vy dGlmaWNhdGVAdHJ1c3RjZW50ZXIuZGUCDwCZ9gAAAALW8UGBzBqXYTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASB gGSnFB6WzHKhBCC8s33vSwVWztximUDQajj7z4QbbNULHfIPNcm1pock3PejjGk1iFkrDAB8wRAB ntDME7/DX1zTHYEqsGXvxiohHTExkFTrKS7F8y9PK4PDRNW8HvFmcPonm9jL07vh9GBJyPmKpdjO xbgZotbiE9CtKkIERLV5AAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-9-955479694-- --===============0709854148== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --===============0709854148==-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 10 15:30:56 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrhVv-0005Dm-U7; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:30:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrhVu-0005Dd-0K for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:30:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20369 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:30:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail3.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.123]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Drhxl-000351-0M for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:59:41 -0400 Received: from mailout1.microsoft.com ([157.54.1.117]) by mail3.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:30:41 -0700 Received: from red-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.71]) by mailout1.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:30:41 -0700 Received: from win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.84]) by red-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:30:40 -0700 Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.88]) by win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:30:41 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:30:39 -0700 Message-ID: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0B24D689@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] thread-index: AcWFOvMl/uxF14NMTHyRicHkW7hfMAAQfcxg From: "Anders Klemets" To: "Colin Perkins" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2005 19:30:41.0062 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB8E7C60:01C58585] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: IETF AVT WG X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Could clarify what the rules are, since my intent is obviously to make this an official AVT work item? =20 I think I have included plenty of information about VC-1 in the Internet-Draft to explain why I made certain choices the design of the RTP payload format. In fact, more information than you will find in many other RTP payload format specs. My intent was to include enough information that someone who does not have any prior knowledge of VC-1 can read the Internet-Draft and conduct a meaningful review. For those who still want to study the VC-1 spec anyway, they can get access to the latest version by joining SMPTE C24. Unlike, for example, the ISO MPEG-4 committee, SMPTE allows individual membership. I think the fee is around $135, which is significantly cheaper than the fee charged by IETF for attending only a single meeting. Compare this against other RTP payload formats that are currently AVT work items, such as ATRAC. Check out the references section of the ATRAC Internet-Draft. I see no reference, normative or otherwise, to the ATRAC spec. The only mention of how to obtain the spec, that I am able to find, is a sentence that says that the use of ATRAC requires a license from the vendor. If that is the minimal documentation standard that AVT RTP payload format specs are expected to meet, I think you will find that the VC-1 RTP payload format spec not only meets it, but also exceeds it. I think that at this point, I think it would be more productive if people who are interested in reviewing the VC-1 Internet Draft would start doing so, and send me feedback. If something is unclear, I should be able to add additional clarifying text. =20 Technical comments are of course welcome too. I will try to summarize all of them in my slides for the Paris AVT meeting, and incorporate agreed upon changes after the meeting. Thanks, Anders -----Original Message----- From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]=20 Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 3:34 AM To: Anders Klemets Cc: IETF AVT WG Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Anders, Dave, This is an individual draft at present, so I don't see a problem. =20 However, the working group would need access to the specification (or =20 to sufficient details for us to conduct a meaningful review) before =20 accepting this as a work item. In any case, I'd certainly encourage SMPTE to make the details of the =20 codec available for review before its definition is made final, in =20 case there are unexpected features that make transport of the codec =20 in RTP difficult. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 10 16:39:52 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Driae-0002r5-Ox; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:39:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Driab-0002r0-RM for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:39:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23484 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Drj2T-0005VJ-FP for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:08:37 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:63689 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DriaR-0001ED-Qu; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:39:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0B24D689@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0B24D689@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <265C0001-A003-455A-869A-48B5CE4E2BCA@csperkins.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:39:35 +0100 To: "Anders Klemets" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF AVT WG X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Anders, As I mentioned, the working group would need access to the specification (or to sufficient details for us to conduct a meaningful review). I haven't had chance to review the draft in detail yet, so I can't comment on whether this condition is fulfilled, but from what you say below it sounds like it may be. Certainly we have produced RTP payload formats for SMPTE defined formats in the past, so I don't forsee a problem once the specification is published. In any case, none of this affects the present review of the draft, since it's currently an individual submission. Colin On 10 Jul 2005, at 20:30, Anders Klemets wrote: > Could clarify what the rules are, since my intent is obviously to make > this an official AVT work item? > > I think I have included plenty of information about VC-1 in the > Internet-Draft to explain why I made certain choices the design of the > RTP payload format. In fact, more information than you will find in > many other RTP payload format specs. > > My intent was to include enough information that someone who does not > have any prior knowledge of VC-1 can read the Internet-Draft and > conduct > a meaningful review. > > For those who still want to study the VC-1 spec anyway, they can get > access to the latest version by joining SMPTE C24. Unlike, for > example, > the ISO MPEG-4 committee, SMPTE allows individual membership. I think > the fee is around $135, which is significantly cheaper than the fee > charged by IETF for attending only a single meeting. > > Compare this against other RTP payload formats that are currently AVT > work items, such as ATRAC. Check out the references section of the > ATRAC Internet-Draft. I see no reference, normative or otherwise, to > the ATRAC spec. The only mention of how to obtain the spec, that I am > able to find, is a sentence that says that the use of ATRAC requires a > license from the vendor. > > If that is the minimal documentation standard that AVT RTP payload > format specs are expected to meet, I think you will find that the VC-1 > RTP payload format spec not only meets it, but also exceeds it. > > I think that at this point, I think it would be more productive if > people who are interested in reviewing the VC-1 Internet Draft would > start doing so, and send me feedback. If something is unclear, I > should > be able to add additional clarifying text. > > Technical comments are of course welcome too. I will try to summarize > all of them in my slides for the Paris AVT meeting, and incorporate > agreed upon changes after the meeting. > > Thanks, > > Anders > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] > Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 3:34 AM > To: Anders Klemets > Cc: IETF AVT WG > Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt] > > Anders, Dave, > > This is an individual draft at present, so I don't see a problem. > However, the working group would need access to the specification (or > to sufficient details for us to conduct a meaningful review) before > accepting this as a work item. > > In any case, I'd certainly encourage SMPTE to make the details of the > codec available for review before its definition is made final, in > case there are unexpected features that make transport of the codec > in RTP difficult. > > Colin > > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 11 04:57:56 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dru6u-0004NQ-0x; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:57:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrcUa-0007NO-I8; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:09:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03519; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:09:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cs.columbia.edu ([128.59.16.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrcwJ-0000UJ-Hn; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:37:54 -0400 Received: from cnr.cs.columbia.edu (cnr.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.19.133]) by cs.columbia.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j6AE8isw019090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:08:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cnr.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cnr.cs.columbia.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6AE8iLB053444; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:08:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lennox@cnr.cs.columbia.edu) Received: (from lennox@localhost) by cnr.cs.columbia.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j6AE8ea8053441; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:08:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lennox) From: Jonathan Lennox MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17105.11240.703298.801389@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:08:40 -0400 To: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] RE: Draft -04 of Comedia over TLS submitted.Ready for WGLC? In-Reply-To: <580534F1-F812-4A7D-BBDA-4AA7B900C34B@csperkins.org> References: <20050707160632.05BB8693M1@mxtreme1.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> <17101.30921.48827.630095@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> <42CE2749.70907@ericsson.com> <17102.34892.865008.753397@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> <580534F1-F812-4A7D-BBDA-4AA7B900C34B@csperkins.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:57:54 -0400 Cc: Magnus Westerlund , IETF MMUSIC working group , lazzaro Lazzaro X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On Sunday, July 10 2005, "Colin Perkins" wrote to "Jonathan Lennox, Magnus Westerlund, IETF MMUSIC working group, lazzaro Lazzaro" saying: > [avt list bcc'd -- discussion on mmusic] (And again, since I'm discussing a draft that would presumably be handled in avt.) > As an additional factor in the discussion, I note that the comedia- > tls draft is normatively referenced by the MRCPv2 spec, which is > nearing completion. I don't want to prevent useful additions to the > comedia-tls draft, but we shouldn't add features with only > theoretical usefulness if doing so will significantly delay a draft > with present needs. Oh, yes, definitely -- a definition of 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP' should be in a separate draft from 'TCP/TLS', just as 'TCP/RTP/AVP' is separate from 'TCP'. I imagine that AVT would probably be a better home for this latter draft, since a) it's extending draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans, and b) it's in the avt charter. -- Jonathan Lennox lennox@cs.columbia.edu _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 11 05:45:24 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Druqq-0005IJ-Ci; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:45:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Druqp-0005IB-6T; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:45:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA25710; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrvIn-0006L7-JR; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:14:18 -0400 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.120]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 41A0C1247; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:45:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:45:18 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.34] ([147.214.34.34]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:45:18 +0200 Message-ID: <42D23FAD.1080103@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:45:17 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Lennox Subject: Re: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] RE: Draft -04 of Comedia over TLSsubmitted.Ready for WGLC? References: <20050707160632.05BB8693M1@mxtreme1.EECS.Berkeley.EDU><17101.30921.48827.630095@cnr.cs.columbia.edu><42CE2749.70907@ericsson.com> <17102.34892.865008.753397@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> In-Reply-To: <17102.34892.865008.753397@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2005 09:45:18.0175 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F18FEF0:01C585FD] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: lazzaro , mmusic@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Jonathan Lennox wrote: > >>I am in favor of defining both TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP and TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF. > > > TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP, yes. I'm not sure what the use-case is for > TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF -- I thought most of the motivation for AVPF was for > bandwidth adaptation and improved delivery reliablity, both of which seem to > be redundant for something transmitted over TCP. There are definitely motivation why also AVPF should be included. First of all AVPF provides a generic mechanism that can be used for sending feedback messages. In certain cases these feedback messages have nothing to do with either delivery reliability or bandwidth adaptation. This will definitely become evident when the new draft (draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt) on codec commands becomes available. This draft contains feedback that are related to usage of video mixers (MCUs) as an example. The other motivation are these use cases that contains mixers or media focus performing replication to form a multiparty conference. There several independent unicast connection are connected. In these scenario it is not unlikely that some could use TCP/TLS while others uses UDP. Thus the need to have the same profile but with different transports. > > >>I would also consider if TCP/TLS/RTP/SAVP is a good idea or not. I would >>consider TCP/TLS/RTP/SAVP a possibility in cases that requires a secure >>TCP/TLS connection, for example due to end point authentication, which >>however is a gateway to an SRTP session. If that is relevant or not is >>another matter. > > > I'm dubious about sending Secure RTP over TLS -- I think it would need to be > pretty strongly motivated with real use-cases. Again I think the motivation are gateways or other type of bridging between different transport formats while still there is a need to use the same profile in both transport domains. However it might be that for this use case TCP/RTP/SAVP is more useful. Including TLS would only provide end-point authentication. > > For both these cases, their motivations are significantly stronger if you're > envisioning implementing a UDP<->TCP<->UDP tunnel scenario. Is that what > you're thinking of? Yes, but primarily the case of mixer translators between a UDP domain and some users connected using TCP. > >>As I see it TCP/RTP/SAVP and TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP have somewhat different >>security properties. TLS provides a secured transport channel with >>possibility to end-point authentication. The SRTP based solution >>provides instead group security and can be done without a trusted >>gateway. So they definitely are applicable in different use cases. > > > I'm not sure what you mean by a "trusted gateway", and I'm not sure how > useful group security is for a point-to-point connection-oriented protocol, > again unless you're envisioning tunneling. > IF you are having a UDP multicast session and you like to connect but can only use TCP then you need a translator. That translator will be required to be trusted if it is going to perform the following operation: IP/UDP/RTP/SAVP -> IP/TCP/TLS/AVP In addition to be trusted to receive, decrypt and handle the media it must also be trusted to correctly authenticate the end-point connecting over TLS. If you instead performed a TCP encapsulation operation the translator could be untrusted. Cheers Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 11 08:03:26 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Drx0Q-00082y-No; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:03:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Drwry-00067i-0A; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:54:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03420; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrxJw-0003Ek-Fr; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:23:38 -0400 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 0314516C6; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:54:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:54:27 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.34] ([147.214.34.34]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:54:27 +0200 Message-ID: <42D25DF3.1000904@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:54:27 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Lennox Subject: Re: [AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] RE: Draft -04 of Comedia over TLSsubmitted.Ready for WGLC? References: <20050707160632.05BB8693M1@mxtreme1.EECS.Berkeley.EDU><17101.30921.48827.630095@cnr.cs.columbia.edu><42CE2749.70907@ericsson.com><17102.34892.865008.753397@cnr.cs.columbia.edu><580534F1-F812-4A7D-BBDA-4AA7B900C34B@csperkins.org> <17105.11240.703298.801389@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> In-Reply-To: <17105.11240.703298.801389@cnr.cs.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2005 11:54:27.0828 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A403340:01C5860F] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:03:25 -0400 Cc: lazzaro Lazzaro , Colin Perkins , IETF MMUSIC working group X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Yes, we shouldn't create undue delays for other specifications. However we shouldn't create unnecissarily many drafts either. However it might be best if someone could write a new draft on registering the RTP related ones. TCP/RTP/AVPF TCP/RTP/SAVP TCP/RTP/SAVPF TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF I think all of these should be useful. I will not press my case when it comes to TCP/TLS/RTP/SAVP(F). cheers Magnus Jonathan Lennox wrote: > On Sunday, July 10 2005, "Colin Perkins" wrote to "Jonathan Lennox, Magnus Westerlund, IETF MMUSIC working group, lazzaro Lazzaro" saying: > > >>[avt list bcc'd -- discussion on mmusic] > > > (And again, since I'm discussing a draft that would presumably be handled in > avt.) > > >>As an additional factor in the discussion, I note that the comedia- >>tls draft is normatively referenced by the MRCPv2 spec, which is >>nearing completion. I don't want to prevent useful additions to the >>comedia-tls draft, but we shouldn't add features with only >>theoretical usefulness if doing so will significantly delay a draft >>with present needs. > > > Oh, yes, definitely -- a definition of 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP' should be in a > separate draft from 'TCP/TLS', just as 'TCP/RTP/AVP' is separate from > 'TCP'. > > I imagine that AVT would probably be a better home for this latter draft, > since a) it's extending draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans, and b) it's in > the avt charter. > -- Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 11 15:50:24 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ds4IK-000647-Bd; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:50:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ds4I0-0005td-Dl; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:50:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15609; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ds4k2-0006Sc-JZ; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:19:03 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ds4Hx-0001R7-K8; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:50:01 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:50:01 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6 Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-02.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF. Title : Definition of Events For Modem, FAX, and Text Telephony Signals Author(s) : H. Schulzrinne, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-02.txt Pages : 46 Date : 2005-7-11 This memo updates RFC xxxx (currently draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-09) to add event codes for modem, FAX, and text telephony signals when carried in the telephony event RTP payload. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-02.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-11105712.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-11105712.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --NextPart-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 12 19:52:34 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsUYE-0007qT-1R; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:52:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsUYC-0007qJ-HP for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:52:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08880 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu ([128.8.129.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DsV0V-0004uG-6c for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:21:47 -0400 Received: from MINDLAP2 (bay2-13.dial.umd.edu [128.8.22.77]) (authenticated bits=0) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j6CNpufJ024546 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200507122352.j6CNpufJ024546@carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu> From: "Moustafa Youssef" To: Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:51:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 200d029292fbb60d25b263122ced50fc Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [AVT] 2nd CFP: 2nd IEEE Workshop on Dependability and Security in Sensor Networks and Systems X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org (Our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP) ------------------------------------------------------------- Second Call for Papers Second IEEE Workshop on Dependability and Security in Sensor Networks and Systems (DSSNS'2006) http://www.dssns.org In conjunction with 2nd NASA/IEEE Systems and Software Week 30th NASA/IEEE Software Engineering Workshop (SEW'2006) Columbia, Maryland, USA ~ April 24-28, 2006 Recently, there has been a growing interest in the potential use of networked sensors in applications such as smart environments,=20 disaster management, combat field reconnaissance, and security=20 surveillance. While the initial view of the community was that=20 networked sensors will play a complementary role that enhances=20 the quality of these applications, recent research results have=20 encouraged practitioners to envision an increased reliance on sensor=20 networks and systems (SN&S) in such critical and sensitive applications. Therefore to realize their potential, necessary dependability and=20 security (D&S) measures have to be incorporated in the design and=20 during the operation of SN&S. Dependability is usually specified=20 using attributes like reliability, survivability, safety, maintainability,=20 and availability in presence of failure, while security is specified by=20 attributes like integrity, authenticity, confidentiality, and availability=20 in presence of attacks. D&S services accomplish tasks for attack and failure prevention, detection and response. The scope of D&S services may span the deployed sensors to command nodes and likely beyond. It also=20 involves D&S support at, and cross-cutting, the protocol stack layers=20 from physical to application. Achieving dependability and security in SN&S will require non-conventional=20 mechanisms due to many factors including: (1) sensors are significantly constrained in the amount of available resources such as energy, storage and computation; (2) sensors are expected to be deployed in very large=20 numbers in normal as well as harsh/hostile environments; (3) sensor=20 networks suffer from structural weakness and limited physical protection,=20 and (4) localization of impact is complicated due to the un-tethered nature=20 of SN&S and of the potential attackers. In addition, D&S requirements may=20 vary according to mission defined over a multi-dimensional context, such as field of deployment (e.g., hostile versus friendly), type of=20 application (e.g., monitoring, tracking, data collection), mode of=20 operation (e.g., normal, exception, post-event recovery), and time. This workshop will foster a forum for discussing and presenting recent=20 research results on dependability and security in SN&S. Topics of interest=20 include, although not limited to, the following: - Fault and intrusion-tolerant architectures, middleware and operational models=20 - Robust routing, storage, and processing of sensed data - D&S architectures, protocols and tools - Vulnerabilities, attacks and countermeasures - Monitoring and evaluation techniques - Robust clustering techniques - Self-awareness and context-awareness=20 - Resilient virtual infrastructures - Autonomic and adaptive D&S support. - Formal representation and verification of D&S properties - Network inference support for D&S - Quality of service provisioning - Models, metrics, and measurements for D&S - Privacy-aware D&S services - Testbeds, simulation and visualization=20 - Agent-based D&S management=20 - SN&S support for D&S in larger information grids - SN&S application development environments Submission Guidelines --------------------- For guidelines regarding paper submission, please refer to the workshop=92s=20 website (http://www.dssns.org). Papers should contain original material=20 and not be previously published, or currently submitted for consideration=20 elsewhere. The manuscript should not exceed 20 single-column double-space=20 pages in PDF format, font size 11 or larger. The first page should include=20 title, authors' contact information, abstract and five keywords.=20 Important Dates ---------------- Submission deadline: November 7, 2005 Decision notification: December 20, 2005 Final manuscript due: January 20, 2006 The best paper will be recognized and selected papers will be invited to a Special Issue of the Journal of Ad Hoc and Sensor Wireless Networks.=20 Workshop Co-Chairs ------------------- Mohamed Eltoweissy Virginia Tech, USA E-mail: toweissy@vt.edu=20 Mohamed Younis University of Maryland Baltimore County, USA E-mail: younis@csee.umbc.edu=20 Publicity Co-Chairs -------------------- Denis Gracanin Virginia Tech, USA E-mail: gracanin@vt.edu Moustafa Youssef University of Maryland at College Park, USA E-mail: moustafa@cs.umd.edu=20 Program Committee ------------------ Farooq Anjum, Telcordia & U. of Penn, USA David Carman, Johns Hopkins U.=96 Applied Physics Lab, USA Ing-Ray Chen, Virginia Tech, USA M. Nazih Elderini, Alexandria U, Egypt Deborah Frincke, Pacific Northwest National Lab and U. of Idaho, USA Sushil Jajodia, George Mason U., USA Shivakant Mishra, U. of Colorado, USA Peng Ning, North Carolina State U., USA Cristina Nita-Rotaru, Purdue U., USA Stephan Olariu, Old Dominion U., USA David Simplot-Ryl, U. Lille, INRIA Futurs, France Mani B. Srivastava, U. of California =96 Los Angeles, USA John A. Stankovic, U. of Virginia, USA Ivan Stojmenovic, U. of Ottawa, Canada Gene Tsudik, U. of California-Irvine, USA Cliff Wang, Army Research Office, USA Stephen D. Wolthusen, Fraunhofer-IGD, Germany Albert Zomaya, U. of Sydney, Australia _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 13 10:50:32 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsiZE-0007bu-JV; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:50:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsiYm-0007ER-35; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:50:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13132; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dsj1B-0003Jo-E0; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:19:26 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DsiYk-0000zu-3k; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:50:02 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:50:02 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF. Title : MIME Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats Author(s) : S. Casner, P. Hoschka Filename : draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt Pages : 41 Date : 2005-7-13 This document defines the procedure to register RTP Payload Formats as audio, video or other MIME subtype names. This is useful in a text-based format or control protocol to identify the type of an RTP transmission. This document also registers all the RTP payload formats defined in the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences as MIME subtypes. Some of these may also be used for transfer modes other than RTP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-13102254.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-13102254.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --NextPart-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 13 13:45:04 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DslI8-00028b-6f; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:45:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DslI6-00027q-Bu for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:45:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06464 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx.cbeyond.net ([66.180.96.58] helo=mx.cbeyond.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DslkV-0004i8-C2 for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:14:26 -0400 Received: from [64.238.103.215] (port=1644 helo=telws116) by mx.cbeyond.com with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DslHz-0003tk-TI for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:44:56 -0400 From: "Alan Clark" To: "Avt@Ietf. Org" Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:44:55 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [AVT] RTCP XR - "high resolution metrics" draft X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org A new I-D has been submitted and is now available in the Internet Drafts database http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-clark-avt-rtcpxr-bis-00.txt This is an extended version of the draft informally presented by Amy Pendleton at the last AVT meeting. The draft describes a high resolution VoIP metrics block that aligns fairly closely with other work in this area. Existing RTCP XR VoIP metrics may not provide the granularity needed for some backbone VoIP services and hence this draft is a useful complement to RFC3611. In addition, jitter metrics have been included - one of which is a percentile based metric (i.e. what proportion of packets arrived within a threshold jitter level). The draft also allows the algorithm used for call quality calculation to be reported, and provides a more detailed set of payload related data. Alan Clark Telchemy _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 14 03:24:10 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dsy4o-00018O-MK; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:24:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dsy4n-00018H-2n for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:24:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12471 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DsyXL-0003kC-Gf for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:53:40 -0400 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.120]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id A75E14F000A for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:23:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:23:50 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.34] ([147.214.34.34]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:23:50 +0200 Message-ID: <42D61304.9060901@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:23:48 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF AVT WG Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020003050500090207040300" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jul 2005 07:23:50.0466 (UTC) FILETIME=[FB44A220:01C58844] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9cc83ac38bbbabacbf00f656311dd8d8 Subject: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt] X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020003050500090207040300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, This draft seem to relate to AVT. Cheers Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com --------------020003050500090207040300 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="I-D ACTION:draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="I-D ACTION:draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt" X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Received: from esealmw115.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.6]) by esealmw103.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:20:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C587E8.4A619A00" Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by esealmw115.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:20:19 +0200 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([130.100.184.163]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:20:19 +0200 Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.59]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:20:18 +0200 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id D1BE24F5; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:20:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsnFt-0003Qw-4J; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:50:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsnF9-0003Ac-T0 for i-d-announce@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:50:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15536 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:50:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DsnhY-0000NG-4G for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:19:30 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DsnF4-0003Zx-5G for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:50:02 -0400 Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jul 2005 20:20:18.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[4979AB00:01C587E8] Errors-To: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) List-Post: List-Id: i-d-announce.ietf.org X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:50:02 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt Thread-Index: AcWH6EqJ35lCM7wiQSajcmWnv/zB4g== List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , From: Sender: To: Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C587E8.4A619A00 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C587E8.4A619A00" ------_=_NextPart_002_01C587E8.4A619A00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. Title : RTP Payload Format for ECN Probing Author(s) : C. Alexander, J. Babiarz Filename : draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2005-7-13 =09 This memo defines a Real Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload format for use when probing for congestion using Explicit Congestion Detection (ECN). This payload format is intended for use with the probing mechanisms described in draft "Real-time ECN Use Cases". While defined in terms of the specific application of admission control, it is desirable to overlay this format with other probing mechanisms so as to reduce the number of probing packet formats. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-p= robing-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to=20 i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of = the message. =20 You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce=20 to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the = username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html=20 or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE = /internet-drafts/draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt". =09 NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. =09 =09 Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ------_=_NextPart_002_01C587E8.4A619A00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I-D ACTION:draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt =

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line = Internet-Drafts directories.


        Title   =         : RTP Payload Format for ECN = Probing
        = Author(s)       : C. Alexander, J. = Babiarz
        = Filename        : = draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt
        Pages   =         : 17
        Date    =         : 2005-7-13
       
This memo defines a Real Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload = format
   for use when probing for congestion using Explicit = Congestion
   Detection (ECN).  This payload format is intended for = use with the
   probing mechanisms described in draft "Real-time ECN = Use Cases".
   While defined in terms of the specific application of = admission
   control, it is desirable to overlay this format with other = probing
   mechanisms so as to reduce the number of probing packet = formats.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alexande= r-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of = the message. 
You can also visit https://www1= .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the = username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After = logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
        "get = draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html<= /A>
or
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/iet= f/1shadow-sites.txt


Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
        mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
        "FILE = /internet-drafts/draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt"= .
       
NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document = in
        MIME-encoded form by using = the "mpack" utility.  To use this
        feature, insert the command = "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
        command.  To decode the = response(s), you will need "munpack" or
        a MIME-compliant mail = reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
        exhibit different behavior, = especially when dealing with
        "multipart" MIME = messages (i.e. documents which have been split
        up into multiple messages), = so check your local documentation on
        how to manipulate these = messages.
        =        
        =        
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

------_=_NextPart_002_01C587E8.4A619A00-- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C587E8.4A619A00 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="ATT822913.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: ATT822913.TXT Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT822913.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Q29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBNZXNzYWdlL0V4dGVybmFsLWJvZHk7IGFjY2Vzcy10eXBlPSJtYWlsLXNl cnZlciI7DQoJc2VydmVyPSJtYWlsc2VydkBpZXRmLm9yZyINCg0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0 L3BsYWluDQpDb250ZW50LUlEOiA8MjAwNS03LTEzMTI1NDMwLkktREBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCg0KRU5D T0RJTkcgbWltZQ0KRklMRSAvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWFsZXhhbmRlci1ydHAtcGF5 bG9hZC1mb3ItZWNuLXByb2JpbmctMDEudHh0DQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C587E8.4A619A00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; name="draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RklMRSBERUxFVEVEDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KV2FybmluZyENCg0KVGhlIGF0dGFjaGVkIGZp bGUgZHJhZnQtYWxleGFuZGVyLXJ0cC1wYXlsb2FkLWZvci1lY24tcHJvYmluZy0wMS5VUkwgaGFz IG5vdCBiZWVuIGRlbGl2ZXJlZC4NCg0KVGhlIHJlYXNvbiBpcyBkdWUgdG8gdGhlIEZJTEUgRklM VEVSPSAqLnVybCBvbiBtYWlsc2VydmVyIEVTRUFMTVcxMjcuDQoNClBsZWFzZSBjb250YWN0IElU IFNlcnZpY2UgRGVzayBpZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBmdXJ0aGVyIHF1ZXN0aW9ucy4NCg0KSFA= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C587E8.4A619A00 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT822914.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: ATT822914.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT822914.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkktRC1Bbm5v dW5jZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCkktRC1Bbm5vdW5jZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cxLmll dGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaS1kLWFubm91bmNlDQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C587E8.4A619A00-- --------------020003050500090207040300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --------------020003050500090207040300-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 14 03:28:03 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dsy8Z-00020C-GS; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:28:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dsy8W-0001ux-Sb for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:28:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12763 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:27:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dsyb4-0003tq-5O for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:57:32 -0400 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.120]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id EA767798 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:27:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:27:05 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.34] ([147.214.34.34]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:27:05 +0200 Message-ID: <42D613C9.10107@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:27:05 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF AVT WG Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070806040201040507070802" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jul 2005 07:27:05.0653 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F9BCE50:01C58845] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Scan-Signature: e16ce0269ccb2f59707d16700199d13b Subject: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt] X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070806040201040507070802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I would like to make everybody in AVT aware of this draft. It proposes solutions to the codec control that has previously been discussed a number of times. The latest input in the debate was Andrea Basso's draft about requirements. We will discuss it and its open issues in Paris. Cheers Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com --------------070806040201040507070802 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="I-D ACTION:draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="I-D ACTION:draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt" X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Received: from esealmw112.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.3]) by esealmw103.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:39:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C587EA.EAB8BE00" Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by esealmw112.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:39:08 +0200 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([130.100.184.162]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:39:08 +0200 Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.59]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:39:07 +0200 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 6D27950F; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:39:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsnFV-0003KN-Fq; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:50:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsnF7-00035y-A5 for i-d-announce@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:50:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15494 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DsnhX-0000Mp-KA for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:19:28 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DsnF3-0003YU-Kv for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:50:01 -0400 Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jul 2005 20:39:07.0287 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA4BF270:01C587EA] Errors-To: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) List-Post: List-Id: i-d-announce.ietf.org X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:50:01 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt Thread-Index: AcWH6usznmLgA89uRwmgVVi/Grc9Mw== List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , From: Sender: To: Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C587EA.EAB8BE00 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C587EA.EAB8BE00" ------_=_NextPart_002_01C587EA.EAB8BE00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. Title : Codec Control Messages in the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF) Author(s) : S. Wenger, et al. Filename : draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt Pages : 34 Date : 2005-7-13 =09 This document specifies a few extensions to the messages defined in the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF). They are useful primarily in conversational multimedia scenarios where centralized multipoint functionalities are in use. However some are also usable in smaller multicast environments and point-to-point calls. The extensions discussed are Full Intra Request, Freeze Request, Temporary Maximum Media Bit-rate and Temporal Spatial Tradeoff. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to=20 i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of = the message. =20 You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce=20 to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the = username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html=20 or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt". =09 NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. =09 =09 Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ------_=_NextPart_002_01C587EA.EAB8BE00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I-D ACTION:draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line = Internet-Drafts directories.


        Title   =         : Codec Control Messages in = the Audio-Visual
            &= nbsp;           &n= bsp; Profile with Feedback (AVPF)
        = Author(s)       : S. Wenger, et al.
        = Filename        : = draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt
        Pages   =         : 34
        Date    =         : 2005-7-13
       
   This document specifies a few extensions to the messages = defined in
   the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF).  They = are useful
   primarily in conversational multimedia scenarios where = centralized
   multipoint functionalities are in use. However some are = also usable
   in smaller multicast environments and point-to-point calls. = The
   extensions discussed are Full Intra Request, Freeze = Request,
   Temporary Maximum Media Bit-rate and Temporal Spatial = Tradeoff.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt=

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of = the message. 
You can also visit https://www1= .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the = username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After = logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
        "get = draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html<= /A>
or
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/iet= f/1shadow-sites.txt


Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
        mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
        "FILE = /internet-drafts/draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt".
       
NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document = in
        MIME-encoded form by using = the "mpack" utility.  To use this
        feature, insert the command = "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
        command.  To decode the = response(s), you will need "munpack" or
        a MIME-compliant mail = reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
        exhibit different behavior, = especially when dealing with
        "multipart" MIME = messages (i.e. documents which have been split
        up into multiple messages), = so check your local documentation on
        how to manipulate these = messages.
        =        
        =        
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

------_=_NextPart_002_01C587EA.EAB8BE00-- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C587EA.EAB8BE00 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="ATT823125.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: ATT823125.TXT Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT823125.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Q29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBNZXNzYWdlL0V4dGVybmFsLWJvZHk7IGFjY2Vzcy10eXBlPSJtYWlsLXNl cnZlciI7DQoJc2VydmVyPSJtYWlsc2VydkBpZXRmLm9yZyINCg0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0 L3BsYWluDQpDb250ZW50LUlEOiA8MjAwNS03LTEzMTEwODEzLkktREBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCg0KRU5D T0RJTkcgbWltZQ0KRklMRSAvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LXdlbmdlci1hdnQtYXZwZi1j Y20tMDAudHh0DQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C587EA.EAB8BE00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; name="draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RklMRSBERUxFVEVEDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KV2FybmluZyENCg0KVGhlIGF0dGFjaGVkIGZp bGUgZHJhZnQtd2VuZ2VyLWF2dC1hdnBmLWNjbS0wMC5VUkwgaGFzIG5vdCBiZWVuIGRlbGl2ZXJl ZC4NCg0KVGhlIHJlYXNvbiBpcyBkdWUgdG8gdGhlIEZJTEUgRklMVEVSPSAqLnVybCBvbiBtYWls c2VydmVyIEVTRUFMTVcxMjcuDQoNClBsZWFzZSBjb250YWN0IElUIFNlcnZpY2UgRGVzayBpZiB5 b3UgaGF2ZSBmdXJ0aGVyIHF1ZXN0aW9ucy4NCg0KSFA= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C587EA.EAB8BE00 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT823126.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: ATT823126.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT823126.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkktRC1Bbm5v dW5jZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCkktRC1Bbm5vdW5jZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cxLmll dGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaS1kLWFubm91bmNlDQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C587EA.EAB8BE00-- --------------070806040201040507070802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --------------070806040201040507070802-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 14 03:42:47 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsyMp-0002Sv-KN; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:42:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsyMn-0002Sn-T9; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:42:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13837; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DsypN-0004g7-7l; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 04:12:17 -0400 Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 93B77B83; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:42:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.172]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:42:28 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.34] ([147.214.34.34]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:42:27 +0200 Message-ID: <42D61763.20704@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:42:27 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF AVT WG , rmt@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jul 2005 07:42:27.0958 (UTC) FILETIME=[95586160:01C58847] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephan.Wenger@nokia.com Subject: [AVT] Proposed FEC Streaming Framework X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: tsvwg@ietf.org List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org All, The below messge was sent to TSVWG. If you have comments on this please respond to us author or the TSVWG. /Magnus Westerlund ----- A few of us have been working on a framework for FEC protection of streaming media, based on some work done recently in 3GPP and making use of the FEC Building Block defined by RMT (so that the framework is not specific to a particular FEC code). This proposal is described in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-watson-tsvwg-fec-sf-00.txt. Although intended primarily for streaming, it is not specific to RTP, defining instead an FEC protection layer above UDP, which can protect a set of several UDP flows. Since the proposal is not specific to either multicast or RTP, we are bringing it first to TSVWG, rather than RMT or AVT. It will be discussed at the Paris meeting, so please put it on your reading list. The questions for the TSVWG are (at least): 1) is the objective of extending the RMT FEC Building Block framework to streaming a good one ? 2) is this a good approach to that objective ? 3) what is the relationship with the ULP work in AVT ? 4) whether the proposal should best be progressed in AVT (where there is streaming expertise), in RMT (where there is FEC expertise) or in TSVWG ? Regards, Mark Watson Digital Fountain _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 14 14:42:13 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dt8ez-0006P9-F4; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:42:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dt8ey-0006P4-BJ for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:42:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08109 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dt97c-00068b-J4 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:11:49 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:62082 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1Dt8en-00082b-J4 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:42:01 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: IETF AVT WG From: Colin Perkins Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:41:58 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [AVT] IPR rules - read before submitting a draft X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Folks, A reminder that the boilerplate text required at the start of all internet drafts has changed recently. You MUST ensure all drafts you submit conform to the terms in RFC 3978, otherwise the secretariat will reject your submission. Specifically: * All Internet-Drafts must have on the first page an intellectual property rights (IPR) statement that says: 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. If you are using xml2rfc, this can be accomplished by updating the 'ipr' attribute in the 'rfc' element to refer to 3978. See http://xml.resource.org/authoring/draft-mrose-writing-rfcs.html#ipr for more information. * All Internet-Drafts must include the following statement: Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). * All Internet-Drafts must include the following statement: 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. * All Internet-Drafts must include the following statement: 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 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. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 14 15:52:48 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dt9lI-0000Ip-08; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:52:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dt9iu-0007k4-Rp; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:50:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13791; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:50:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtABN-0008Qq-3m; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:19:48 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Dt9id-0006Ev-Et; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:50:03 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:50:03 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1 Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF. Title : RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) VoIP Metrics Management Information Base Author(s) : A. Clark, A. Pendleton Filename : draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02.txt Pages : 46 Date : 2005-7-14 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it defines objects for managing Real-Time Transport Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) VoIP Metrics (RFC3611). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-14124246.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-14124246.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --NextPart-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 15 04:39:53 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtLjd-0001tx-E4; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:39:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtLjb-0001te-8y for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:39:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14878 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:39:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtMCM-0006qk-Sn for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 05:09:36 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:63069 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DtLjQ-0008Eo-G9 for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:39:40 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:39:35 +0100 To: IETF AVT WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [AVT] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-perkins-avt-uncomp-video-ext-00.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Begin forwarded message: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : RTP Payload Format for Uncompressed Video: > Additional Colour Sampling Modes > Author(s) : C. Perkins > Filename : draft-perkins-avt-uncomp-video-ext-00.txt > Pages : 5 > Date : 2005-7-12 > > This memo extends the RTP Payload Format for Uncompressed Video to > support additional RGB sampling modes. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-perkins-avt-uncomp-video- > ext-00.txt This is a strawman proposal for some extensions to the uncompressed video format. Comments welcome. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 15 08:04:46 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtOvt-0004I5-Tn; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:04:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtOvr-0004I0-4W for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:04:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28888 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ranger.electric.net ([216.129.90.29]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtPOc-0005vQ-6x for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:34:29 -0400 Received: from root by ranger.electric.net with emc1-ok (Exim 4.24) id 1DtOvG-0008DD-UQ for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 05:04:06 -0700 Received: by emcmailer; Fri, Jul 15 2005 05:04:06 -0700 Received: from [64.69.103.254] (helo=mailhost.newtecamerica.com) by ranger.electric.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DtOvF-0008Cq-V6 for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 05:04:05 -0700 Received: from [192.168.16.28] ([192.168.16.28]) by mailhost.newtecamerica.com; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:03:58 -0500 Message-ID: <42D7A62C.7000004@newtecamerica.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:03:56 -0400 From: Girish Chandran User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: avt@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Checker-Version: GEE Whiz 2.0 b1624 X-Spam-Score: 0.00/4.00 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Checker-Version: GEE Whiz 2.0 b1624 X-Spam-Score: 0.00/4.00 X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (s) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf3becbbd6d1a45acbe2ffd4ab88bdc2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [AVT] Re: avt Digest, Vol 15, Issue 16 X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Pro-MPEG forum has also done some work on FEC for streamed media. Girish Chandran avt-request@ietf.org wrote: >Send avt mailing list submissions to > avt@ietf.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > avt-request@ietf.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > avt-owner@ietf.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of avt digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Proposed FEC Streaming Framework (Magnus Westerlund) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:42:27 +0200 >From: Magnus Westerlund >Subject: [AVT] Proposed FEC Streaming Framework >To: IETF AVT WG , rmt@ietf.org >Cc: Stephan.Wenger@nokia.com >Message-ID: <42D61763.20704@ericsson.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed > >All, > >The below messge was sent to TSVWG. If you have comments on this please >respond to us author or the TSVWG. > >/Magnus Westerlund > >----- > >A few of us have been working on a framework for FEC protection of >streaming media, based on some work done recently in 3GPP and making use >of the FEC Building Block defined by RMT (so that the framework is not >specific to a particular FEC code). > >This proposal is described in >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-watson-tsvwg-fec-sf-00.txt. >Although intended primarily for streaming, it is not specific to RTP, >defining instead an FEC protection layer above UDP, which can protect a >set of several UDP flows. > >Since the proposal is not specific to either multicast or RTP, we are >bringing it first to TSVWG, rather than RMT or AVT. It will be discussed >at the Paris meeting, so please put it on your reading list. > >The questions for the TSVWG are (at least): >1) is the objective of extending the RMT FEC Building Block framework to >streaming a good one ? >2) is this a good approach to that objective ? >3) what is the relationship with the ULP work in AVT ? >4) whether the proposal should best be progressed in AVT (where there is >streaming expertise), in RMT (where there is FEC expertise) or in TSVWG >? > >Regards, > >Mark Watson >Digital Fountain > > > > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Audio/Video Transport Working Group >avt@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > > >End of avt Digest, Vol 15, Issue 16 >*********************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 15 08:19:01 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtP9h-0003JD-SZ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtP9g-0003Fc-7b for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:19:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29937 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtPcT-0006Ru-Vv for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:48:47 -0400 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 89052B15; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:18:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:18:46 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.34] ([147.214.34.34]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:18:46 +0200 Message-ID: <42D7A9A5.7000704@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:18:45 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Girish Chandran , IETF AVT WG Subject: Re: [AVT] Re: avt Digest, Vol 15, Issue 16 was Proposed FEC Streaming Framework References: <42D7A62C.7000004@newtecamerica.com> In-Reply-To: <42D7A62C.7000004@newtecamerica.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jul 2005 12:18:46.0177 (UTC) FILETIME=[59259910:01C58937] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Girish Chandran wrote: > Pro-MPEG forum has also done some work on FEC for streamed media. > > > Girish Chandran Hi, Thanks for the notice, could you please provide a more complete reference. Preferable an link to the document(s) that specify this solution? I would also like to ask you all kindly that receives the mails per digest. When responding, please change the subject to what the relevant email you are responding to had. Thanks Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 15 16:20:29 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtWfd-0007yt-BG; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:20:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtWfc-0007ve-4e for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:20:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22681 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:20:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from visor.electric.net ([216.129.90.30]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtX8O-0003kK-5W for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:50:15 -0400 Received: from root by visor.electric.net with emc1-ok (Exim 4.24) id 1DtWfQ-0001fN-Tf for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:20:16 -0700 Received: by emcmailer; Fri, Jul 15 2005 13:20:16 -0700 Received: from [64.69.103.254] (helo=mailhost.newtecamerica.com) by visor.electric.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DtWfP-0001ex-UB for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:20:15 -0700 Received: from [192.168.16.28] ([192.168.16.28]) by mailhost.newtecamerica.com; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:19:51 -0500 Message-ID: <42D81A65.5060207@newtecamerica.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:19:49 -0400 From: Girish Chandran User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Magnus Westerlund References: <42D7A62C.7000004@newtecamerica.com> <42D7A9A5.7000704@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <42D7A9A5.7000704@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Checker-Version: GEE Whiz 2.0 b1624 X-Spam-Score: 0.00/4.00 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Checker-Version: GEE Whiz 2.0 b1624 X-Spam-Score: 0.00/4.00 X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (s) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF AVT WG Subject: [AVT] Proposed FEC Streaming Framework X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hello Magnus, Here is a reference. http://www.pro-mpeg.org/publications/pdf/Vid-on-IP-CoP3-r2.pdf It may also be useful to look at some of the other codes of practice for transport of MPEG over IP. http://www.pro-mpeg.org under the publications tab. Girish Chandran Newtec America, Inc. 1055 Washington Blvd. Stamford, CT 06901 USA Tel: 203.323.0042 www.newtecamerica.com Magnus Westerlund wrote: > Girish Chandran wrote: > >> Pro-MPEG forum has also done some work on FEC for streamed media. >> >> >> Girish Chandran > > > Hi, > > Thanks for the notice, could you please provide a more complete > reference. Preferable an link to the document(s) that specify this > solution? > > I would also like to ask you all kindly that receives the mails per > digest. When responding, please change the subject to what the > relevant email you are responding to had. > > Thanks > > Magnus Westerlund > > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 > Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 > S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 16 18:54:50 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtvYY-0005S8-0c; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:54:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtvYV-0005Rx-VU for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:54:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07270 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:54:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rrcs-24-199-146-6.midsouth.biz.rr.com ([24.199.146.6] helo=berlin.arid.us ident=system) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dtw1Z-0006L6-C2 for avt@ietf.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:24:52 -0400 Received: from madrid (madrid.arid.us [192.168.1.10]) by berlin.arid.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6GMsOSA004550; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:54:24 -0400 Message-Id: <200507162254.j6GMsOSA004550@berlin.arid.us> From: "Paul E. Jones" To: "'Vladimir Ulybin'" , "'Colin Perkins'" Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:53:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD6011A059D@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcWAdVcEdc3rCQYPRKiN3Atvb0ZodgAALpjwAniuk3A= X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Vladimir, I apologize that I missed much of this discussion while I was traveling. The bottom line on this, though, is that T.38 over RTP should use whatever mechanisms are defined in the IETF for redundancy or FEC. This might include RFC 2198, RFC 2733, or other tools that come along. It's also expected that this will be the means by which security is provided for fax (SRTP). Is there a problem you see that is specific to fax? Timing is certainly an issue, but the delay should be no worse than UDPTL. However, if there is a flaw somewhere, we should fix it sooner than later. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Vladimir Ulybin > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 5:59 AM > To: Colin Perkins > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: > >> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > >> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new > >> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is > >> repeated. > > Colin Perkins wrote: > > Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the sequence > > numbers to be unique. > > 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 as a > basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. > 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does not use > SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC 2833bis > were the MUST is used). > 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to the same fax signal state > or the same binary data cannot be considered as unique. > 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The blind > assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full compatible > with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, because > gateways may not repeat fax packets. > 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the > only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted RTCP > statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than to > loose connection during fax relay. > > Regards, > Vladimir Ulybin > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 17 02:06:04 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Du2Hs-0004ds-Dv; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:06:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Du2Ho-0004dk-H6 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:06:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA28569 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:05:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Du2ku-0002Mb-5g for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:36:06 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:06:05 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126E3BA@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWAdVcEdc3rCQYPRKiN3Atvb0ZodgAALpjwAniuk3AADKWiIA== From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: "Paul E. Jones" , "Colin Perkins" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1b0e72ff1bbd457ceef31828f216a86 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Paul, Finally, for resending of T.38 packets over RTP, Colin suggested us to use FEC per RFC 2733 or new retransmission protocol. Both ways present optional features which may not be supported by gateways. Basic configuration for T.38 over RTP is a basic RFC 3550 plus redundancy per RFC 2198. This configuration has limited capabilities vs. T.38 UDPTL to improve reliability of fax transport, if gateways do not resend = (=3D=3Dduplicate) fax packets, refer to explanation that I done in previous e-mails. The other open issue for T.38 over RTP is the time stamps for redundant fax packets. The T.38 implementations are not dependant on time stamps. So, the time offset fields required per RFC 2198 for redundant fax payloads are absolutely usefulness. There is no problem to ignore these fields on receiving, but transmitting accurate offsets requires additional resources in gateways. Regards, Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]=20 Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:53 AM To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Vladimir, I apologize that I missed much of this discussion while I was traveling. The bottom line on this, though, is that T.38 over RTP should use whatever mechanisms are defined in the IETF for redundancy or FEC. This might include RFC 2198, RFC 2733, or other tools that come along. It's also expected that this will be the means by which security is provided for fax (SRTP). Is there a problem you see that is specific to fax? Timing is certainly an issue, but the delay should be no worse than UDPTL. However, if there is a flaw somewhere, we should fix it sooner than later. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Vladimir Ulybin > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 5:59 AM > To: Colin Perkins > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number >=20 > On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: > >> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > >> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new > >> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is > >> repeated. >=20 > Colin Perkins wrote: > > Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the sequence > > numbers to be unique. >=20 > 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 as a > basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. > 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does not use > SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC 2833bis > were the MUST is used). > 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to the same fax signal state > or the same binary data cannot be considered as unique. > 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The blind > assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full compatible > with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, because > gateways may not repeat fax packets. > 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the > only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted RTCP > statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than to > loose connection during fax relay. >=20 > Regards, > Vladimir Ulybin >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 17 02:12:58 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Du2MI-0006Xb-Da; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:10:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Du2MF-0006Vp-Ua for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:10:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03008 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Du2pQ-0002Z5-9Q for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:40:44 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:11:02 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126E3C4@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWAdVcEdc3rCQYPRKiN3Atvb0ZodgAALpjwAniuk3AADKWiIAACp4ng From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: "Paul E. Jones" , "Colin Perkins" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1676547e4f33b5e63227e9c02bd359e3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Sorry for type mistake: Instead of "Both ways present optional features which may not be supported by gateways." Should be "Both ways present optional features which possibly are not supported by gateways." Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Vladimir Ulybin=20 Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 9:06 AM To: 'Paul E. Jones'; 'Colin Perkins' Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Paul, Finally, for resending of T.38 packets over RTP, Colin suggested us to use FEC per RFC 2733 or new retransmission protocol. Both ways present optional features which may not be supported by gateways. Basic configuration for T.38 over RTP is a basic RFC 3550 plus redundancy per RFC 2198. This configuration has limited capabilities vs. T.38 UDPTL to improve reliability of fax transport, if gateways do not resend = (=3D=3Dduplicate) fax packets, refer to explanation that I done in previous e-mails. The other open issue for T.38 over RTP is the time stamps for redundant fax packets. The T.38 implementations are not dependant on time stamps. So, the time offset fields required per RFC 2198 for redundant fax payloads are absolutely usefulness. There is no problem to ignore these fields on receiving, but transmitting accurate offsets requires additional resources in gateways. Regards, Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]=20 Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:53 AM To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Vladimir, I apologize that I missed much of this discussion while I was traveling. The bottom line on this, though, is that T.38 over RTP should use whatever mechanisms are defined in the IETF for redundancy or FEC. This might include RFC 2198, RFC 2733, or other tools that come along. It's also expected that this will be the means by which security is provided for fax (SRTP). Is there a problem you see that is specific to fax? Timing is certainly an issue, but the delay should be no worse than UDPTL. However, if there is a flaw somewhere, we should fix it sooner than later. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Vladimir Ulybin > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 5:59 AM > To: Colin Perkins > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number >=20 > On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: > >> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > >> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new > >> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is > >> repeated. >=20 > Colin Perkins wrote: > > Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the sequence > > numbers to be unique. >=20 > 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 as a > basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. > 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does not use > SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC 2833bis > were the MUST is used). > 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to the same fax signal state > or the same binary data cannot be considered as unique. > 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The blind > assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full compatible > with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, because > gateways may not repeat fax packets. > 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the > only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted RTCP > statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than to > loose connection during fax relay. >=20 > Regards, > Vladimir Ulybin >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 17 23:16:39 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuM7S-0000Nf-W2; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuM7P-0000NZ-BP for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13575 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rrcs-24-199-146-6.midsouth.biz.rr.com ([24.199.146.6] helo=berlin.arid.us ident=system) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DuMak-0002cg-T6 for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:46:55 -0400 Received: from madrid (madrid.arid.us [192.168.1.10]) by berlin.arid.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6I3GISA017672; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:18 -0400 Message-Id: <200507180316.j6I3GISA017672@berlin.arid.us> From: "Paul E. Jones" To: "'Vladimir Ulybin'" , "'Colin Perkins'" Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:17:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126E3BA@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcWAdVcEdc3rCQYPRKiN3Atvb0ZodgAALpjwAniuk3AADKWiIAAuyJ8A X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 22bbb45ef41b733eb2d03ee71ece8243 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Vladimir, T.38 (2004) addresses the transport of T.38 over RTP and does not say that RFC 2198 is the basic configuration. Both RFC 2198 and RFC 2733 are suggested as possible choices for protecting the media stream. While T.38 data may not have the same kind of timing as, say, an audio codec, the fact that it is placed into a media stream means it needs a clock. The draft I wrote suggests the use of an 8000hz clock or one that matches the primary audio codec. In any case, the timing information would be meaningful. In theory, one would not play out packets so quickly that a redundant piece of information received one or two packets later would be too old to be useful. In any case, you are certainly free to use RFC 2198 or RFC 2733. Most people I've talked to prefer RFC 2198, simply because of the computational complexity introduced by RFC 2733. With that said, I've certainly not talked to every GW maker in the world ;-) Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Ulybin [mailto:Vladimir@audiocodes.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 2:06 AM > To: Paul E. Jones; Colin Perkins > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > Paul, > > Finally, for resending of T.38 packets over RTP, Colin suggested us to > use FEC per RFC 2733 or new retransmission protocol. Both ways present > optional features which may not be supported by gateways. > > Basic configuration for T.38 over RTP is a basic RFC 3550 plus > redundancy per RFC 2198. > > This configuration has limited capabilities vs. T.38 UDPTL to improve > reliability of fax transport, if gateways do not resend (==duplicate) > fax packets, refer to explanation that I done in previous e-mails. > > The other open issue for T.38 over RTP is the time stamps for redundant > fax packets. The T.38 implementations are not dependant on time stamps. > So, the time offset fields required per RFC 2198 for redundant fax > payloads are absolutely usefulness. There is no problem to ignore these > fields on receiving, but transmitting accurate offsets requires > additional resources in gateways. > > Regards, > Vladimir Ulybin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:53 AM > To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > Vladimir, > > I apologize that I missed much of this discussion while I was traveling. > > The bottom line on this, though, is that T.38 over RTP should use > whatever > mechanisms are defined in the IETF for redundancy or FEC. This might > include RFC 2198, RFC 2733, or other tools that come along. It's also > expected that this will be the means by which security is provided for > fax > (SRTP). > > Is there a problem you see that is specific to fax? Timing is certainly > an > issue, but the delay should be no worse than UDPTL. However, if there > is a > flaw somewhere, we should fix it sooner than later. > > Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Vladimir Ulybin > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 5:59 AM > > To: Colin Perkins > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: > > >> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > > >> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new > > >> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is > > >> repeated. > > > > Colin Perkins wrote: > > > Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the sequence > > > numbers to be unique. > > > > 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 as > a > > basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. > > 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does not > use > > SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC > 2833bis > > were the MUST is used). > > 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to the same fax signal > state > > or the same binary data cannot be considered as unique. > > 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The > blind > > assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full compatible > > with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, > because > > gateways may not repeat fax packets. > > 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the > > only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted RTCP > > statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than to > > loose connection during fax relay. > > > > Regards, > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > > avt@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 18 02:38:20 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuPGe-0007vO-Kc; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:38:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuPGd-0007vI-IE for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:38:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14204 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DuPjy-00060F-4W for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 03:08:40 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:38:21 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126E6D6@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWAdVcEdc3rCQYPRKiN3Atvb0ZodgAALpjwAniuk3AADKWiIAAuyJ8AAASU3nA= From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: "Paul E. Jones" , "Colin Perkins" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2a76bcd37b1c8a21336eb0a1ea6bbf48 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Paul, The term "basic configuration" for RFC 3550 plus redundancy per RFC 2198 should be replaced on "typical configuration". I assumed the same as you, that most gateways support this. As for the time stamps for redundant fax packets, the theory case given is not relevant for T.38. 1. The ITU-T T.38 itself does not uses any time stamps both for redundant and primary packets. T.38 gateways transmitting fax signals should care about compatibility with T.30 but not with time stamps received from a remote gateway. The only important things are the content of fax packets and the real-time of receiving. 2. We say about new feature of T.38 over RTP which is to be added to existing (=3D=3Dworking) T.38 UDPTL. My suggestion is to reserve (zero) time stamps for redundant packets when sending T.38 over RTP. Regards, Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]=20 Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 6:17 AM To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Vladimir, T.38 (2004) addresses the transport of T.38 over RTP and does not say that RFC 2198 is the basic configuration. Both RFC 2198 and RFC 2733 are suggested as possible choices for protecting the media stream. While T.38 data may not have the same kind of timing as, say, an audio codec, the fact that it is placed into a media stream means it needs a clock. The draft I wrote suggests the use of an 8000hz clock or one that matches the primary audio codec. In any case, the timing information would be meaningful. In theory, one would not play out packets so quickly that a redundant piece of information received one or two packets later would be too old to be useful. In any case, you are certainly free to use RFC 2198 or RFC 2733. Most people I've talked to prefer RFC 2198, simply because of the computational complexity introduced by RFC 2733. With that said, I've certainly not talked to every GW maker in the world ;-) Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Ulybin [mailto:Vladimir@audiocodes.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 2:06 AM > To: Paul E. Jones; Colin Perkins > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number >=20 > Paul, >=20 > Finally, for resending of T.38 packets over RTP, Colin suggested us to > use FEC per RFC 2733 or new retransmission protocol. Both ways present > optional features which may not be supported by gateways. >=20 > Basic configuration for T.38 over RTP is a basic RFC 3550 plus > redundancy per RFC 2198. >=20 > This configuration has limited capabilities vs. T.38 UDPTL to improve > reliability of fax transport, if gateways do not resend = (=3D=3Dduplicate) > fax packets, refer to explanation that I done in previous e-mails. >=20 > The other open issue for T.38 over RTP is the time stamps for redundant > fax packets. The T.38 implementations are not dependant on time stamps. > So, the time offset fields required per RFC 2198 for redundant fax > payloads are absolutely usefulness. There is no problem to ignore these > fields on receiving, but transmitting accurate offsets requires > additional resources in gateways. >=20 > Regards, > Vladimir Ulybin >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:53 AM > To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number >=20 > Vladimir, >=20 > I apologize that I missed much of this discussion while I was traveling. >=20 > The bottom line on this, though, is that T.38 over RTP should use > whatever > mechanisms are defined in the IETF for redundancy or FEC. This might > include RFC 2198, RFC 2733, or other tools that come along. It's also > expected that this will be the means by which security is provided for > fax > (SRTP). >=20 > Is there a problem you see that is specific to fax? Timing is certainly > an > issue, but the delay should be no worse than UDPTL. However, if there > is a > flaw somewhere, we should fix it sooner than later. >=20 > Paul >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Vladimir Ulybin > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 5:59 AM > > To: Colin Perkins > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: > > >> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > > >> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every new > > >> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is > > >> repeated. > > > > Colin Perkins wrote: > > > Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the sequence > > > numbers to be unique. > > > > 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 as > a > > basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. > > 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does not > use > > SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC > 2833bis > > were the MUST is used). > > 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to the same fax signal > state > > or the same binary data cannot be considered as unique. > > 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The > blind > > assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full compatible > > with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, > because > > gateways may not repeat fax packets. > > 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the > > only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted RTCP > > statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than to > > loose connection during fax relay. > > > > Regards, > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > > avt@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 18 03:24:09 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuPyz-0007Na-GY; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 03:24:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtIHE-0003hF-QD for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:58:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09176 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cgpsrv2.cis.mcmaster.ca ([130.113.64.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtIjx-00080f-El for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:28:03 -0400 Received: from [130.113.23.184] (account kholaia@univmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) by cgpsrv2.cis.mcmaster.ca (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.1.8) with HTTP id 98626113 for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:58:15 -0400 From: "A. Kholaif" To: avt@ietf.org X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.1.8 Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:58:15 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1256" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 03:24:06 -0400 Subject: [AVT] Questions regrading VoIP, RTP, and SDP X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I've got a technical question. In current basic/standard RTP implementations, if IP-based devices normally receive RTP packets every 20ms, would they be happy if packets with twice the voice payload started arriving every 40ms instead? and does this require any additional mid-call SDP re-negotiations? Also, does SDP allows for negotiating and specifying different values of the packetization interval for the upstream and downstream legs of the same RTP audio connection? In other words, is it possible for an IP phone to send audio RTP packets every 40 ms while receiving audio packets every 20 ms? Ahmad _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 18 04:43:44 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuRDz-0008VW-Ni; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:43:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuRDx-0008Ut-J5 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:43:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22848 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:43:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.16]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DuRhJ-0006Y2-Oz for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:14:04 -0400 Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:43:36 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58B74.C9F5E9B2" Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:43:36 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: yes Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt Thread-Index: AcWIu+sT9OzB4XJ1T7uPgfEp+JjVNgCt1Luw From: "SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-TECH-LAN" To: "zzx-IETF-AVT" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2005 08:43:36.0227 (UTC) FILETIME=[C974CF30:01C58B74] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da Subject: [AVT] TR: I-D ACTION:draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58B74.C9F5E9B2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I posted a -01 update of the RTP payload format for the future scalable = and wideband extension of G.729 audio codec. The major update is a simplification of the payload format. The payload = header is no more optional and hence the (tricky) acknowledgement = procedure has been removed. I added more spec on the MBS part. The implementation should be now much easier. Note that the ITU-T standardization of the codec is on schedule, it = should be delivered at the end of 2005. Comments are welcome. Aurelien -----Message d'origine----- De : i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de = Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Envoy=E9 : jeudi 14 juillet 2005 21:50 =C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org Objet : I-D ACTION:draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt=20 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. Title : RTP payload format for the future scalable and wideband extension of G.729 audio codec Author(s) : A. Sollaud Filename : draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2005-7-14 =09 This document specifies a real-time transport protocol (RTP) payload format to be used for the future scalable and wideband extension of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) G.729 audio codec. A media type registration is included for this payload format. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ex= t-01.txt ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58B74.C9F5E9B2 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.URL" Content-Description: draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.URL Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.URL" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9ZnRwOi8vZnRwLmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0 cy9kcmFmdC1zb2xsYXVkLWF2dC1ydHAtZzcyOS1zY2FsLXdiLWV4dC0wMS50eHQNCg== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58B74.C9F5E9B2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58B74.C9F5E9B2-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 18 04:50:18 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuRKM-0002Vq-RT; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:50:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuRKL-0002Vl-O7 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:50:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23397 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DuRni-0007AJ-6X for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:20:40 -0400 Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 282B912D5 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:50:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.174]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:50:11 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.40] ([147.214.34.40]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:50:11 +0200 Message-ID: <42DB6D41.5040109@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:50:09 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF AVT WG Subject: [AVT] AVT meeting in Paris (IETF 63): Agenda Requests Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2005 08:50:11.0431 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5042770:01C58B75] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi AVTers, A reminder that those who haven't requested agenda time should do that Today. Me and Colin has requested two slots for a total of 4.5 hours of meeting time. We do not yet know when these slots will occur as scheduling is ongoing. Please watch for the official schedule mails on the IETF announcement list. We chairs has already planned to use some of the AVT meeting time to discuss the issue of media types registration for RTP payload formats. So if you want time for discussing your issues in AVT. Then you are required to request time. These request shall contain the below information. Any agenda time request shall be sent to BOTH chairs before the 24.00 CET the 18th of July. A. Presentation Title: B. Name of presenter: C. Draft Reference(s): D. Requested amount of time in minutes: Cheers Magnus Westerlund AVT chair Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 18 07:28:29 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuTnR-0001VX-15; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:28:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuTnP-0001VS-0a for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:28:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02014 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:28:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DuUGn-0000dP-Qu for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:58:51 -0400 Received: from csperkins.demon.co.uk ([193.237.26.84]:60749) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DuTn1-0001pj-FV; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:28:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126E6D6@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> References: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126E6D6@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:27:51 +0100 To: "Vladimir Ulybin" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Paul E. Jones" , avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On 18 Jul 2005, at 07:38, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > The term "basic configuration" for RFC 3550 plus redundancy per RFC > 2198 > should be replaced on "typical configuration". I assumed the same as > you, that most gateways support this. > > As for the time stamps for redundant fax packets, the theory case > given > is not relevant for T.38. > 1. The ITU-T T.38 itself does not uses any time stamps both for > redundant and primary packets. T.38 gateways transmitting fax signals > should care about compatibility with T.30 but not with time stamps > received from a remote gateway. The only important things are the > content of fax packets and the real-time of receiving. > 2. We say about new feature of T.38 over RTP which is to be added to > existing (==working) T.38 UDPTL. > > My suggestion is to reserve (zero) time stamps for redundant packets > when sending T.38 over RTP. Which will break any conformant RTP implementation... The timestamps may well be redundant for this particular media format, but they are trivial to calculate and required by RTP. We well understand that, in many cases, it's possible to develop a more optimised format for a particular media type or application scenario. The value of the RTP standard comes not because it's always the optimal solution, but because it's an acceptable solution which everyone can implement, to gain economies of scale and increased interoperability across a range of problem domains. Adjustments of the type you suggest are often locally beneficial, but frequently harmful to overall interoperability and implementation complexity. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 18 11:52:20 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuXum-00071j-KI; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:52:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuXuk-00071b-Ip for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:52:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23245 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DuYOC-0002OC-ST for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:22:45 -0400 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2005 08:52:08 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,297,1115017200"; d="scan'208"; a="198943354:sNHT26753252" Received: from vtg-um-e2k6.sj21ad.cisco.com (vtg-um-e2k6.cisco.com [171.70.93.77]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j6IFq66p009217; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klantz-w2k02.cisco.com ([10.82.216.174]) by vtg-um-e2k6.sj21ad.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:52:06 -0700 Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050718085026.03160368@vtg-um-e2k6.cisco.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:51:58 -0700 To: "SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-TECH-LAN" From: Keith Lantz Subject: Re: [AVT] TR: I-D ACTION:draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2005 15:52:06.0322 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5DDF920:01C58BB0] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id LAA23245 Cc: zzx-IETF-AVT X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Per the earlier "debate" on this list re VC-1, could you distribute or=20 otherwise point people at the current draft for the "G.729X" spec? (Unlik= e=20 SMPTE, I've never heard anyone object to distribution of an ITU draft.) Thx, Keith At 01:43 AM 7/18/2005, SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-TECH-LAN wrote: >Hi, > >I posted a -01 update of the RTP payload format for the future scalable=20 >and wideband extension of G.729 audio codec. > >The major update is a simplification of the payload format. The payload=20 >header is no more optional and hence the (tricky) acknowledgement=20 >procedure has been removed. I added more spec on the MBS part. >The implementation should be now much easier. > >Note that the ITU-T standardization of the codec is on schedule, it shou= ld=20 >be delivered at the end of 2005. > >Comments are welcome. > >Aurelien > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org= ]=20 >De la part de Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Envoy=E9 : jeudi 14 juillet 2005 21:50 >=C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org >Objet : I-D ACTION:draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts=20 >directories. > > > Title : RTP payload format for the future scalable an= d > wideband extension of G.729 audio codec > Author(s) : A. Sollaud > Filename : draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt > Pages : 15 > Date : 2005-7-14 > >This document specifies a real-time transport protocol (RTP) payload > format to be used for the future scalable and wideband extension of > the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) G.729 audio codec. > A media type registration is included for this payload format. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-e= xt-01.txt > > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 18 14:54:15 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Duakp-00028M-Lo; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:54:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Duako-00028H-D8 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:54:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05310 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:54:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.packetdesign.com ([65.192.41.10] helo=mailman.packetdesign.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DubEH-0004Ml-2F for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:24:42 -0400 Received: from packetdesign.com (main-fw-eth1.packetdesign.com [192.168.0.254]) by mailman.packetdesign.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6IIrWa2095747; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:53:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from casner@acm.org) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:53:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Casner To: IETF AVT WG In-Reply-To: <42DB6D41.5040109@ericsson.com> Message-ID: <20050718113904.W5140@oak.packetdesign.com> References: <42DB6D41.5040109@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Cc: Magnus Westerlund Subject: [AVT] Media types registration (was: AVT meeting in Paris (IETF 63): Agenda Requests) X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > We chairs has already planned to use some of the AVT meeting time to > discuss the issue of media types registration for RTP payload formats. I won't be in Paris to join in this discussion, but I am fully in agreement with Magnus and Colin that the media types registration process should remain as it is with RTP types as part of the MIME registry. Since the registration template is being modified by draft-freed-media-type-reg-04.txt to include a new "Restrictions on usage" field, I have submitted an update to RFC 3555 to revise the method for registering RTP payload type names accordingly. This is draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt. The "Changes from RFC 3555" section states: This document updates RFC 3555 to conform to the revised MIME type registration procedures in [2]. Whereas RFC 3555 required the encoding considerations to specify transfer via RTP, that is now specified under restrictions on usage. This document also adds a new Section 2.1 to clarify the requirements for sharing a MIME type among RTP and non-RTP transfer methods. The section 2.1 says: The same MIME type MUST NOT be shared for RTP and non-RTP (file-based) transfer methods unless the data format is the same for both methods. The data format is considered to be same if the file format is equivalent to a concatenated sequence of payloads from RTP packets not including the RTP header or any payload-format header. The file format MAY include a magic number or other header at the start of the file that is not included when the data is transferred via RTP. A second requirement for sharing a MIME type is that the sets of required parameters must be the same for both methods. For cases where the data format or required parameters cannot be the same for RTP and non-RTP transfer methods, then the data formats MUST be registered as separate types. It is RECOMMENDED that the type names be related, such as by using a common root plus a suffix. I think this is all consistent with the way we have been operating in AVT for some time. However, the second of those paragraphs may be controversial outside AVT. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 18 16:02:47 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dubp9-0003UM-HH; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:02:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dubp6-0003UC-Hr for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:02:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13249 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:02:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rrcs-24-199-146-6.midsouth.biz.rr.com ([24.199.146.6] helo=berlin.arid.us ident=system) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DucIa-0007hJ-UO for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Received: from madrid (madrid.arid.us [192.168.1.10]) by berlin.arid.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6IK2XSA023539; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:02:33 -0400 Message-Id: <200507182002.j6IK2XSA023539@berlin.arid.us> From: "Paul E. Jones" To: "'Vladimir Ulybin'" , "'Colin Perkins'" Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:02:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126E6D6@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcWAdVcEdc3rCQYPRKiN3Atvb0ZodgAALpjwAniuk3AADKWiIAAuyJ8AAASU3nAAHppKkA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 43317e64100dd4d87214c51822b582d1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Vladimir, Why use 0? Why not use the relevant offset from the clock time used in the primary payload, as is done for audio? Consistency is as important as many other things. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Ulybin [mailto:Vladimir@audiocodes.com] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 2:38 AM > To: Paul E. Jones; Colin Perkins > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > Paul, > > The term "basic configuration" for RFC 3550 plus redundancy per RFC 2198 > should be replaced on "typical configuration". I assumed the same as > you, that most gateways support this. > > As for the time stamps for redundant fax packets, the theory case given > is not relevant for T.38. > 1. The ITU-T T.38 itself does not uses any time stamps both for > redundant and primary packets. T.38 gateways transmitting fax signals > should care about compatibility with T.30 but not with time stamps > received from a remote gateway. The only important things are the > content of fax packets and the real-time of receiving. > 2. We say about new feature of T.38 over RTP which is to be added to > existing (==working) T.38 UDPTL. > > My suggestion is to reserve (zero) time stamps for redundant packets > when sending T.38 over RTP. > > Regards, > Vladimir Ulybin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 6:17 AM > To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > Vladimir, > > T.38 (2004) addresses the transport of T.38 over RTP and does not say > that > RFC 2198 is the basic configuration. Both RFC 2198 and RFC 2733 are > suggested as possible choices for protecting the media stream. > > While T.38 data may not have the same kind of timing as, say, an audio > codec, the fact that it is placed into a media stream means it needs a > clock. The draft I wrote suggests the use of an 8000hz clock or one > that > matches the primary audio codec. In any case, the timing information > would > be meaningful. In theory, one would not play out packets so quickly > that a > redundant piece of information received one or two packets later would > be > too old to be useful. > > In any case, you are certainly free to use RFC 2198 or RFC 2733. Most > people I've talked to prefer RFC 2198, simply because of the > computational > complexity introduced by RFC 2733. With that said, I've certainly not > talked to every GW maker in the world ;-) > > Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vladimir Ulybin [mailto:Vladimir@audiocodes.com] > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 2:06 AM > > To: Paul E. Jones; Colin Perkins > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > Paul, > > > > Finally, for resending of T.38 packets over RTP, Colin suggested us to > > use FEC per RFC 2733 or new retransmission protocol. Both ways present > > optional features which may not be supported by gateways. > > > > Basic configuration for T.38 over RTP is a basic RFC 3550 plus > > redundancy per RFC 2198. > > > > This configuration has limited capabilities vs. T.38 UDPTL to improve > > reliability of fax transport, if gateways do not resend (==duplicate) > > fax packets, refer to explanation that I done in previous e-mails. > > > > The other open issue for T.38 over RTP is the time stamps for > redundant > > fax packets. The T.38 implementations are not dependant on time > stamps. > > So, the time offset fields required per RFC 2198 for redundant fax > > payloads are absolutely usefulness. There is no problem to ignore > these > > fields on receiving, but transmitting accurate offsets requires > > additional resources in gateways. > > > > Regards, > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:53 AM > > To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > Vladimir, > > > > I apologize that I missed much of this discussion while I was > traveling. > > > > The bottom line on this, though, is that T.38 over RTP should use > > whatever > > mechanisms are defined in the IETF for redundancy or FEC. This might > > include RFC 2198, RFC 2733, or other tools that come along. It's also > > expected that this will be the means by which security is provided for > > fax > > (SRTP). > > > > Is there a problem you see that is specific to fax? Timing is > certainly > > an > > issue, but the delay should be no worse than UDPTL. However, if there > > is a > > flaw somewhere, we should fix it sooner than later. > > > > Paul > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 5:59 AM > > > To: Colin Perkins > > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > > > On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: > > > >> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > > > >> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every > new > > > >> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is > > > >> repeated. > > > > > > Colin Perkins wrote: > > > > Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the > sequence > > > > numbers to be unique. > > > > > > 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 > as > > a > > > basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. > > > 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does not > > use > > > SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC > > 2833bis > > > were the MUST is used). > > > 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to the same fax signal > > state > > > or the same binary data cannot be considered as unique. > > > 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The > > blind > > > assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full > compatible > > > with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, > > because > > > gateways may not repeat fax packets. > > > 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the > > > only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted > RTCP > > > statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than > to > > > loose connection during fax relay. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > > > avt@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 18 18:50:53 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DueRp-0002ai-4R; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:50:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DueR4-0002Nh-IU; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:50:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06986; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DueuW-0000r5-Ta; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:20:34 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DueR0-0008CJ-7h; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:50:02 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:50:02 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF. Title : RTP Profile for TCP Friendly Rate Control Author(s) : L. Gharai Filename : draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2005-7-18 This memo specifies a profile called "RTP/AVPCC" for the use of the real-time transport protocol (RTP) and its associated control protocol, RTCP, with the TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC). TFRC is an equation based congestion control scheme for unicast flows operating in a best effort Internet environment. This profile provides RTP flows with the mechanism to use congestion control in best effort IP networks. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-18160836.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-18160836.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --NextPart-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 19 02:40:06 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dullu-0003Hs-GQ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:40:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dulls-0003Hd-TE for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:40:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14021 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DumFQ-0006bf-3W for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:10:38 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:40:13 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126E9A2@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWAdVcEdc3rCQYPRKiN3Atvb0ZodgAALpjwAniuk3AADKWiIAAuyJ8AAASU3nAAHppKkAATWKKA From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: "Paul E. Jones" , "Colin Perkins" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 17bdfcaea25d1444baef0e24abc38874 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Paul, 1. Zero is a simplest solution. The RFC 3550 allow the same time stamp for several consecutive packets. So, when these packets will be transmitted as redundant one relative to the other, the time offsets per RFC 2198 will be zero. It means that receiving gateway should handle correctly zero time offsets in RFC 2198 headers. 2. The computation of redundant packet time offset relative to primary packet can be applied for synchronous operation like audio or t4-non-ECM-data having a fixed time interval between packets. But, for asynchronous packet stream, which is typical for T.30 control and ECM fax, such approach cannot be used. Why I opened this issue? Assume a T.38 module of DSP/gateway which delivers the T.38 UDPTL packets ready for transmission to IP. To enable new feature of T.38 over RTP, it is easy to convert T.38 UDPTL into RFC 2198 at output of DSP/gateway. The obstacle is in time stamp offsets of redundant packets. We all (fax engineers) know that these offsets are not required at T.38 packet receivers. But accurate transmission of those per RFC 2198 requires deep re-writing of working and verified module(s) plus additional allocation of RedundancyLevel*NofChannels timestamps. Regards, Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]=20 Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 11:02 PM To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Vladimir, Why use 0? Why not use the relevant offset from the clock time used in the primary payload, as is done for audio? Consistency is as important as many other things. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Ulybin [mailto:Vladimir@audiocodes.com] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 2:38 AM > To: Paul E. Jones; Colin Perkins > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number >=20 > Paul, >=20 > The term "basic configuration" for RFC 3550 plus redundancy per RFC 2198 > should be replaced on "typical configuration". I assumed the same as > you, that most gateways support this. >=20 > As for the time stamps for redundant fax packets, the theory case given > is not relevant for T.38. > 1. The ITU-T T.38 itself does not uses any time stamps both for > redundant and primary packets. T.38 gateways transmitting fax signals > should care about compatibility with T.30 but not with time stamps > received from a remote gateway. The only important things are the > content of fax packets and the real-time of receiving. > 2. We say about new feature of T.38 over RTP which is to be added to > existing (=3D=3Dworking) T.38 UDPTL. >=20 > My suggestion is to reserve (zero) time stamps for redundant packets > when sending T.38 over RTP. >=20 > Regards, > Vladimir Ulybin >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 6:17 AM > To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number >=20 > Vladimir, >=20 > T.38 (2004) addresses the transport of T.38 over RTP and does not say > that > RFC 2198 is the basic configuration. Both RFC 2198 and RFC 2733 are > suggested as possible choices for protecting the media stream. >=20 > While T.38 data may not have the same kind of timing as, say, an audio > codec, the fact that it is placed into a media stream means it needs a > clock. The draft I wrote suggests the use of an 8000hz clock or one > that > matches the primary audio codec. In any case, the timing information > would > be meaningful. In theory, one would not play out packets so quickly > that a > redundant piece of information received one or two packets later would > be > too old to be useful. >=20 > In any case, you are certainly free to use RFC 2198 or RFC 2733. Most > people I've talked to prefer RFC 2198, simply because of the > computational > complexity introduced by RFC 2733. With that said, I've certainly not > talked to every GW maker in the world ;-) >=20 > Paul >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vladimir Ulybin [mailto:Vladimir@audiocodes.com] > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 2:06 AM > > To: Paul E. Jones; Colin Perkins > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > Paul, > > > > Finally, for resending of T.38 packets over RTP, Colin suggested us to > > use FEC per RFC 2733 or new retransmission protocol. Both ways present > > optional features which may not be supported by gateways. > > > > Basic configuration for T.38 over RTP is a basic RFC 3550 plus > > redundancy per RFC 2198. > > > > This configuration has limited capabilities vs. T.38 UDPTL to improve > > reliability of fax transport, if gateways do not resend (=3D=3Dduplicate) > > fax packets, refer to explanation that I done in previous e-mails. > > > > The other open issue for T.38 over RTP is the time stamps for > redundant > > fax packets. The T.38 implementations are not dependant on time > stamps. > > So, the time offset fields required per RFC 2198 for redundant fax > > payloads are absolutely usefulness. There is no problem to ignore > these > > fields on receiving, but transmitting accurate offsets requires > > additional resources in gateways. > > > > Regards, > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:53 AM > > To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > Vladimir, > > > > I apologize that I missed much of this discussion while I was > traveling. > > > > The bottom line on this, though, is that T.38 over RTP should use > > whatever > > mechanisms are defined in the IETF for redundancy or FEC. This might > > include RFC 2198, RFC 2733, or other tools that come along. It's also > > expected that this will be the means by which security is provided for > > fax > > (SRTP). > > > > Is there a problem you see that is specific to fax? Timing is > certainly > > an > > issue, but the delay should be no worse than UDPTL. However, if there > > is a > > flaw somewhere, we should fix it sooner than later. > > > > Paul > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 5:59 AM > > > To: Colin Perkins > > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > > > On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: > > > >> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > > > >> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every > new > > > >> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is > > > >> repeated. > > > > > > Colin Perkins wrote: > > > > Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the > sequence > > > > numbers to be unique. > > > > > > 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 > as > > a > > > basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. > > > 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does not > > use > > > SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC > > 2833bis > > > were the MUST is used). > > > 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to the same fax signal > > state > > > or the same binary data cannot be considered as unique. > > > 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The > > blind > > > assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full > compatible > > > with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, > > because > > > gateways may not repeat fax packets. > > > 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the > > > only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted > RTCP > > > statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than > to > > > loose connection during fax relay. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > > > avt@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt >=20 _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 19 05:36:46 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuoWs-0000No-2A; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:36:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuoWq-0000Ng-MH for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:36:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24914 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.16]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dup0S-0005IT-5Y for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:07:20 -0400 Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:36:13 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] TR: I-D ACTION:draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:36:12 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [AVT] TR: I-D ACTION:draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt Thread-Index: AcWLsKUClrHJs8BISOemzS8RpExwfQAkk3RA From: "SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-TECH-LAN" To: "Keith Lantz" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2005 09:36:13.0800 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DEDF680:01C58C45] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: zzx-IETF-AVT X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi This codec is discussed in the Study Group 16 / Question 10 of the = ITU-T, about maintenance and extension of existing voice coding standard = (here G.729). The reports and work documents are not publicly available, you have to = be a member. The background information presented in Section 2 of the draft is drawn = from the Terms of Reference of the codec and should hopefully be enough = "to conduct a meaningful review" ((c)Colin). The payload format is independent from the algorithmic details of the = codec, and hence from the final candidate chosen as the standard. The = useful information is provided in the draft: sampling rate, bit rates, = embedded scheme... Aurelien -----Message d'origine----- De : Keith Lantz [mailto:klantz@cisco.com]=20 Envoy=E9 : lundi 18 juillet 2005 17:52 =C0 : SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-TECH-LAN Cc : zzx-IETF-AVT Objet : Re: [AVT] TR: I-D = ACTION:draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt=20 Per the earlier "debate" on this list re VC-1, could you distribute or = otherwise point people at the current draft for the "G.729X" spec? = (Unlike SMPTE, I've never heard anyone object to distribution of an ITU = draft.) Thx, Keith At 01:43 AM 7/18/2005, SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-TECH-LAN wrote: >Hi, > >I posted a -01 update of the RTP payload format for the future scalable = >and wideband extension of G.729 audio codec. > >The major update is a simplification of the payload format. The payload = >header is no more optional and hence the (tricky) acknowledgement=20 >procedure has been removed. I added more spec on the MBS part. >The implementation should be now much easier. > >Note that the ITU-T standardization of the codec is on schedule, it=20 >should be delivered at the end of 2005. > >Comments are welcome. > >Aurelien > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] >De la part de Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Envoy=E9 : jeudi 14 juillet 2005 21:50 >=C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org >Objet : I-D ACTION:draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts=20 >directories. > > > Title : RTP payload format for the future scalable = and > wideband extension of G.729 audio codec > Author(s) : A. Sollaud > Filename : = draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01.txt > Pages : 15 > Date : 2005-7-14 > >This document specifies a real-time transport protocol (RTP) payload > format to be used for the future scalable and wideband extension of > the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) G.729 audio = codec. > A media type registration is included for this payload format. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb- >ext-01.txt > > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 19 07:07:31 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dupwh-0000X0-Nx; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:07:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dupwf-0000Wt-52 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:07:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA01573 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DuqQG-0000vZ-DL for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:38:05 -0400 Received: from alor.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.247.84]:62216) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DupwT-00067U-Ii; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:07:17 +0100 In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126E9A2@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> References: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126E9A2@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5F071796-1BC9-45AC-BA3C-C5F6DA646444@csperkins.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:07:14 +0100 To: Vladimir Ulybin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Paul E. Jones" , avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On 19 Jul 2005, at 07:40, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > 1. Zero is a simplest solution. The RFC 3550 allow the same time stamp > for several consecutive packets. So, when these packets will be > transmitted as redundant one relative to the other, the time > offsets per > RFC 2198 will be zero. It means that receiving gateway should handle > correctly zero time offsets in RFC 2198 headers. No, since it will treat the data as being a redundant copy of the packet in which it is sent. If you use an offset of zero, there's no way to correctly place the data at the right time instant in the playout buffer. > 2. The computation of redundant packet time offset relative to primary > packet can be applied for synchronous operation like audio or > t4-non-ECM-data having a fixed time interval between packets. But, for > asynchronous packet stream, which is typical for T.30 control and ECM > fax, such approach cannot be used. Correct - this is why RFC 2198 has an explicit timestamp for the redundancy offset. > Why I opened this issue? > > Assume a T.38 module of DSP/gateway which delivers the T.38 UDPTL > packets ready for transmission to IP. To enable new feature of T.38 > over > RTP, it is easy to convert T.38 UDPTL into RFC 2198 at output of > DSP/gateway. The obstacle is in time stamp offsets of redundant > packets. > We all (fax engineers) know that these offsets are not required at > T.38 > packet receivers. But accurate transmission of those per RFC 2198 > requires deep re-writing of working and verified module(s) plus > additional allocation of RedundancyLevel*NofChannels timestamps. Correct - this is required for robust operation over an unreliable packet network that may disrupt media timing. There are two cases: 1) There is a constant mapping from sequence number to timestamp. In this case, you can trivially calculate the timestamp and need no extra storage. The media timing can be reconstructed using either the sequence number or timestamp, and transporting both is essentially a waste of bandwidth for this application. In this case, you treat the extra bits on the wire as an "RTP tax" needed for interoperability, but don't need to store the extra data in the gateway. 2) There is not a constant mapping from sequence number to timestamp. This case requires you to store the extra timestamps for inclusion in RFC 2198 redundancy headers, however that extra information is required by the receiver to manage a playout buffer, since a playout buffer managed by sequence number only is not sufficient to reconstruct media timing. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 19 08:24:39 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dur9L-0006Tu-Ed; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:24:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dur9K-0006Tp-Q6 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:24:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08396 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:24:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Durcw-0004Tq-VS for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:55:15 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:24:55 +0300 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWAdVcEdc3rCQYPRKiN3Atvb0ZodgAALpjwAniuk3AADKWiIAAuyJ8AAASU3nAAHppKkAATWKKAAAjY1nA= From: "Oren Peleg" To: "Vladimir Ulybin" , "Paul E. Jones" , "Colin Perkins" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 681e62a2ce9b0804b459fe780d892beb Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org I would like to suggest the following: Since Timestamp is profile specific, the T.38 RTP profile draft (currently draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt) will add a special case of Timestamp manipulation which will be used for redundant control packet transmission (similar to the End packet of the RFC 2833 event). At this special case the timestamp that will be used at the redundant packets will be the same as the timestamp of the original packet. The number of redundant packets will be determined via SDP using a special parameter. Oren P. -----Original Message----- From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Ulybin Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 9:40 AM To: Paul E. Jones; Colin Perkins Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Paul, 1. Zero is a simplest solution. The RFC 3550 allow the same time stamp for several consecutive packets. So, when these packets will be transmitted as redundant one relative to the other, the time offsets per RFC 2198 will be zero. It means that receiving gateway should handle correctly zero time offsets in RFC 2198 headers. 2. The computation of redundant packet time offset relative to primary packet can be applied for synchronous operation like audio or t4-non-ECM-data having a fixed time interval between packets. But, for asynchronous packet stream, which is typical for T.30 control and ECM fax, such approach cannot be used. Why I opened this issue? Assume a T.38 module of DSP/gateway which delivers the T.38 UDPTL packets ready for transmission to IP. To enable new feature of T.38 over RTP, it is easy to convert T.38 UDPTL into RFC 2198 at output of DSP/gateway. The obstacle is in time stamp offsets of redundant packets. We all (fax engineers) know that these offsets are not required at T.38 packet receivers. But accurate transmission of those per RFC 2198 requires deep re-writing of working and verified module(s) plus additional allocation of RedundancyLevel*NofChannels timestamps. Regards, Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]=20 Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 11:02 PM To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Vladimir, Why use 0? Why not use the relevant offset from the clock time used in the primary payload, as is done for audio? Consistency is as important as many other things. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Ulybin [mailto:Vladimir@audiocodes.com] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 2:38 AM > To: Paul E. Jones; Colin Perkins > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number >=20 > Paul, >=20 > The term "basic configuration" for RFC 3550 plus redundancy per RFC 2198 > should be replaced on "typical configuration". I assumed the same as > you, that most gateways support this. >=20 > As for the time stamps for redundant fax packets, the theory case given > is not relevant for T.38. > 1. The ITU-T T.38 itself does not uses any time stamps both for > redundant and primary packets. T.38 gateways transmitting fax signals > should care about compatibility with T.30 but not with time stamps > received from a remote gateway. The only important things are the > content of fax packets and the real-time of receiving. > 2. We say about new feature of T.38 over RTP which is to be added to > existing (=3D=3Dworking) T.38 UDPTL. >=20 > My suggestion is to reserve (zero) time stamps for redundant packets > when sending T.38 over RTP. >=20 > Regards, > Vladimir Ulybin >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 6:17 AM > To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number >=20 > Vladimir, >=20 > T.38 (2004) addresses the transport of T.38 over RTP and does not say > that > RFC 2198 is the basic configuration. Both RFC 2198 and RFC 2733 are > suggested as possible choices for protecting the media stream. >=20 > While T.38 data may not have the same kind of timing as, say, an audio > codec, the fact that it is placed into a media stream means it needs a > clock. The draft I wrote suggests the use of an 8000hz clock or one > that > matches the primary audio codec. In any case, the timing information > would > be meaningful. In theory, one would not play out packets so quickly > that a > redundant piece of information received one or two packets later would > be > too old to be useful. >=20 > In any case, you are certainly free to use RFC 2198 or RFC 2733. Most > people I've talked to prefer RFC 2198, simply because of the > computational > complexity introduced by RFC 2733. With that said, I've certainly not > talked to every GW maker in the world ;-) >=20 > Paul >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vladimir Ulybin [mailto:Vladimir@audiocodes.com] > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 2:06 AM > > To: Paul E. Jones; Colin Perkins > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > Paul, > > > > Finally, for resending of T.38 packets over RTP, Colin suggested us to > > use FEC per RFC 2733 or new retransmission protocol. Both ways present > > optional features which may not be supported by gateways. > > > > Basic configuration for T.38 over RTP is a basic RFC 3550 plus > > redundancy per RFC 2198. > > > > This configuration has limited capabilities vs. T.38 UDPTL to improve > > reliability of fax transport, if gateways do not resend (=3D=3Dduplicate) > > fax packets, refer to explanation that I done in previous e-mails. > > > > The other open issue for T.38 over RTP is the time stamps for > redundant > > fax packets. The T.38 implementations are not dependant on time > stamps. > > So, the time offset fields required per RFC 2198 for redundant fax > > payloads are absolutely usefulness. There is no problem to ignore > these > > fields on receiving, but transmitting accurate offsets requires > > additional resources in gateways. > > > > Regards, > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] > > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:53 AM > > To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Colin Perkins' > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > Vladimir, > > > > I apologize that I missed much of this discussion while I was > traveling. > > > > The bottom line on this, though, is that T.38 over RTP should use > > whatever > > mechanisms are defined in the IETF for redundancy or FEC. This might > > include RFC 2198, RFC 2733, or other tools that come along. It's also > > expected that this will be the means by which security is provided for > > fax > > (SRTP). > > > > Is there a problem you see that is specific to fax? Timing is > certainly > > an > > issue, but the delay should be no worse than UDPTL. However, if there > > is a > > flaw somewhere, we should fix it sooner than later. > > > > Paul > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 5:59 AM > > > To: Colin Perkins > > > Cc: avt@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > > > > > On my suggestion from 3 Jul 2005, at 15:44: > > > >> I think we may use for RTP sequence number the same rules of > > > >> incrementing as for T.38 UDPTL SN, i.e. increment SN per every > new > > > >> primary IFP packet and do not increment SN if a fax packet is > > > >> repeated. > > > > > > Colin Perkins wrote: > > > > Not if you wish to be compatible with RTP: RTP requires the > sequence > > > > numbers to be unique. > > > > > > 1. The current T.38 Rec. defining T.38 over RTP refers to RFC 3550 > as > > a > > > basic RTP protocol to be used for encapsulation. > > > 2. The RFC 3550 does not define the packet repetition, also does not > > use > > > SHOULD or MUST for sequence number advances (in contrast to RFC > > 2833bis > > > were the MUST is used). > > > 3. Different RTP sequence numbers assigned to the same fax signal > > state > > > or the same binary data cannot be considered as unique. > > > 4. I try to find a more reliable transport for T.38 over RTP. The > > blind > > > assignment of new sequence numbers for ALL packets is full > compatible > > > with RFC 3550, but highly reduces the reliability of fax relay, > > because > > > gateways may not repeat fax packets. > > > 5. As I understand from draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11.txt the > > > only problem of packet repetition with the same SN is a distorted > RTCP > > > statistics. In absence of other ways this violation is better than > to > > > loose connection during fax relay. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Vladimir Ulybin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > > > avt@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt >=20 _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 19 08:33:56 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DurIJ-0000Uo-UI; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:33:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DurII-0000Uj-P5 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:33:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09069 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Durlv-0004pL-Hs for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:04:32 -0400 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 7E36BF48; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:33:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.173]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:33:39 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.40] ([147.214.34.40]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:33:39 +0200 Message-ID: <42DCF323.9030408@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:33:39 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF AVT WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2005 12:33:39.0545 (UTC) FILETIME=[1749BC90:01C58C5E] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: cd3fc8e909678b38737fc606dec187f0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Colin Perkins Subject: [AVT] Preliminary AVT agenda X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Below you will find a preliminary AVT agenda. It is based on the latest draft meeting agenda and the days and times are not yet certain to be correct. Do NOT plan your travel based on them. If you find any issues or have corrections please send them as soon as possible to us chairs. Due to that we only received 3 out of the 4.5 hours requested we will be need to concentrate on the most important issues. If you haven't requested agenda time yet, it will be difficult to make time in the agenda but please send a request so that we can discuss it. Cheers Magnus ------------------------------------- Audio/Video Transport Working Group CHAIRS: Colin Perkins Magnus Westerlund Tuesday, 2 August 2005, 10:30-12:30 ==================================== Introduction and Status Update (Chairs) 10 min Under development: draft-ietf-avt-mime-h224-02 draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-02 draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2032-bis-06 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-03 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-05 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-09 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833biscas-00 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-02 draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00 draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amr-bis-01 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-08 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-01 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-format-10 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-guidelines-10 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-no-op-00 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vmr-wb-extension-00 draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04 draft-ietf-avt-ulp-11 draft-ietf-avt-rfc3119bis-03 (Expired) draft-finlayson-avt-mpa-robust-interoperability-01 (Expired) draft-ietf-avt-uxp-07 (Expired) draft-ietf-avt-variable-rate-audio-00 (Expired) AD or IESG Evaluation draft-ietf-avt-audio-t140c-00 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans-05 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vmr-wb-10 draft-ietf-avt-3gpp-timed-text-15 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-ac3-07 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amrwbplus-06 draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05 draft-garudadri-avt-3gpp2-mime-02 draft-lim-mpeg4-mime-03 RFC Editor: draft-ietf-avt-hc-mpls-reqs-03 draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback-11 draft-burmeister-avt-rtcp-feedback-sim-06 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-bv-03 draft-ietf-avt-tcrtp-08 draft-ietf-avt-uncomp-video-06 Published RFCs draft-ietf-avt-rtp-clearmode-05 -> RFC 4040 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-dsr-codecs-03 -> RFC 4060 draft-ietf-avt-text-red-05 -> RFC 4102 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2793bis-09 -> RFC 4103 Individual drafts with AVT relation draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01 draft-clark-avt-rtcpxr-bis-00 draft-even-avt-rfc3047-bis-01 draft-feiten-avt-bsacmode-for-rfc3640-00 draft-kerr-avt-vorbis-rtp-04 draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00 draft-koren-avt-ecrtp-reorder-00 draft-lennox-avt-app-sharing-00 draft-lkchoi-avt-iptvdbs-req-00 draft-perkins-avt-uncomp-video-ext-00 draft-singer-rtp-hdrext-00 draft-singer-smpte-rtp-01 draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01 draft-stirbu-avt-lrdp-00 draft-vitali-ietf-avt-mdc-lc-00 draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00 draft-xie-avt-compact-bundle-evrc-00 draft-xie-avt-rtp-anti-shadow-01 Compact Bundled RTP Format for EVRC Speech (Xie) draft-xie-avt-compact-bundle-evrc-00 15 min RTP Payload Format for Video Codec 1 (VC-1) (Klemets) draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00 15 min Update of ITU G.722.1 payload format (Even) draft-even-avt-rfc3047-bis-01 10 min RTP Payload Format for ECN Probing (Alexander) draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01 10 min draft-babiarz-tsvwg-rtecn-04 draft-alexander-rtecn-use-cases-00 draft-alexander-congestion-status-preconditions-00 Protocol Extensions for Header Compression over MPLS (Ash) draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01 15 min RTP Profile for TCP Friendly Rate Control (Gharai) draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04 15 min Strategies for Streaming Media Applications Using TFRC (Phelan) draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-media-00 15 min FEC streaming framework (Watson) draft-watson-tsvwg-fec-sf-00 15 min Wednesday, 3 August 2005, 9:00-10:00 ==================================== RTCP XR VoIP Metrics Management Information Base (Clark) draft-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02 10 min RTCP XR - New Parameter Extensions (Clark) draft-clark-avt-rtcpxr-bis-00 10 min Open issues with Codec Control Messages in AVPF (Wenger) draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00 15 min Media Type Discussion (chairs) draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00 15 min draft-freed-media-type-reg-04 Mailing list discussion RTCP Extensions for SSM sessions with unicast feedback (Ott) draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09 10 min -- Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 19 08:45:54 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DurTu-0003st-HE; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:45:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DurTm-0003fR-Dz for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:45:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09768 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fra-del-04.spheriq.net ([195.46.51.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DurxP-0005Cf-7w for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:16:23 -0400 Received: from fra-out-03.spheriq.net (fra-out-03.spheriq.net [195.46.51.131]) by fra-del-04.spheriq.net with ESMTP id j6JCjJAV016812 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:45:19 GMT Received: from fra-cus-02.spheriq.net (fra-cus-02.spheriq.net [195.46.51.38]) by fra-out-03.spheriq.net with ESMTP id j6JCjIt9007358 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:45:18 GMT Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by fra-cus-02.spheriq.net with ESMTP id j6JCjHOo012830 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:45:17 GMT Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (ns2.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 0F3FDDA42 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:45:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics, from userid 60012) id BB978478BA; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:47:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 75F66759AF for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1.agr.st.com (mail1.agr.st.com [164.130.4.71]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 9E4D9478C3 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:47:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.50.13.70] (ws2586.agr.st.com [10.50.13.70]) by mail1.agr.st.com (MOS 3.4.4-GR) with ESMTP id BNO01925 (AUTH "andrea vitali"); Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:45:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <42DCF5D5.5020400@st.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:45:09 +0200 From: Andrea Lorenzo VITALI Organization: STMicroelectronics User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en,ru,zh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: avt@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-O-General-Status: No X-O-Spam1-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Spam2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-URL-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus1-Status: No X-O-Virus2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus3-Status: No X-O-Virus4-Status: No X-O-Virus5-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Image-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Attach-Status: Not Scanned X-SpheriQ-Ver: 2.2.3 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [AVT] Multiple Description / Layered video coding, draft-vitali-ietf-avt-mdc-lc-00.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Dear AVTers, We have recently submitted a new internet draft on Standard-compatible Multiple Description and Layered video coding (MDC/LC). The goal is to allow a graceful degradation of the application quality with increasing packet loss rate and decreasing bandwidth/throughput on the network. You can find the draft at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vitali-ietf-avt-mdc-lc-00.txt In the proposed scheme, descriptions/layers are created and merged in the pixel domain as follows: +--> filter --> enc/dec --> upsampler -->+ | & downsampler & filter | | | video -->o--> filter --> enc/dec --> upsampler -->sum --> video input : & downsampler & filter : output : : +---> ... --> ... --> ... -->+ This scheme covers video balanced MD, unbalanced MD, wavelet layered decomposition, etc. Audio is still an open issue. In the draft we propose to use SDP to describe how descriptions/layers are created and how they can be merged. Descriptions/layers are compressed using existing codecs: MPEG-2, H.264... Bitstreams are sent according to existing standards, i.e. the usual RTP/UDP. We are looking forward to hearing feedbacks on this. Andrea Vitali -- ______________________________________________________________ Andrea VITALI andrea.vitali@st.com tel (+39) 039 603 7244 mobile (+39) 347 93 08 433 fax (+39) 039 603 6129 STMicroelectronics Centro Direzionale COLLEONI - Palazzo "DIALETTICA" 20041 Agrate Brianza (MI) ITALY ______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 19 10:45:52 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DutM0-0007kv-AF; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:45:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DutLy-0007jz-9u for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:45:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19800 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dutpa-0001mr-Vs for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:16:28 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:45:50 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126EB68@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWMUiCVnmTzfjJsQhmV+LeSb9/XIgAGgaLw From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: "Colin Perkins" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Paul E. Jones" , avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Colin, I think that the use of timestamps together with sequence numbers for building T.38 packet recovery buffer is not a good way. For T.38 INDICATOR packets it is acceptable but for DATA packets this way may cause a lot of problems for packet recovery during data transfer. It is much easy and reliable to use RTP sequence number as the only base for ordering T.38 packets arrived over RTP. In this case, timestamps of redundant payloads may be ignored without any problems. Let consider an option to update the "draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt" or write a new draft for T.38 over RTP. I think the problems opened in our discussions=20 - repetition of T.38 packets and=20 - excessive complexity of T.38 over RTP caused by timestamps (non-required by T.38) are general for different vendors. Regards, Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]=20 Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:07 PM To: Vladimir Ulybin Cc: Paul E. Jones; avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number On 19 Jul 2005, at 07:40, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > 1. Zero is a simplest solution. The RFC 3550 allow the same time stamp > for several consecutive packets. So, when these packets will be > transmitted as redundant one relative to the other, the time =20 > offsets per > RFC 2198 will be zero. It means that receiving gateway should handle > correctly zero time offsets in RFC 2198 headers. No, since it will treat the data as being a redundant copy of the =20 packet in which it is sent. If you use an offset of zero, there's no =20 way to correctly place the data at the right time instant in the =20 playout buffer. > 2. The computation of redundant packet time offset relative to primary > packet can be applied for synchronous operation like audio or > t4-non-ECM-data having a fixed time interval between packets. But, for > asynchronous packet stream, which is typical for T.30 control and ECM > fax, such approach cannot be used. Correct - this is why RFC 2198 has an explicit timestamp for the =20 redundancy offset. > Why I opened this issue? > > Assume a T.38 module of DSP/gateway which delivers the T.38 UDPTL > packets ready for transmission to IP. To enable new feature of T.38 =20 > over > RTP, it is easy to convert T.38 UDPTL into RFC 2198 at output of > DSP/gateway. The obstacle is in time stamp offsets of redundant =20 > packets. > We all (fax engineers) know that these offsets are not required at =20 > T.38 > packet receivers. But accurate transmission of those per RFC 2198 > requires deep re-writing of working and verified module(s) plus > additional allocation of RedundancyLevel*NofChannels timestamps. Correct - this is required for robust operation over an unreliable =20 packet network that may disrupt media timing. There are two cases: 1) There is a constant mapping from sequence number to timestamp. In =20 this case, you can trivially calculate the timestamp and need no =20 extra storage. The media timing can be reconstructed using either the =20 sequence number or timestamp, and transporting both is essentially a =20 waste of bandwidth for this application. In this case, you treat the =20 extra bits on the wire as an "RTP tax" needed for interoperability, =20 but don't need to store the extra data in the gateway. 2) There is not a constant mapping from sequence number to timestamp. =20 This case requires you to store the extra timestamps for inclusion in =20 RFC 2198 redundancy headers, however that extra information is =20 required by the receiver to manage a playout buffer, since a playout =20 buffer managed by sequence number only is not sufficient to =20 reconstruct media timing. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 19 11:01:48 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DutbQ-00051s-Kh; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:01:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DutbM-00051l-Et for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:01:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23473 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Duu4x-0003I7-Lt for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:32:23 -0400 Received: from alor.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.247.84]:64631) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1Dutb9-0003Pe-CD; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:01:31 +0100 In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126EB68@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> References: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126EB68@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:01:27 +0100 To: Vladimir Ulybin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b22590c27682ace61775ee7b453b40d3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Paul E. Jones" , avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Vladimir, Use of timestamps to reconstruct media timing is an essential feature of RTP. We will not standardise an RTP payload format which does not use them, since that would be incompatible with the rest of RTP, and would break the playout model used by RTP applications. RTP is a general purpose transport protocol for real-time traffic -- it is not appropriate to optimise it for this niche application, at the expense incompatibility with other use cases. If you do not wish to use timestamps in your application, I suggest you use T.38 over UDPTL instead of over RTP. When implementing T.38 over RTP, using timestamps is mandatory (as with all other RTP payload formats). Colin On 19 Jul 2005, at 15:45, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > Colin, > > I think that the use of timestamps together with sequence numbers for > building T.38 packet recovery buffer is not a good way. For T.38 > INDICATOR packets it is acceptable but for DATA packets this way may > cause a lot of problems for packet recovery during data transfer. > > It is much easy and reliable to use RTP sequence number as the only > base > for ordering T.38 packets arrived over RTP. In this case, > timestamps of > redundant payloads may be ignored without any problems. > > Let consider an option to update the "draft-jones-avt-audio- > t38-05.txt" > or write a new draft for T.38 over RTP. > > I think the problems opened in our discussions > - repetition of T.38 packets and > - excessive complexity of T.38 over RTP caused by timestamps > (non-required by T.38) > are general for different vendors. > > Regards, > Vladimir Ulybin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:07 PM > To: Vladimir Ulybin > Cc: Paul E. Jones; avt@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > On 19 Jul 2005, at 07:40, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > >> 1. Zero is a simplest solution. The RFC 3550 allow the same time >> stamp >> for several consecutive packets. So, when these packets will be >> transmitted as redundant one relative to the other, the time >> offsets per >> RFC 2198 will be zero. It means that receiving gateway should handle >> correctly zero time offsets in RFC 2198 headers. >> > > No, since it will treat the data as being a redundant copy of the > packet in which it is sent. If you use an offset of zero, there's no > way to correctly place the data at the right time instant in the > playout buffer. > > >> 2. The computation of redundant packet time offset relative to >> primary >> packet can be applied for synchronous operation like audio or >> t4-non-ECM-data having a fixed time interval between packets. But, >> for >> asynchronous packet stream, which is typical for T.30 control and ECM >> fax, such approach cannot be used. >> > > Correct - this is why RFC 2198 has an explicit timestamp for the > redundancy offset. > > >> Why I opened this issue? >> >> Assume a T.38 module of DSP/gateway which delivers the T.38 UDPTL >> packets ready for transmission to IP. To enable new feature of T.38 >> over >> RTP, it is easy to convert T.38 UDPTL into RFC 2198 at output of >> DSP/gateway. The obstacle is in time stamp offsets of redundant >> packets. >> We all (fax engineers) know that these offsets are not required at >> T.38 >> packet receivers. But accurate transmission of those per RFC 2198 >> requires deep re-writing of working and verified module(s) plus >> additional allocation of RedundancyLevel*NofChannels timestamps. >> > > Correct - this is required for robust operation over an unreliable > packet network that may disrupt media timing. > > There are two cases: > > 1) There is a constant mapping from sequence number to timestamp. In > this case, you can trivially calculate the timestamp and need no > extra storage. The media timing can be reconstructed using either the > sequence number or timestamp, and transporting both is essentially a > waste of bandwidth for this application. In this case, you treat the > extra bits on the wire as an "RTP tax" needed for interoperability, > but don't need to store the extra data in the gateway. > > 2) There is not a constant mapping from sequence number to timestamp. > This case requires you to store the extra timestamps for inclusion in > RFC 2198 redundancy headers, however that extra information is > required by the receiver to manage a playout buffer, since a playout > buffer managed by sequence number only is not sufficient to > reconstruct media timing. > > Colin > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 03:07:29 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dv8fx-0002lO-E2; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:07:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dv8fu-0002kk-NL for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:07:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA09055 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:07:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dv99g-0002gy-C5 for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:38:13 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:07:31 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126EC59@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWMctt4VS/Xi7r/TgiIQ9A2a7t+pwAhFQsQ From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: "Colin Perkins" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 200d029292fbb60d25b263122ced50fc Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Colin, Unfortunately, T.38 over UDPTL has no secure capability. This is why we need T.38 over RTP. The discussion was very useful for understanding possible interoperability problems of T.38 over RTP and correcting the implementation concept. Thank you very much! Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]=20 Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 6:01 PM To: Vladimir Ulybin Cc: Paul E. Jones; avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Vladimir, Use of timestamps to reconstruct media timing is an essential feature =20 of RTP. We will not standardise an RTP payload format which does not =20 use them, since that would be incompatible with the rest of RTP, and =20 would break the playout model used by RTP applications. RTP is a =20 general purpose transport protocol for real-time traffic -- it is not =20 appropriate to optimise it for this niche application, at the expense =20 incompatibility with other use cases. If you do not wish to use timestamps in your application, I suggest =20 you use T.38 over UDPTL instead of over RTP. When implementing T.38 =20 over RTP, using timestamps is mandatory (as with all other RTP =20 payload formats). Colin On 19 Jul 2005, at 15:45, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > Colin, > > I think that the use of timestamps together with sequence numbers for > building T.38 packet recovery buffer is not a good way. For T.38 > INDICATOR packets it is acceptable but for DATA packets this way may > cause a lot of problems for packet recovery during data transfer. > > It is much easy and reliable to use RTP sequence number as the only =20 > base > for ordering T.38 packets arrived over RTP. In this case, =20 > timestamps of > redundant payloads may be ignored without any problems. > > Let consider an option to update the "draft-jones-avt-audio-=20 > t38-05.txt" > or write a new draft for T.38 over RTP. > > I think the problems opened in our discussions > - repetition of T.38 packets and > - excessive complexity of T.38 over RTP caused by timestamps > (non-required by T.38) > are general for different vendors. > > Regards, > Vladimir Ulybin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:07 PM > To: Vladimir Ulybin > Cc: Paul E. Jones; avt@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > On 19 Jul 2005, at 07:40, Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > >> 1. Zero is a simplest solution. The RFC 3550 allow the same time =20 >> stamp >> for several consecutive packets. So, when these packets will be >> transmitted as redundant one relative to the other, the time >> offsets per >> RFC 2198 will be zero. It means that receiving gateway should handle >> correctly zero time offsets in RFC 2198 headers. >> > > No, since it will treat the data as being a redundant copy of the > packet in which it is sent. If you use an offset of zero, there's no > way to correctly place the data at the right time instant in the > playout buffer. > > >> 2. The computation of redundant packet time offset relative to =20 >> primary >> packet can be applied for synchronous operation like audio or >> t4-non-ECM-data having a fixed time interval between packets. But, =20 >> for >> asynchronous packet stream, which is typical for T.30 control and ECM >> fax, such approach cannot be used. >> > > Correct - this is why RFC 2198 has an explicit timestamp for the > redundancy offset. > > >> Why I opened this issue? >> >> Assume a T.38 module of DSP/gateway which delivers the T.38 UDPTL >> packets ready for transmission to IP. To enable new feature of T.38 >> over >> RTP, it is easy to convert T.38 UDPTL into RFC 2198 at output of >> DSP/gateway. The obstacle is in time stamp offsets of redundant >> packets. >> We all (fax engineers) know that these offsets are not required at >> T.38 >> packet receivers. But accurate transmission of those per RFC 2198 >> requires deep re-writing of working and verified module(s) plus >> additional allocation of RedundancyLevel*NofChannels timestamps. >> > > Correct - this is required for robust operation over an unreliable > packet network that may disrupt media timing. > > There are two cases: > > 1) There is a constant mapping from sequence number to timestamp. In > this case, you can trivially calculate the timestamp and need no > extra storage. The media timing can be reconstructed using either the > sequence number or timestamp, and transporting both is essentially a > waste of bandwidth for this application. In this case, you treat the > extra bits on the wire as an "RTP tax" needed for interoperability, > but don't need to store the extra data in the gateway. > > 2) There is not a constant mapping from sequence number to timestamp. > This case requires you to store the extra timestamps for inclusion in > RFC 2198 redundancy headers, however that extra information is > required by the receiver to manage a playout buffer, since a playout > buffer managed by sequence number only is not sufficient to > reconstruct media timing. > > Colin > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 03:48:53 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dv9K1-0006kS-9G; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:48:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dv9K0-0006kN-BV for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:48:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13398 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dv9nn-0005JT-CQ for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:19:39 -0400 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.120]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 3E925C53; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:48:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:48:43 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.40] ([147.214.34.40]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:48:43 +0200 Message-ID: <42DE01DA.8080405@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:48:42 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vladimir Ulybin Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number References: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126EB68@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126EB68@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2005 07:48:43.0249 (UTC) FILETIME=[7383BE10:01C58CFF] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Paul E. Jones" , Colin Perkins , avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I think a lot of the problems you are having is based on the fact you are using RFC 2198 for something it wasn't designed for. It was designed and works as intended for audio payloads that relies on a single data block (ADU) per timestamp. The formats that fulfill this can for synchronization and detecting duplicates rely solely on timestamp. It uses the RTP timestamp primarily to detect when discontinuous transmissions occur. RFC 2198 doesn't have full sequence number recovery due to the fact that it wasn't needed for all the audio payloads one was considering to use. Also the solution RFC 2198 employs aren't suitable at all when the payloads become larger than half of the MTU. If you want sequence number recovery, less hassle with timestamps and so: Use RFC 2733 FEC resolves these issue. Or rather the updated version as RFC 2733 has some issues. Unfortunately we haven't finished this update yet, but we are getting close. Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > Let consider an option to update the "draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt" > or write a new draft for T.38 over RTP. This is an ITU defined RTP payload format. I agree that it has issues and some of them could have been avoided if ITU had involved AVT in the loop earlier when it was under proposal. However it is ITU that has change control of it. > > I think the problems opened in our discussions > - repetition of T.38 packets and If you are using RTP you have certain rules to follow. These involve the fact that packets can't be repeated using the same RTP sequence number. This requires solution like the RTP Retransmission format or the use of 2733 FEC. > - excessive complexity of T.38 over RTP caused by timestamps > (non-required by T.38) As Colin says RTP timestamps must be set in RTP. However one can make them simple to only indicate time of transmission. This would be simpler if people hadn't insisted on making it go over the same RTP session as audio. FAX isn't audio and it shouldn't be handled the same way as audio packets. Thus it should go in its own RTP session where it can be given somewhat different treatment. Yes, audio/t38 should in fact be image/t38 or possibly application/t38. Then as I said, stop using RFC 2198 and your timestamp issues mostly goes away. Cheers Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 05:16:39 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvAgx-0000Ht-2G; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:16:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvAgu-0000Hj-Oz for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:16:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA23784 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvBAi-00025R-9I for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:47:25 -0400 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id A6C631047; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:16:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:16:32 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.40] ([147.214.34.40]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:16:31 +0200 Message-ID: <42DE166E.4020706@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:16:30 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF AVT WG , Adam Li Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2005 09:16:31.0679 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7BE5CF0:01C58D0B] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 31b28e25e9d13a22020d8b7aedc9832c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: [AVT] Comments on draft-ietf-avt-ulp-11 X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi Adam, I have reviewed the updated draft and have a couple of comments. Unfortunately I don't think the draft is ready for publication, but it is getting close. I will also send comments on the FEC grouping draft to MMUSIC. 1. Section 7.3, SSRC: SSRC: The SSRC value will generally be the same as the SSRC value of the media stream it protects. I think generally here is a bit unclear. Based on what is written elsewhere in the draft this is in fact a SHALL. So I would suggest that you change the sentence to: SSRC: The SSRC value SHALL be the same as the SSRC value of the media stream it protects. 2. Section 10: The examples: I think the mask listing could be improved in the examples. Instead of mask: 61440 [with Packet 8, 9, 10, and 11 marked] I think one should discuss the bit level: mask: 61440 [with bits (Pkt Seq nr.) 1(8), 2(9), (3)10, and 4(11) marked] 3. Section 11. I think we need to split out the congestion related discussion into its own Congestion Control section. There is also need to add some text here regarding RTP and profiles. Congestion Control Another issue with the use of FEC is its impact on network congestion. In many situations, the packet loss in the network is induced by congestions. In such scenarios, adding FEC when encountering increasing network losses should be avoided. If it is used on a widespread basis, this can result in increased congestion and eventual congestion collapse. The applications may include stronger protections while at the same time reduce the bandwidth for the payload packets. In any event, implementations MUST NOT substantially increase the total amount of bandwidth in use (including the payload and the FEC) as network losses increase. The general congestion control considerations for transporting RTP data apply, see RTP [3] and any applicable RTP profile like AVP [9]. An additional requirement if best-effort service is being used is: users of this payload format MUST monitor packet loss to ensure that the packet loss rate is within acceptable parameters. Packet loss is considered acceptable if a TCP flow across the same network path, and experiencing the same network conditions, would achieve an average throughput, measured on a reasonable timescale, that is not less than the RTP flow is achieving. This condition can be satisfied by implementing congestion control mechanisms to adapt the transmission rate (or the number of layers subscribed for a layered multicast session), or by arranging for a receiver to leave the session if the loss rate is unacceptably high. 4. The MIME registration must be updated to reflect what has been agreed so far in discussions with the MIME people. I have below one updated registration. Please note that I have added the rate parameter as it is now needed. 12. MIME Registrations Four new MIME sub-types as described in this section are to be registered with IANA. This registration is done using the template defined in [freed] and following RFC 3555 [RFC3555]. 12.1. Registration of audio/ulpfec MIME media type name: audio MIME subtype name: ulpfec Required parameters: none Rate: The RTP timestamp rate which is used to mark the time of transmission of the FEC packet in separate stream. In cases it is sent as redundant data to another stream the rate SHALL be the same as the primary encoding it is used to protect. When used in a separate stream the rate SHALL be larger than 1000 Hz to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP operations. The selected rate MAY be any value above 1000 Hz but is RECOMMENDED to match the rate of the media this stream protects. Optional parameters: none Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (see section 4.8 in [freed]) and contains binary data. Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via RTP [3]. Transport within other framing protocols SHALL NOT be defined as this is a robustness mechanism for RTP. Security considerations: the same security considerations apply to these MIME registrations as to the payloads for them, as detailed in RFC xxxx. Interoperability considerations: none Published specification: RFC xxxx. Applications which use this media type: Audio and video streaming tools which seek to improve resiliency to loss by sending additional data with the media stream. Additional information: none Person & email address to contact for further information: Adam Li adamli@hyervision.com IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group Intended usage: COMMON Author: Adam Li adamli@hyervision.com Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group delegated from the IESG. Informative references: [freed] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", draft-freed-media-type-reg-04, April 2005. [rfc3555] Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003. 5. Section 13.2: I think the usage of the ULP as redundant data is underspecified. 13.2. FEC as Redundant Encoding When the FEC stream is being sent as a secondary codec in the redundant encoding format, this must be signaled through SDP. To do this, the procedures defined in RFC 2198 [5] are used to signal the use of redundant encoding. The FEC payload type is indicated in the same fashion as any other secondary codec. The FEC MUST protect only the main codec. Because the FEC data is sent in the same packets as the protected payload, the ULP header of the FEC packets is not used. The FEC data is associated with the protected payload by being bundled in the same stream. I would start with the last sentence of the first paragraph: "The FEC MUST protect only the main codec." How is that possible? Should the FEC encoding engine create a virtual packet only containing the primary payload? The FEC mechanism defined protects complete packets, thus I think for simplicity one should protect the complete packet, including any FEC redundant payload parts of already sent packets. Secondly, "Because the FEC data is sent in the same packets as the protected payload, the ULP header of the FEC packets is not used." How will it be possible to not have the ULP header? 6. Section 14. This section is missing an Offer/Answer consideration section. To my eye this would not be a long section however to show that it has been considered it is needed to be included. If you like some help please ask me. However I don't have time to whip one together now. 7. The normative Reference list. I think it contains unnecessary references that are informative. Normative references are such references that are necessary to correctly implement this specification. "Encode the binary data into a text string using BASE-64 [RFC3548]". Thus I think that reference 1, 2, 6, and 7 are not needed. In fact reference [7] is not used at all. Cheers Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 05:50:50 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvBE2-0000zc-3D; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:50:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvBE0-0000zX-UU for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:50:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27200 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:50:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvBhm-0004Wm-MB for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:21:37 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:50:57 +0300 Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126ED58@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWM/5BSBZvQV+2NTv61EoQySAKxDAADFSAA From: "Vladimir Ulybin" To: "Magnus Westerlund" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1a1bf7677bfe77d8af1ebe0e91045c5b Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Paul E. Jones" , Colin Perkins , avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi, You are right. The play out concept of RFC 2198 is problematic for fax relay. Because, T.38 gateways do not play the buffers, but transmit according to T.30 standard. Generally, the fax rates may be different at two sides of communication, for example, 2400bps at calling fax side and 14400bps at answer fax side. Also T.30 control signals may have no synchronization between gateways, but should be synchronized with near fax machine. The problem of timestamps is not only our (AudioCodes) problem but is general for different vendors. The packet buffer of a gateway receiving T.38 packets has no any time mapping. The sequence number is the only ID of T.38 packet. Combining sequence numbers with timestamps in packet recovery module is highly problematic for interoperability (and from my point of view is wrong for fax transfer). Unfortunately, typical gateways do not support a complex protocol RFC 2733. So, we cannot use it as a basic for our implementation. Thanks, Vladimir Ulybin -----Original Message----- From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:49 AM To: Vladimir Ulybin Cc: Colin Perkins; Paul E. Jones; avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Hi, I think a lot of the problems you are having is based on the fact you=20 are using RFC 2198 for something it wasn't designed for. It was designed and works as intended for audio payloads that relies on a single data=20 block (ADU) per timestamp. The formats that fulfill this can for=20 synchronization and detecting duplicates rely solely on timestamp. It=20 uses the RTP timestamp primarily to detect when discontinuous=20 transmissions occur. RFC 2198 doesn't have full sequence number recovery due to the fact that it wasn't needed for all the audio payloads one was considering to use. Also the solution RFC 2198 employs aren't suitable=20 at all when the payloads become larger than half of the MTU. If you want sequence number recovery, less hassle with timestamps and=20 so: Use RFC 2733 FEC resolves these issue. Or rather the updated version as RFC 2733 has some issues. Unfortunately we haven't finished this=20 update yet, but we are getting close. Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > Let consider an option to update the "draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt" > or write a new draft for T.38 over RTP. This is an ITU defined RTP payload format. I agree that it has issues=20 and some of them could have been avoided if ITU had involved AVT in the=20 loop earlier when it was under proposal. However it is ITU that has=20 change control of it. >=20 > I think the problems opened in our discussions=20 > - repetition of T.38 packets and=20 If you are using RTP you have certain rules to follow. These involve the fact that packets can't be repeated using the same RTP sequence number.=20 This requires solution like the RTP Retransmission format or the use of=20 2733 FEC. > - excessive complexity of T.38 over RTP caused by timestamps > (non-required by T.38) As Colin says RTP timestamps must be set in RTP. However one can make=20 them simple to only indicate time of transmission. This would be simpler if people hadn't insisted on making it go over the same RTP session as=20 audio. FAX isn't audio and it shouldn't be handled the same way as audio packets. Thus it should go in its own RTP session where it can be given=20 somewhat different treatment. Yes, audio/t38 should in fact be image/t38 or possibly application/t38. Then as I said, stop using RFC 2198 and your timestamp issues mostly=20 goes away. Cheers Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 08:07:37 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvDMP-0003GN-GX; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:07:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DuzYe-0004dg-2U for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:23:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05449 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56] helo=zcars04e.ca.nortel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dv02J-0007CW-8o for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:54:01 -0400 Received: from zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.72]) by zcars04e.ca.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j6JLLfx01426 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:21:42 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:23:05 -0500 Message-ID: <7A3E36B3528ED04A880178D337F30C9A0638DE56@zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: Requesting Comments: "RTP Payload Format for ECN Probing" Thread-Index: AcWMqA1KULlL1SQTQRWD1Iyq2b8aGg== From: "Corey Alexander" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5ebbf074524e58e662bc8209a6235027 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:07:35 -0400 Subject: [AVT] Requesting Comments: "RTP Payload Format for ECN Probing" X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1642229006==" Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1642229006== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58CA8.0DA7CE59" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58CA8.0DA7CE59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings. We are looking for feedback on the following draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn- probing-01.txt. This draft has been submitted detailing a proposed RTP payload format for use with probing during session establishment to determine the measured congestion level of the path via a modified Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) bit marking mechanism. The general problem we intend to solve here is one of admission control based on the measured level of congestion along the network path. As background, draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-babiarz-tsvwg-rtecn-04.txt describes an ECN marking mechanism for real-time flows. Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alexander-congestion-status-pr econditions-00.txt describes a SIP precondition used to delay session establishment until a congestion level within the network can be determined. The draft for which feedback is being requested describes an RTP payload format used to probe for the measured level of congestion along the network path via ECN markings in an RTP flow. A general description of the payload format's used is described in draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alexander-rtecn-use-cases-00.t xt. We welcome and appreciate any comments/feedback. Thank you, Corey Corey W. Alexander=20 Nortel ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58CA8.0DA7CE59 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Requesting Comments: "RTP Payload Format for ECN = Probing"

Greetings.  We are looking for = feedback on the following draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-= ecn-probing-01.txt.  = This draft has been submitted detailing a proposed RTP payload format = for use with probing during session establishment to determine the = measured congestion level of the path via a modified Explicit Congestion = Notification (ECN) bit marking mechanism.

The general problem we intend to solve = here is one of admission control based on the measured level of = congestion along the network path.  As background, draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-babiarz-tsvwg-rtecn-04.txt= describes an ECN marking = mechanism for real-time flows.  Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alexander-congestion-statu= s-preconditions-00.txt = describes a SIP precondition used to delay session establishment until a = congestion level within the network can be determined.

The draft for which feedback is being = requested describes an RTP payload format used to probe for the measured = level of congestion along the network path via ECN markings in an RTP = flow.  A general description of the payload format's used is = described in draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alexander-rtecn-use-cases-= 00.txt.

We welcome and appreciate any = comments/feedback.

Thank you,
Corey

Corey W. = Alexander
Nortel

------_=_NextPart_001_01C58CA8.0DA7CE59-- --===============1642229006== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --===============1642229006==-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 08:51:58 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvE3J-0008Sf-Uh; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:51:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvE3E-0008Qx-6q for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:51:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12058 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.207]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvEX3-00087e-69 for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:22:42 -0400 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id r28so1416599nza for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:51:39 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=BEm9URlfbEN8MxU++WLW0d/Pd1ITK89NLLVnuwHTh664lY6cWrBPyBD6H0BErp2iDeXCRaXF9RG3a6euyo54ZMwrY2TIIfMsF5eMl4CIEW3LgXD3xK62Au/b+UdkEZ2UpQnewyEIMCmFZ3HKSDNGjXFkbH+TTninQeHK2SXC4lc= Received: by 10.36.33.3 with SMTP id g3mr52436nzg; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.103.5 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6e5aff67050720055118830878@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:51:09 -0300 From: Alejandro Cabrera Obed To: AVT Lista Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [AVT] MIME type registration: basic question X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alejandro Cabrera Obed List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Dear people, I've been seen that all the the RTP payload formats for audio and video need to define a MIME type registration, with type of media, transport protocol and media format. My question is this: why is it necessary the definition of a MIME type in -for example- HDTV media sessions ??? Doesn't MIME refer to an official Internet standard that specifies how messages must be formatted so that they can be exchanged between different email systems only (and for web too) ??? Thanks a lot !!!! Alejandro --=20 Alejandro Cabrera Obed aco1967@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 09:13:59 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvEOd-0004na-Ra; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:13:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvEOb-0004mo-My for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:13:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13544 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:13:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvEsQ-00018M-T3 for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:44:48 -0400 Received: from alor.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.247.84]:58429) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DvEOC-0003IC-0Q; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:13:32 +0100 In-Reply-To: <6e5aff67050720055118830878@mail.gmail.com> References: <6e5aff67050720055118830878@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <66BB6289-C54D-4FDD-8A0C-07EB33DEF7CA@csperkins.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] MIME type registration: basic question Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:13:28 +0100 To: Alejandro Cabrera Obed X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: AVT Lista X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On 20 Jul 2005, at 13:51, Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote: > I've been seen that all the the RTP payload formats for audio and > video need to define a MIME type registration, with type of media, > transport protocol and media format. > > My question is this: why is it necessary the definition of a MIME type > in -for example- HDTV media sessions ??? Doesn't MIME refer to an > official Internet standard that specifies how messages must be > formatted so that they can be exchanged between different email > systems only (and for web too) ??? A media type name is registered, so the format can be signalled in SDP. SDP uses the same namespace as email, the web, and many other protocols, to identify media formats. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 11:57:58 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvGxK-0005MJ-P2; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:57:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvGxJ-0005MD-9L for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:57:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04099 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:57:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rrcs-24-199-146-6.midsouth.biz.rr.com ([24.199.146.6] helo=berlin.arid.us ident=system) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvHR8-0005qG-Rg for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:28:49 -0400 Received: from madrid (madrid.arid.us [192.168.1.10]) by berlin.arid.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6KFvZSA007287; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:57:35 -0400 Message-Id: <200507201557.j6KFvZSA007287@berlin.arid.us> From: "Paul E. Jones" To: "'Magnus Westerlund'" , "'Vladimir Ulybin'" Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:57:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <42DE01DA.8080405@ericsson.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcWM/3ginhtPHsjKSS+JAd6QRPYvowAQpC7A X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 'Colin Perkins' , avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Magnus, Vladimir, > As Colin says RTP timestamps must be set in RTP. However one can make > them simple to only indicate time of transmission. This would be simpler > if people hadn't insisted on making it go over the same RTP session as > audio. FAX isn't audio and it shouldn't be handled the same way as audio > packets. Thus it should go in its own RTP session where it can be given > somewhat different treatment. Yes, audio/t38 should in fact be image/t38 > or possibly application/t38. > > Then as I said, stop using RFC 2198 and your timestamp issues mostly > goes away. One of the reasons for wanting to use audio/t38 stems from the fact that GWs are transporting audio signals over IP, transitioning to fax, and then back to audio mode again. While fax isn't strictly audio, it arrives in the audio path, just as DTMF and other audio signals do. As such, there was the desire to introduce audio/t38: it provides a pretty seamless means of transitioning audio and fax. The alternative is fairly messy signaling exchanges and/or the allocation of additional UDP ports, just in case one side initiates a fax transfer. Lastly, transporting T.38 over RTP in this way allows us to secure fax using SRTP with no more effort than the underlying audio stream. During the discussions held in regard to transporting T.38 over RTP, time stamps were never regarded as something difficult to deal with. The DSPs are constantly sampling the circuit and there is an associated clock running somewhere. The fact that the timestamp does not have the same level of importance for T.38 as they do for audio was not considered a reason to change that running clock, the logic used to queue packets according to said clock, or the protocols used to transmit the T.38 over RTP. While T.38 is an application, it is also audio: one can hear the nasty screechy noises. The payload is just the representation of that audio and there is a running clock associated with it. Granted, the clock is "looser" in many respects, but back in 1998 when the ITU decided to use UDPTL, many argued that it should have used RTP instead. Now the addition has been made and (quite likely) a migration toward RTP for the benefits of security. As we do this, I would very much like to keep it consistent with RTP and look at it no differently than an alternative representation of the audio, as we do for information encoded with RFC 2833. Paul _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 12:06:05 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvH5B-0007JL-7C; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:06:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvH59-0007JF-JG for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:06:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04638 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rrcs-24-199-146-6.midsouth.biz.rr.com ([24.199.146.6] helo=berlin.arid.us ident=system) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvHZ1-0006FZ-5Q for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:36:55 -0400 Received: from madrid (madrid.arid.us [192.168.1.10]) by berlin.arid.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6KG5vSA007374; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:05:57 -0400 Message-Id: <200507201605.j6KG5vSA007374@berlin.arid.us> From: "Paul E. Jones" To: "'Vladimir Ulybin'" , "'Magnus Westerlund'" Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:06:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60126ED58@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcWM/5BSBZvQV+2NTv61EoQySAKxDAADFSAAAA4BYjA= X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68ba2b07ef271dba6ee42a93832cfa4c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 'Colin Perkins' , avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Vladimir, Forget RFC 2198 for a moment. You're going to sample the audio, you will extract T.30 information from that audio, you will form an RTP packet using the time from the clock that is necessarily running. As Packets arrive, you can do what you want with the timestamps, but they can certainly be used for ordering packets if you want or they can be largely ignored. Now, if you add RFC 2198 to the picture, you are simply re-transmitting the media from a previous packet in the current packet. The timestamp was in the previous packet and the current packet simply has an offset to it. When it arrives, you can determine the order of packets. Isn't that all you need? Honestly, I do not see why this is causing such a problem. I will not disagree that an alternative (e.g., UDPTL) might be more fitting as it does not have timestamps, but as Colin pointing out: it's an RTP tax. But, you get benefits with that tax, including security, RTCP, RTCP-XR, etc. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Ulybin [mailto:Vladimir@audiocodes.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:51 AM > To: Magnus Westerlund > Cc: Colin Perkins; Paul E. Jones; avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > Hi, > > You are right. The play out concept of RFC 2198 is problematic for fax > relay. Because, T.38 gateways do not play the buffers, but transmit > according to T.30 standard. Generally, the fax rates may be different at > two sides of communication, for example, 2400bps at calling fax side and > 14400bps at answer fax side. Also T.30 control signals may have no > synchronization between gateways, but should be synchronized with near > fax machine. > > The problem of timestamps is not only our (AudioCodes) problem but is > general for different vendors. > > The packet buffer of a gateway receiving T.38 packets has no any time > mapping. The sequence number is the only ID of T.38 packet. Combining > sequence numbers with timestamps in packet recovery module is highly > problematic for interoperability (and from my point of view is wrong for > fax transfer). > > Unfortunately, typical gateways do not support a complex protocol RFC > 2733. So, we cannot use it as a basic for our implementation. > > Thanks, > Vladimir Ulybin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:49 AM > To: Vladimir Ulybin > Cc: Colin Perkins; Paul E. Jones; avt@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number > > Hi, > > I think a lot of the problems you are having is based on the fact you > are using RFC 2198 for something it wasn't designed for. It was designed > > and works as intended for audio payloads that relies on a single data > block (ADU) per timestamp. The formats that fulfill this can for > synchronization and detecting duplicates rely solely on timestamp. It > uses the RTP timestamp primarily to detect when discontinuous > transmissions occur. RFC 2198 doesn't have full sequence number recovery > > due to the fact that it wasn't needed for all the audio payloads one was > > considering to use. Also the solution RFC 2198 employs aren't suitable > at all when the payloads become larger than half of the MTU. > > If you want sequence number recovery, less hassle with timestamps and > so: Use RFC 2733 FEC resolves these issue. Or rather the updated version > > as RFC 2733 has some issues. Unfortunately we haven't finished this > update yet, but we are getting close. > > Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > > Let consider an option to update the > "draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt" > > or write a new draft for T.38 over RTP. > > This is an ITU defined RTP payload format. I agree that it has issues > and some of them could have been avoided if ITU had involved AVT in the > loop earlier when it was under proposal. However it is ITU that has > change control of it. > > > > > I think the problems opened in our discussions > > - repetition of T.38 packets and > > If you are using RTP you have certain rules to follow. These involve the > > fact that packets can't be repeated using the same RTP sequence number. > This requires solution like the RTP Retransmission format or the use of > 2733 FEC. > > > - excessive complexity of T.38 over RTP caused by timestamps > > (non-required by T.38) > > As Colin says RTP timestamps must be set in RTP. However one can make > them simple to only indicate time of transmission. This would be simpler > > if people hadn't insisted on making it go over the same RTP session as > audio. FAX isn't audio and it shouldn't be handled the same way as audio > > packets. Thus it should go in its own RTP session where it can be given > somewhat different treatment. Yes, audio/t38 should in fact be image/t38 > > or possibly application/t38. > > Then as I said, stop using RFC 2198 and your timestamp issues mostly > goes away. > > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 > Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 > S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 12:40:15 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvHcF-0004lR-JR; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:40:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvHcD-0004lD-6t for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:40:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07693 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zrtps0kn.nortelnetworks.com ([47.140.192.55]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvI5z-00006Q-N2 for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:11:02 -0400 Received: from zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.97]) by zrtps0kn.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j6KGdkR00832; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:39:47 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:39:46 -0400 Message-ID: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB04BACFC9@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: SRTCP key derivation Thread-Index: AcV+FUV6HBMFW37sSWu/MwpHdvnY8APM2A7w From: "Guoqiang Lu" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mcgrew@cisco.com, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mats_N=E4slund?= Subject: [AVT] SRTCP key derivation X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi, In RFC3711, section 4.3.2. SRTCP Key Derivation, it says: "Replace the SRTP index by the 32-bit quantity: 0 || SRTCP index ..." My question is that SRTP index is a 48-bit quantity, should the SRTCP = 32-bit quantity "0 || SRTCP index" be patched with 16 leading zeros? Thanks! Guoqiang Lu ESN: 39-36277 Phone: (613) 763-6277 guoqian@nortel.com -------------------------- The contents of the this e-mail may be Nortel Confidential!=20 _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 13:31:52 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvIQC-0007aa-HL; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:31:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvIQ6-0007RS-Do; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:31:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12669; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvIty-0003qK-UE; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:02:39 -0400 Received: from apache by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DvIQ3-0000KI-QG; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:31:43 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:31:43 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] Last Call: 'RTP Payload Format for 3GPP Timed Text' to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport WG to consider the following document: - 'RTP Payload Format for 3GPP Timed Text ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2005-08-03. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-15.txt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 15:15:56 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvK2u-0005xE-GW; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:15:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvK2t-0005x9-6N for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:15:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22579 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:15:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvKWj-0002Ft-En for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:46:48 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:16:06 +0300 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWM/5BSBZvQV+2NTv61EoQySAKxDAADFSAAAA4BYjAABswugA== From: "Oren Peleg" To: "Paul E. Jones" , "Vladimir Ulybin" , "Magnus Westerlund" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ded6070f7eed56e10c4f4d0d5043d9c7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Colin Perkins , avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org I would like to suggest the following: Since Timestamp is profile specific, the T.38 RTP profile draft (currently draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt) will add a special case of Timestamp manipulation which will be used for redundant control packet transmission (similar to the End packet of the RFC 2833 event). At this special case the timestamp that will be used at the redundant packets will be the same as the timestamp of the original packet. The number of redundant packets will be determined via SDP using a special parameter. Oren P. -----Original Message----- From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:06 PM To: Vladimir Ulybin; 'Magnus Westerlund' Cc: 'Colin Perkins'; avt@ietf.org Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Vladimir, Forget RFC 2198 for a moment. You're going to sample the audio, you will extract T.30 information from that audio, you will form an RTP packet using the time from the clock that is necessarily running. As Packets arrive, you can do what you want with the timestamps, but they can certainly be used for ordering packets if you want or they can be largely ignored. Now, if you add RFC 2198 to the picture, you are simply re-transmitting the media from a previous packet in the current packet. The timestamp was in the previous packet and the current packet simply has an offset to it. When it arrives, you can determine the order of packets. Isn't that all you need? Honestly, I do not see why this is causing such a problem. I will not disagree that an alternative (e.g., UDPTL) might be more fitting as it does not have timestamps, but as Colin pointing out: it's an RTP tax. But, you get benefits with that tax, including security, RTCP, RTCP-XR, etc. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Ulybin [mailto:Vladimir@audiocodes.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:51 AM > To: Magnus Westerlund > Cc: Colin Perkins; Paul E. Jones; avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number >=20 > Hi, >=20 > You are right. The play out concept of RFC 2198 is problematic for fax > relay. Because, T.38 gateways do not play the buffers, but transmit > according to T.30 standard. Generally, the fax rates may be different at > two sides of communication, for example, 2400bps at calling fax side and > 14400bps at answer fax side. Also T.30 control signals may have no > synchronization between gateways, but should be synchronized with near > fax machine. >=20 > The problem of timestamps is not only our (AudioCodes) problem but is > general for different vendors. >=20 > The packet buffer of a gateway receiving T.38 packets has no any time > mapping. The sequence number is the only ID of T.38 packet. Combining > sequence numbers with timestamps in packet recovery module is highly > problematic for interoperability (and from my point of view is wrong for > fax transfer). >=20 > Unfortunately, typical gateways do not support a complex protocol RFC > 2733. So, we cannot use it as a basic for our implementation. >=20 > Thanks, > Vladimir Ulybin >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:49 AM > To: Vladimir Ulybin > Cc: Colin Perkins; Paul E. Jones; avt@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I think a lot of the problems you are having is based on the fact you > are using RFC 2198 for something it wasn't designed for. It was designed >=20 > and works as intended for audio payloads that relies on a single data > block (ADU) per timestamp. The formats that fulfill this can for > synchronization and detecting duplicates rely solely on timestamp. It > uses the RTP timestamp primarily to detect when discontinuous > transmissions occur. RFC 2198 doesn't have full sequence number recovery >=20 > due to the fact that it wasn't needed for all the audio payloads one was >=20 > considering to use. Also the solution RFC 2198 employs aren't suitable > at all when the payloads become larger than half of the MTU. >=20 > If you want sequence number recovery, less hassle with timestamps and > so: Use RFC 2733 FEC resolves these issue. Or rather the updated version >=20 > as RFC 2733 has some issues. Unfortunately we haven't finished this > update yet, but we are getting close. >=20 > Vladimir Ulybin wrote: > > Let consider an option to update the > "draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt" > > or write a new draft for T.38 over RTP. >=20 > This is an ITU defined RTP payload format. I agree that it has issues > and some of them could have been avoided if ITU had involved AVT in the > loop earlier when it was under proposal. However it is ITU that has > change control of it. >=20 > > > > I think the problems opened in our discussions > > - repetition of T.38 packets and >=20 > If you are using RTP you have certain rules to follow. These involve the >=20 > fact that packets can't be repeated using the same RTP sequence number. > This requires solution like the RTP Retransmission format or the use of > 2733 FEC. >=20 > > - excessive complexity of T.38 over RTP caused by timestamps > > (non-required by T.38) >=20 > As Colin says RTP timestamps must be set in RTP. However one can make > them simple to only indicate time of transmission. This would be simpler >=20 > if people hadn't insisted on making it go over the same RTP session as > audio. FAX isn't audio and it shouldn't be handled the same way as audio >=20 > packets. Thus it should go in its own RTP session where it can be given > somewhat different treatment. Yes, audio/t38 should in fact be image/t38 >=20 > or possibly application/t38. >=20 > Then as I said, stop using RFC 2198 and your timestamp issues mostly > goes away. >=20 >=20 > Cheers >=20 > Magnus Westerlund >=20 > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 > Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 > S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 15:20:13 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvK73-0007GD-Dc; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:20:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvK71-0007Fr-Jp for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:20:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23064 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:20:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvKar-0002UM-S0 for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:51:05 -0400 Received: from alor.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.247.84]:61140) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DvK6n-0008P3-8i; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:19:57 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <3B0FC2D7-451E-4001-8F69-C2A43B460ED5@csperkins.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:19:48 +0100 To: "Oren Peleg" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Paul E. Jones" , Vladimir Ulybin , avt@ietf.org, Magnus Westerlund X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org On 20 Jul 2005, at 20:16, Oren Peleg wrote: > I would like to suggest the following: > > Since Timestamp is profile specific, the T.38 RTP profile draft > (currently draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt) will add a special > case of > Timestamp manipulation which will be used for redundant control packet > transmission (similar to the End packet of the RFC 2833 event). At > this > special case the timestamp that will be used at the redundant packets > will be the same as the timestamp of the original packet. The > number of > redundant packets will be determined via SDP using a special > parameter. This is incompatible with all other uses of RFC 2198, and contrary to the RTP timing model. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 15:50:52 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvKai-0006GI-Hn; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvKZy-0005uP-Og; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25132; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvL3p-0004JM-12; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:20:58 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DvKZu-0007ie-Dv; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:02 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:02 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-08.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF. Title : RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video Streams Author(s) : S. Futemma, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-08.txt Pages : 32 Date : 2005-7-20 This memo describes an RTP payload format for the ISO/IEC International Standard 15444-1 | ITU-T Rec. T.800, otherwise better known as: JPEG 2000. JPEG 2000 features are considered and there are provisions in the design of this payload format. JPEG 2000 is a truly scalable compression technology allowing applications to encode one way and decode many different ways. Extending from a single image to a series of JPEG 2000 images, one has a JPEG 2000 video stream. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-08.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-08.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-08.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-20115701.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-08.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-20115701.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --NextPart-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 15:51:06 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvKaw-0006LK-Ib; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:51:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvKZz-0005vL-Tf; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25141; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvL3p-0004JP-2i; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:20:59 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DvKZu-0007ii-Eo; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:02 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:02 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-01.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF. Title : Enhanced Payload Format for Priority & Header Processing RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video Streams BEAM extension Author(s) : A. Leung, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-01.txt Pages : 27 Date : 2005-7-20 This memo describes extended uses for payload header in RFCXXXY, An RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video, for better support of JPEG 2000 features such as scalability and includes a main header recovery method. This memo MUST be accompanied with an implementation of RFCXXXY for a complete implementation. RFCXXXY itself is a complete description of the payload header and signaling, this document only describes additional processing for the payload header. There is an additional MIME and SDP marker signaling for implementations of this document. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-20115930.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-20115930.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --NextPart-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 15:51:43 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvKbX-0006fL-4G; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:51:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvKa4-0005zA-DO; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25201; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvL3q-0004Kg-Q8; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:21:03 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DvKZw-0007ni-6d; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:04 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:04 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-02.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF. Title : Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback (RTP/SAVPF) Author(s) : J. Ott, E. Carrara Filename : draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-02.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2005-7-20 An RTP profile (SAVP) is defined for secure real-time communications, and another profile (AVPF) is specified to provide timely feedback from the receivers to a sender. This memo defines the combination of both profiles to enable secure RTP communications with feedback. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-02.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-20142443.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-20142443.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --NextPart-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 15:53:35 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvKdL-0007d0-1V; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:53:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvKaM-0006AI-Py; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25377; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvL3q-0004KR-AP; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:21:02 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DvKZv-0007mx-UC; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:03 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:50:03 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09.txt X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF. Title : RTCP Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Sessions with Unicast Feedback Author(s) : J. Chesterfield, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09.txt Pages : 45 Date : 2005-7-20 This document specifies an extension to the Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) to use unicast feedback. The proposed extension is useful for single-source multicast sessions such as Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) communication where the traditional model of many-to-many group communication is either not available or not desired. In addition, it can be applied to any group that might benefit from a sender-controlled summarised reporting mechanism. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-20135528.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-7-20135528.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --NextPart-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 20 18:02:57 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvMeX-0006aF-8p; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:02:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvMeV-0006ZB-9g for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:02:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20541 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.19] helo=aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvN8O-0002kn-5k for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:33:49 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:03:01 +0300 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number Thread-Index: AcWNYBuvHZjjj+ouTFKXoHGh0dAZAQAFioVw From: "Oren Peleg" To: "Colin Perkins" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Paul E. Jones" , Vladimir Ulybin , avt@ietf.org, Magnus Westerlund X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Also 2833, but still redundancy was managed within the profile. The T.38 draft may be extended to use a special mode of the RFC 2198, same as done at 2833. -----Original Message----- From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]=20 Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:20 PM To: Oren Peleg Cc: Paul E. Jones; Vladimir Ulybin; Magnus Westerlund; avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT] T.38 over RTP: RTP Sequence Number On 20 Jul 2005, at 20:16, Oren Peleg wrote: > I would like to suggest the following: > > Since Timestamp is profile specific, the T.38 RTP profile draft > (currently draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt) will add a special =20 > case of > Timestamp manipulation which will be used for redundant control packet > transmission (similar to the End packet of the RFC 2833 event). At =20 > this > special case the timestamp that will be used at the redundant packets > will be the same as the timestamp of the original packet. The =20 > number of > redundant packets will be determined via SDP using a special =20 > parameter. This is incompatible with all other uses of RFC 2198, and contrary to =20 the RTP timing model. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 21 02:19:36 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvUPA-0007fF-Ft; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:19:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvUP9-0007fA-0B for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:19:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA29746 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:19:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx02.net.com ([134.56.3.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvUt6-0005bJ-SX for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:50:34 -0400 Received: from mx01-int.net.com (mx01-int.net.com [134.56.112.13]) by mx02.net.com (Switch-3.1.3/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j6L6NGTL019134 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fmt-ex01.net.com (fmt-ex01.net.com [134.56.112.251]) by mx01-int.net.com (Switch-3.1.3/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j6L6FUOO013270 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:15:30 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:18:50 -0700 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: SRTP: question about MKI length Thread-Index: AcWNvA+yiuUd4s1JTfyf1sLFpPAmSA== From: "Usha Sharma" To: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=8.0 tests=AWL,HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on fmt-spam02.net.com X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976 Subject: [AVT] SRTP: question about MKI length X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0980944936==" Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0980944936== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58DBC.0FE0C5D1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58DBC.0FE0C5D1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There is no description in RFC 3711 for upper limit of MKI length and range of MKI value. SDP (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdescriptions-11.txt) defines that MKI value is a positive integer and MKI length could be up to 128 byte. Is it worthwhile to use such big MKI value for voice applications, considering the bandwidth overhead introduced by it. What would be the optimal value of MKI length for most applications?=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58DBC.0FE0C5D1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There is no description in RFC 3711 for upper limit = of MKI length and range of MKI value. SDP = (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdescriptions-11.txt) defines that MKI value is a positive integer and MKI length could be up to 128 = byte. Is it worthwhile to use such big MKI value for voice applications, = considering the bandwidth overhead introduced by it. What would be the optimal value of = MKI length for most applications?

------_=_NextPart_001_01C58DBC.0FE0C5D1-- --===============0980944936== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --===============0980944936==-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 21 04:48:54 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvWje-0005iT-DJ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:48:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvWjc-0005iO-Kh for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:48:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12769 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvXDc-00075c-N7 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 05:19:53 -0400 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id B6C4C117D for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:48:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:48:47 +0200 Received: from [147.214.34.40] ([147.214.34.40]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:48:47 +0200 Message-ID: <42DF616F.2030105@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:48:47 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF AVT WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2005 08:48:47.0838 (UTC) FILETIME=[026E1FE0:01C58DD1] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 6ba8aaf827dcb437101951262f69b3de Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [AVT] Updated preliminary AVT agenda X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Please see below for the AVT agenda. The IETF WG scheduling agenda is not yet confirmed, thus this agenda is still preliminary. Cheers Magnus ------- Audio/Video Transport Working Group CHAIRS: Colin Perkins Magnus Westerlund Tuesday, 2 August 2005, 10:30-12:30 ==================================== Introduction and Status Update (Chairs) 10 min Under development: draft-ietf-avt-mime-h224-02 draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-02 draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2032-bis-06 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-03 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-05 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-09 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833biscas-00 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-02 draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00 draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amr-bis-01 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-04 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-08 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-01 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-format-10 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-guidelines-10 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-no-op-00 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vmr-wb-extension-00 draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04 draft-ietf-avt-ulp-11 draft-ietf-avt-rfc3119bis-03 (Expired) draft-finlayson-avt-mpa-robust-interoperability-01 (Expired) draft-ietf-avt-uxp-07 (Expired) draft-ietf-avt-variable-rate-audio-00 (Expired) AD or IESG Evaluation draft-ietf-avt-audio-t140c-00 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-retransmission-11 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans-05 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vmr-wb-10 draft-ietf-avt-3gpp-timed-text-15 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-ac3-07 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amrwbplus-06 draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05 draft-garudadri-avt-3gpp2-mime-02 draft-lim-mpeg4-mime-03 RFC Editor: draft-ietf-avt-hc-mpls-reqs-03 draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback-11 draft-burmeister-avt-rtcp-feedback-sim-06 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-bv-03 draft-ietf-avt-tcrtp-08 draft-ietf-avt-uncomp-video-06 Published RFCs draft-ietf-avt-rtp-clearmode-05 -> RFC 4040 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-dsr-codecs-03 -> RFC 4060 draft-ietf-avt-text-red-05 -> RFC 4102 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2793bis-09 -> RFC 4103 Individual drafts with AVT relation draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01 draft-clark-avt-rtcpxr-bis-00 draft-even-avt-rfc3047-bis-01 draft-feiten-avt-bsacmode-for-rfc3640-00 draft-kerr-avt-vorbis-rtp-04 draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00 draft-koren-avt-ecrtp-reorder-00 draft-lennox-avt-app-sharing-00 draft-lkchoi-avt-iptvdbs-req-00 draft-perkins-avt-uncomp-video-ext-00 draft-singer-rtp-hdrext-00 draft-singer-smpte-rtp-01 draft-sollaud-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-01 draft-stirbu-avt-lrdp-00 draft-vitali-ietf-avt-mdc-lc-00 draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00 draft-xie-avt-compact-bundle-evrc-00 draft-xie-avt-rtp-anti-shadow-01 Using the RTP Header Extension for SMTPE Timestamps (Singer) draft-singer-rtp-hdrext-00 5 min draft-singer-smpte-rtp-01 Compact Bundled RTP Format for EVRC Speech (Xie) draft-xie-avt-compact-bundle-evrc-00 10 min RTP Payload Format for Video Codec 1 (VC-1) (Klemets) draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00 15 min Update of ITU G.722.1 payload format (Even) draft-even-avt-rfc3047-bis-01 10 min RTP Payload Format for ECN Probing (Alexander) draft-alexander-rtp-payload-for-ecn-probing-01 10 min draft-babiarz-tsvwg-rtecn-04 draft-alexander-rtecn-use-cases-00 draft-alexander-congestion-status-preconditions-00 Protocol Extensions for Header Compression over MPLS (Ash) draft-ash-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01 15 min RTP Profile for TCP Friendly Rate Control (Gharai) draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-04 15 min Strategies for Streaming Media Applications Using TFRC (Phelan) draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-media-00 15 min FEC streaming framework (Watson) draft-watson-tsvwg-fec-sf-00 15 min Wednesday, 3 August 2005, 9:00-10:00 ==================================== RTCP XR VoIP Metrics Management Information Base (Clark) draft-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02 10 min RTCP XR - New Parameter Extensions (Clark) draft-clark-avt-rtcpxr-bis-00 10 min Open issues with Codec Control Messages in AVPF (Wenger) draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-00 15 min Media Type Discussion (chairs) draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00 15 min draft-freed-media-type-reg-04 Mailing list discussion RTCP Extensions for SSM sessions with unicast feedback (Ott) draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-09 10 min -- Magnus Westerlund Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 21 05:47:10 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvXe1-0003Vb-Im; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 05:47:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvXdz-0003VW-83 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 05:47:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15507 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 05:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvY7t-0002BX-Qf for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:18:08 -0400 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id BAFAB1493; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:46:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.173]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:46:50 +0200 Received: from esealmw104.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.67]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:46:50 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] SRTCP key derivation Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:46:49 +0200 Message-ID: <3AD208E1F0D5EB47AC3C5617420BCB020147B0D2@esealmw104.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: SRTCP key derivation Thread-Index: AcV+FUV6HBMFW37sSWu/MwpHdvnY8APM2A7wACNnOJA= From: "Karl Norrman (KI/EAB)" To: "Guoqiang Lu" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2005 09:46:50.0042 (UTC) FILETIME=[1DFC49A0:01C58DD9] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mcgrew@cisco.com, avt@ietf.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mats_N=E4slund_=28KI/EAB=29?= X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hello! The SRTCP index should not be padded with zeros to be 48 bits long. = This means that, e.g., the labels will not be in the same octet position for SRTP = and SRTCP. Regards, Karl > -----Original Message----- > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Guoqiang Lu > Sent: den 20 juli 2005 18:40 > To: avt@ietf.org > Cc: mcgrew@cisco.com; Mats N=E4slund (KI/EAB) > Subject: [AVT] SRTCP key derivation >=20 >=20 > Hi, > In RFC3711, section 4.3.2. SRTCP Key Derivation, it says: >=20 > "Replace the SRTP index by the 32-bit quantity: 0 || SRTCP index ..." >=20 > My question is that SRTP index is a 48-bit quantity, should=20 > the SRTCP 32-bit quantity "0 || SRTCP index" be patched with=20 > 16 leading zeros? >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Guoqiang Lu > ESN: 39-36277 > Phone: (613) 763-6277 > guoqian@nortel.com > -------------------------- > The contents of the this e-mail may be Nortel Confidential!=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt >=20 _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 21 10:04:48 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvbfM-00009s-SB; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:04:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvbfK-00006k-Jb for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:04:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02233 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dvc9N-0001sj-0X for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:35:50 -0400 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2005 07:04:36 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,308,1115017200"; d="scan'208"; a="649881936:sNHT28244726" Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j6LE4Vul011436; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:04:37 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.12] ([10.21.98.54]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:04:21 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [AVT] SRTP: question about MKI length Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:04:34 -0700 To: "Usha Sharma" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2005 14:04:21.0126 (UTC) FILETIME=[178C9A60:01C58DFD] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org hi RFC 3711 assumes that the key management system will set the maximum length for the MKI. The use of an MKI function is common in video broadcasting where a key gets rotated at rates that may be less than one second. TV conditional access vendors operate proprietary systems that rotate the key according to application needs (there is really no cryptographic need to rotate a 128-bit AES counter-mode key until 2^64 packets have been encrypted using it - a very long time). The MKI was added for this application - and vendors in this industry use various sizes for the key index, particularly to convey a variety of key management information over a broadcast channel. In general, there is no need to use an MKI. If there is, I would expect that a small, one-byte MKI would suffice to handle cases where key rotation might be useful. Mark On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:18 PM, Usha Sharma wrote: > There is no description in RFC 3711 for upper limit of MKI length and > range of MKI value. SDP (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdescriptions-11.txt) > defines that MKI value is a positive integer and MKI length could be > up to 128 byte. Is it worthwhile to use such big MKI value for voice > applications, considering the bandwidth overhead introduced by it. > What would be the optimal value of MKI length for most applications? > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 21 10:31:21 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvc52-0005GJ-TS; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:31:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvc51-0005Fr-K1 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:31:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05533 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvcZ3-0003he-Oy for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:02:23 -0400 Received: from sabrina.qualcomm.com (sabrina.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.150]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id j6LETro7024260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAEXBR01.na.qualcomm.com (naexbr01.qualcomm.com [172.30.32.40]) by sabrina.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id j6LETpN2024009; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAEX06.na.qualcomm.com ([129.46.135.161]) by NAEXBR01.na.qualcomm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:29:51 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [AVT] SRTP: question about MKI length Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:25:38 -0700 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [AVT] SRTP: question about MKI length Thread-Index: AcWN/X6koPuhztdEQjKj3eNusLoapAAApIkL From: "Dondeti, Lakshminath" To: "Mark Baugher" , "Usha Sharma" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2005 14:29:51.0268 (UTC) FILETIME=[A795BE40:01C58E00] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21be852dc93f0971708678c18d38c096 Cc: avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1288442388==" Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1288442388== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C58E00.A6BEEFEA" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58E00.A6BEEFEA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Mark, I am curious about using the MKI to convey "a variety of key management = information." Could you please elaborate? I know of the MKI being used = in 3GPP2 to send key management information also, but with the concern = that the MKI field is not integrity protected. If the MKI is used to = send a key index, we know that no integrity protection is required, but = if it is intended for sending arbitrary key management information, then = perhaps integrity protecting that field would be necessary. Thoughts? thanks and regards, Lakshminath -----Original Message----- From: avt-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Mark Baugher Sent: Thu 7/21/2005 7:04 AM To: Usha Sharma Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT] SRTP: question about MKI length =20 hi RFC 3711 assumes that the key management system will set the maximum=20 length for the MKI. The use of an MKI function is common in video=20 broadcasting where a key gets rotated at rates that may be less than=20 one second. TV conditional access vendors operate proprietary systems=20 that rotate the key according to application needs (there is really no=20 cryptographic need to rotate a 128-bit AES counter-mode key until 2^64=20 packets have been encrypted using it - a very long time). The MKI was=20 added for this application - and vendors in this industry use various=20 sizes for the key index, particularly to convey a variety of key=20 management information over a broadcast channel. In general, there is no need to use an MKI. If there is, I would=20 expect that a small, one-byte MKI would suffice to handle cases where=20 key rotation might be useful. Mark On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:18 PM, Usha Sharma wrote: > There is no description in RFC 3711 for upper limit of MKI length and=20 > range of MKI value. SDP (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdescriptions-11.txt)=20 > defines that MKI value is a positive integer and MKI length could be=20 > up to 128 byte. Is it worthwhile to use such big MKI value for voice=20 > applications, considering the bandwidth overhead introduced by it.=20 > What would be the optimal value of MKI length for most applications? > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt ------_=_NextPart_001_01C58E00.A6BEEFEA Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [AVT] SRTP: question about MKI length

Hi Mark,

I am curious about using the MKI to convey "a variety of key = management information."  Could you please elaborate?  I = know of the MKI being used in 3GPP2 to send key management information = also, but with the concern that the MKI field is not integrity = protected.  If the MKI is used to send a key index, we know that no = integrity protection is required, but if it is intended for sending = arbitrary key management information, then perhaps integrity protecting = that field would be necessary.

Thoughts?

thanks and regards,
Lakshminath


-----Original Message-----
From: avt-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Mark Baugher
Sent: Thu 7/21/2005 7:04 AM
To: Usha Sharma
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] SRTP: question about MKI length

hi
   RFC 3711 assumes that the key management system will set = the maximum
length for the MKI.  The use of an MKI function is common in = video
broadcasting where a key gets rotated at rates that may be less than
one second.  TV conditional access vendors operate proprietary = systems
that rotate the key according to application needs (there is really = no
cryptographic need to rotate a 128-bit AES counter-mode key until = 2^64
packets have been encrypted using it - a very long time).  The MKI = was
added for this application - and vendors in this industry use = various
sizes for the key index, particularly to convey a variety of key
management information over a broadcast channel.

   In general, there is no need to use an MKI.  If there = is, I would
expect that a small, one-byte MKI would suffice to handle cases = where
key rotation might be useful.

Mark
On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:18 PM, Usha Sharma wrote:

> There is no description in RFC 3711 for upper limit of MKI length = and
> range of MKI value. SDP = (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdescriptions-11.txt)
> defines that MKI value is a positive integer and MKI length could = be
> up to 128 byte. Is it worthwhile to use such big MKI value for = voice
> applications, considering the bandwidth overhead introduced by = it.
> What would be the optimal value of MKI length for most = applications?
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/avt

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/avt

------_=_NextPart_001_01C58E00.A6BEEFEA-- --===============1288442388== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --===============1288442388==-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 21 11:09:48 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvcgF-0005cO-V1; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:09:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvcgF-0005cE-38 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:09:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08445 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:09:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56] helo=zcars04e.ca.nortel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvdAE-0006HU-Hg for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:40:47 -0400 Received: from zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.97]) by zcars04e.ca.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j6LF6lw13951; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:06:47 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [AVT] SRTCP key derivation Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:08:10 -0400 Message-ID: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB04C3304A@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: [AVT] SRTCP key derivation Thread-Index: AcV+FUV6HBMFW37sSWu/MwpHdvnY8APM2A7wACNnOJAAC5oe4A== From: "Guoqiang Lu" To: "Karl Norrman \(KI/EAB\)" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mcgrew@cisco.com, avt@ietf.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mats_N=E4slund_=28KI/EAB=29?= X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org >This means that, e.g., the labels will not be in the same octet = position for SRTP and SRTCP. This seems to contradict the reference implementation by David McGrew = found in srtp.sourceforge.net: The SRTCP key was derived as: srtp_kdf_generate(&kdf, (uint64_t) label_rtcp_encryption,=20 tmp_key, cipher_get_key_length(srtp->rtcp_cipher)); While SRTCP key was derived as: srtp_kdf_generate(&kdf, (uint64_t) label_rtp_encryption,=20 tmp_key, cipher_get_key_length(srtp->rtp_cipher)); And within the srtp_kdf_generate() function, the label is always = assigned to nonce.octet[7]. Thanks! Guoqiang Lu ESN: 39-36277 Phone: (613) 763-6277 guoqian@nortel.com -------------------------- The contents of the this e-mail may be Nortel Confidential!=20 -----Original Message----- From: Karl Norrman (KI/EAB) [mailto:karl.norrman@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:47 AM To: Lu, Guoqiang [CAR:9D40:EXCH] Cc: mcgrew@cisco.com; Mats N=E4slund (KI/EAB); avt@ietf.org Subject: RE: [AVT] SRTCP key derivation Hello! The SRTCP index should not be padded with zeros to be 48 bits long. = This means that, e.g., the labels will not be in the same octet position = for SRTP and SRTCP. Regards, Karl > -----Original Message----- > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of=20 > Guoqiang Lu > Sent: den 20 juli 2005 18:40 > To: avt@ietf.org > Cc: mcgrew@cisco.com; Mats N=E4slund (KI/EAB) > Subject: [AVT] SRTCP key derivation >=20 >=20 > Hi, > In RFC3711, section 4.3.2. SRTCP Key Derivation, it says: >=20 > "Replace the SRTP index by the 32-bit quantity: 0 || SRTCP index ..." >=20 > My question is that SRTP index is a 48-bit quantity, should > the SRTCP 32-bit quantity "0 || SRTCP index" be patched with=20 > 16 leading zeros? >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Guoqiang Lu > ESN: 39-36277 > Phone: (613) 763-6277 > guoqian@nortel.com > -------------------------- > The contents of the this e-mail may be Nortel Confidential! >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt >=20 _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 21 11:15:15 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvclX-0007ti-Fn; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:15:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvclW-0007nX-1W for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:15:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08904 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvdFZ-0006em-7D for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:46:17 -0400 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2005 08:15:04 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,308,1115017200"; d="scan'208"; a="649899767:sNHT28955308" Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j6LFEsvF024956; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:14:53 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.12] ([10.21.98.54]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:14:52 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-Id: <43d4106148f238c7f8292a74cb5afe05@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [AVT] SRTP: question about MKI length Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:14:51 -0700 To: "Dondeti, Lakshminath" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2005 15:14:52.0266 (UTC) FILETIME=[F18154A0:01C58E06] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Usha Sharma , avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org hi Lakshminath, I heard from NDS (and also Nagra, I think) that they put as much key=20= management information as they can into the broadcast stream, such as=20 an MPEG-2 Transport Stream. Since they don't publish their key=20 management protocols, conditional access companies typically don't=20 explain why they do things. But a couple of years ago, it was=20 announced in the press that a large satellite vendor gradually=20 downloaded code and re-programmed the conditional access system in the=20= settop boxes of its entire customer base to disable unauthorized=20 receivers. This was an NDS system if I recall correctly. So, there=20 are shenanigans like that going on and probably the same sorts of key=20 management things that LKH and similar systems might do. Mark On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:25 AM, Dondeti, Lakshminath wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I am curious about using the MKI to convey "a variety of key=20 > management information."=A0 Could you please elaborate?=A0 I know of = the=20 > MKI being used in 3GPP2 to send key management information also, but=20= > with the concern that the MKI field is not integrity protected.=A0 If=20= > the MKI is used to send a key index, we know that no integrity=20 > protection is required, but if it is intended for sending arbitrary=20 > key management information, then perhaps integrity protecting that=20 > field would be necessary. > > Thoughts? > > thanks and regards, > Lakshminath > > > -----Original Message----- > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Mark Baugher > Sent: Thu 7/21/2005 7:04 AM > To: Usha Sharma > Cc: avt@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [AVT] SRTP: question about MKI length > > hi > =A0=A0 RFC 3711 assumes that the key management system will set the=20= > maximum > length for the MKI.=A0 The use of an MKI function is common in video > broadcasting where a key gets rotated at rates that may be less than > one second.=A0 TV conditional access vendors operate proprietary = systems > that rotate the key according to application needs (there is really = no > cryptographic need to rotate a 128-bit AES counter-mode key until = 2^64 > packets have been encrypted using it - a very long time).=A0 The MKI = was > added for this application - and vendors in this industry use various > sizes for the key index, particularly to convey a variety of key > management information over a broadcast channel. > > =A0=A0 In general, there is no need to use an MKI.=A0 If there is, I = would > expect that a small, one-byte MKI would suffice to handle cases where > key rotation might be useful. > > Mark > On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:18 PM, Usha Sharma wrote: > > > There is no description in RFC 3711 for upper limit of MKI length=20= > and > > range of MKI value. SDP (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdescriptions-11.txt) > > defines that MKI value is a positive integer and MKI length could = be > > up to 128 byte. Is it worthwhile to use such big MKI value for = voice > > applications, considering the bandwidth overhead introduced by it. > > What would be the optimal value of MKI length for most = applications? > > _______________________________________________ > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > > avt@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 21 14:08:17 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvfSz-00055n-11; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:08:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvfSx-0004z4-2Y for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:08:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22553 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sonussf1.sonusnet.com ([208.45.178.26]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dvfwy-0001nA-6e for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:39:17 -0400 Received: from sonusmail03.sonusnet.com (sonusmail03.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.97]) by sonussf1.sonusnet.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6LI7sjv012373; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:07:54 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:07:54 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [AVT] Updated preliminary AVT agenda Thread-Index: AcWN0bEe0O6ef0QoSaCH6EI/+eyE2gATLRwg From: "Phelan, Tom" To: "Magnus Westerlund" , "IETF AVT WG" X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: a1852b4f554b02e7e4548cc7928acc1f Cc: Subject: [AVT] Strategies for Streaming Media Applications Using TCP-Friendly Rate Control X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2146986222==" Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org --===============2146986222== content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgQWxsLA0KDQpUaGUgZHJhZnQgSSdtIHNjaGVkdWxlZCB0byBwcmVzZW50IGluIFBhcmlzICgi U3RyYXRlZ2llcyBmb3IgU3RyZWFtaW5nIE1lZGlhIEFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBVc2luZyBUQ1AtRnJp ZW5kbHkgUmF0ZSBDb250cm9sIiksIHdhcyB1bmZvcnR1bmF0ZWx5IHJlamVjdGVkIGJlY2F1c2Ug b2Ygb2xkIGJvaWxlcnBsYXRlIGFuZCBkaWRuJ3QgZ2V0IGZpeGVkIGluIHRpbWUgZm9yIHRoZSBj dXRvZmYgZGF0ZS4gIEV2ZW4gc28sIE1hZ251cyBhbmQgQ29saW4gaGF2ZSBncmFjaW91c2x5IGFs bG93ZWQgbWUgdG8gcHJlc2VudCBhbnl3YXkuICBUaGUgZHJhZnQgaXMgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cucGhlbGFuLTQuY29tL2RjY3AvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1kY2NwLXRmcmMtbWVkaWEtMDAu dHh0Lg0KDQpTb3JyeSBmb3IgYmVpbmcgc2xvcHB5LCBhbmQgdGhhbmtzIGFsbCBmb3IgcHV0dGlu ZyB1cCB3aXRoIG1lIDotKS4NCg0KVG9tIFBoZWxhbg0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2Fn ZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IGF2dC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86YXZ0LWJvdW5jZXNA aWV0Zi5vcmddT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mDQo+IE1hZ251cyBXZXN0ZXJsdW5kDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJz ZGF5LCBKdWx5IDIxLCAyMDA1IDQ6NDkgQU0NCj4gVG86IElFVEYgQVZUIFdHDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6 IFtBVlRdIFVwZGF0ZWQgcHJlbGltaW5hcnkgQVZUIGFnZW5kYQ0KPiANCj4gDQo+IEhpLA0KPiAN Cj4gUGxlYXNlIHNlZSBiZWxvdyBmb3IgdGhlIEFWVCBhZ2VuZGEuIFRoZSBJRVRGIFdHIHNjaGVk dWxpbmcgYWdlbmRhIGlzIA0KPiBub3QgeWV0IGNvbmZpcm1lZCwgdGh1cyB0aGlzIGFnZW5kYSBp cyBzdGlsbCBwcmVsaW1pbmFyeS4NCj4gDQo+IENoZWVycw0KPiANCj4gTWFnbnVzDQo+IA0KPiAt LS0tLS0tDQo+IA0KPiBBdWRpby9WaWRlbyBUcmFuc3BvcnQgV29ya2luZyBHcm91cA0KPiANCj4g Q0hBSVJTOiBDb2xpbiBQZXJraW5zICAgICA8Y3NwQGNzcGVya2lucy5vcmc+DQo+ICAgICAgICAg IE1hZ251cyBXZXN0ZXJsdW5kIDxtYWdudXMud2VzdGVybHVuZEBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20+DQo+IA0K PiBUdWVzZGF5LCAyIEF1Z3VzdCAyMDA1LCAxMDozMC0xMjozMA0KPiA9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCj4gDQo+IEludHJvZHVjdGlvbiBhbmQgU3RhdHVzIFVwZGF0 ZSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQo+ICAoQ2hhaXJzKQ0KPiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0K PiAgICAxMCBtaW4NCj4gICAgIFVuZGVyIGRldmVsb3BtZW50Og0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1hdnQtbWltZS1oMjI0LTAyDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC1wcm9maWxl LXNhdnBmLTAyDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC1ydGNwc3NtLTA5DQo+ICAgICAg ICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC1yZmMyMDMyLWJpcy0wNg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0 Zi1hdnQtcmZjMjE5MC10by1oaXN0b3JpYy0wMw0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnQt cmZjMjQyOS1iaXMtMDUNCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0LXJmYzI4MzNiaXMtMDkN Cj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0LXJmYzI4MzNiaXNjYXMtMDANCj4gICAgICAgICAg IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0LXJmYzI4MzNiaXNkYXRhLTAyDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRm LWF2dC1yZmMzNTU1YmlzLTAwDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC1ydGNwLXhyLW1p Yi0wMg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnQtcnRwLWFtci1iaXMtMDENCj4gICAgICAg ICAgIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0LXJ0cC1hdHJhYy1mYW1pbHktMDQNCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0 LWlldGYtYXZ0LXJ0cC1qcGVnMjAwMC0wOA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnQtcnRw LWpwZWcyMDAwLWJlYW0tMDENCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0LXJ0cC1taWRpLWZv cm1hdC0xMA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnQtcnRwLW1pZGktZ3VpZGVsaW5lcy0x MA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnQtcnRwLW5vLW9wLTAwDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBk cmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC1ydHAtdm1yLXdiLWV4dGVuc2lvbi0wMA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1hdnQtdGZyYy1wcm9maWxlLTA0DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC11bHAt MTENCj4gDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC1yZmMzMTE5YmlzLTAzIChFeHBpcmVk KQ0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtZmlubGF5c29uLWF2dC1tcGEtcm9idXN0LWludGVyb3BlcmFi aWxpdHktMDEgKEV4cGlyZWQpDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC11eHAtMDcgKEV4 cGlyZWQpDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC12YXJpYWJsZS1yYXRlLWF1ZGlvLTAw ICAgICAoRXhwaXJlZCkNCj4gDQo+ICAgICBBRCBvciBJRVNHIEV2YWx1YXRpb24NCj4gICAgICAg ICAgIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0LWF1ZGlvLXQxNDBjLTAwDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRm LWF2dC1ydHAtcmV0cmFuc21pc3Npb24tMTENCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0LXJ0 cC1mcmFtaW5nLWNvbnRyYW5zLTA1DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC1ydHAtdm1y LXdiLTEwDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC0zZ3BwLXRpbWVkLXRleHQtMTUNCj4g ICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0LXJ0cC1hYzMtMDcNCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWll dGYtYXZ0LXJ0cC1hbXJ3YnBsdXMtMDYNCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWpvbmVzLWF2dC1hdWRp by10MzgtMDUNCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWdhcnVkYWRyaS1hdnQtM2dwcDItbWltZS0wMg0K PiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtbGltLW1wZWc0LW1pbWUtMDMNCj4gDQo+ICAgICBSRkMgRWRpdG9y Og0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnQtaGMtbXBscy1yZXFzLTAzDQo+ICAgICAgICAg ICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC1ydGNwLWZlZWRiYWNrLTExDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1idXJt ZWlzdGVyLWF2dC1ydGNwLWZlZWRiYWNrLXNpbS0wNg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1h dnQtcnRwLWJ2LTAzDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC10Y3J0cC0wOA0KPiAgICAg ICAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnQtdW5jb21wLXZpZGVvLTA2DQo+IA0KPiAgICAgUHVibGlzaGVk IFJGQ3MNCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0LXJ0cC1jbGVhcm1vZGUtMDUgICAgICAt PiBSRkMgNDA0MA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnQtcnRwLWRzci1jb2RlY3MtMDMg ICAgIC0+IFJGQyA0MDYwDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dC10ZXh0LXJlZC0wNSAg ICAgICAgICAgLT4gUkZDIDQxMDINCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0LXJmYzI3OTNi aXMtMDkgICAgICAgICAtPiBSRkMgNDEwMw0KPiANCj4gICAgIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgZHJhZnRzIHdp dGggQVZUIHJlbGF0aW9uDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1hc2gtYXZ0LWhjLW92ZXItbXBscy1w cm90b2NvbC0wMQ0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtY2xhcmstYXZ0LXJ0Y3B4ci1iaXMtMDANCj4g ICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWV2ZW4tYXZ0LXJmYzMwNDctYmlzLTAxDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFm dC1mZWl0ZW4tYXZ0LWJzYWNtb2RlLWZvci1yZmMzNjQwLTAwDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1r ZXJyLWF2dC12b3JiaXMtcnRwLTA0DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1rbGVtZXRzLWF2dC1ydHAt dmMxLTAwDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1rb3Jlbi1hdnQtZWNydHAtcmVvcmRlci0wMA0KPiAg ICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtbGVubm94LWF2dC1hcHAtc2hhcmluZy0wMA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJh ZnQtbGtjaG9pLWF2dC1pcHR2ZGJzLXJlcS0wMA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtcGVya2lucy1h dnQtdW5jb21wLXZpZGVvLWV4dC0wMA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgZHJhZnQtc2luZ2VyLXJ0cC1oZHJl eHQtMDANCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LXNpbmdlci1zbXB0ZS1ydHAtMDENCj4gICAgICAgICAg IGRyYWZ0LXNvbGxhdWQtYXZ0LXJ0cC1nNzI5LXNjYWwtd2ItZXh0LTAxDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBk cmFmdC1zdGlyYnUtYXZ0LWxyZHAtMDANCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LXZpdGFsaS1pZXRmLWF2 dC1tZGMtbGMtMDANCj4gICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LXdlbmdlci1hdnQtYXZwZi1jY20tMDANCj4g ICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LXhpZS1hdnQtY29tcGFjdC1idW5kbGUtZXZyYy0wMA0KPiAgICAgICAg ICAgZHJhZnQteGllLWF2dC1ydHAtYW50aS1zaGFkb3ctMDENCj4gDQo+IFVzaW5nIHRoZSBSVFAg SGVhZGVyIEV4dGVuc2lvbiBmb3IgU01UUEUgVGltZXN0YW1wcwkJKFNpbmdlcikNCj4gICAgIGRy YWZ0LXNpbmdlci1ydHAtaGRyZXh0LTAwCQkJCQ0KPiAJICAgNSBtaW4NCj4gICAgIGRyYWZ0LXNp bmdlci1zbXB0ZS1ydHAtMDENCj4gDQo+IENvbXBhY3QgQnVuZGxlZCBSVFAgRm9ybWF0IGZvciBF VlJDIFNwZWVjaCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQo+ICAgICAgKFhpZSkNCj4gICAgIGRyYWZ0 LXhpZS1hdnQtY29tcGFjdC1idW5kbGUtZXZyYy0wMCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANCj4g ICAgICAxMCBtaW4NCj4gDQo+IFJUUCBQYXlsb2FkIEZvcm1hdCBmb3IgVmlkZW8gQ29kZWMgMSAo VkMtMSkgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQo+ICAoS2xlbWV0cykNCj4gICAgIGRyYWZ0LWtsZW1l dHMtYXZ0LXJ0cC12YzEtMDAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANCj4gICAgICAx NSBtaW4NCj4gDQo+IFVwZGF0ZSBvZiBJVFUgRy43MjIuMSBwYXlsb2FkIGZvcm1hdCAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQo+ICAgICAoRXZlbikNCj4gICAgIGRyYWZ0LWV2ZW4tYXZ0LXJm YzMwNDctYmlzLTAxICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANCj4gICAgICAxMCBtaW4N Cj4gDQo+IFJUUCBQYXlsb2FkIEZvcm1hdCBmb3IgRUNOIFByb2JpbmcgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgDQo+IChBbGV4YW5kZXIpDQo+ICAgICBkcmFmdC1hbGV4YW5kZXItcnRwLXBh eWxvYWQtZm9yLWVjbi1wcm9iaW5nLTAxICAgICAgICAgICAgDQo+ICAgICAgMTAgbWluDQo+ICAg ICBkcmFmdC1iYWJpYXJ6LXRzdndnLXJ0ZWNuLTA0DQo+ICAgICBkcmFmdC1hbGV4YW5kZXItcnRl Y24tdXNlLWNhc2VzLTAwDQo+ICAgICBkcmFmdC1hbGV4YW5kZXItY29uZ2VzdGlvbi1zdGF0dXMt cHJlY29uZGl0aW9ucy0wMA0KPiANCj4gUHJvdG9jb2wgRXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBmb3IgSGVhZGVyIENv bXByZXNzaW9uIG92ZXIgTVBMUyAgICAgICAgICANCj4gICAgICAoQXNoKQ0KPiAgICAgZHJhZnQt YXNoLWF2dC1oYy1vdmVyLW1wbHMtcHJvdG9jb2wtMDEgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KPiAg ICAgIDE1IG1pbg0KPiANCj4gUlRQIFByb2ZpbGUgZm9yIFRDUCBGcmllbmRseSBSYXRlIENvbnRy b2wgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANCj4gICAoR2hhcmFpKQ0KPiAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1h dnQtdGZyYy1wcm9maWxlLTA0ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KPiAgICAgIDE1 IG1pbg0KPiANCj4gU3RyYXRlZ2llcyBmb3IgU3RyZWFtaW5nIE1lZGlhIEFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBV c2luZyBURlJDICAgICAgICANCj4gICAoUGhlbGFuKQ0KPiAgICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1kY2NwLXRm cmMtbWVkaWEtMDAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KPiAgICAgIDE1IG1pbg0K PiANCj4gRkVDIHN0cmVhbWluZyBmcmFtZXdvcmsgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICANCj4gICAoV2F0c29uKQ0KPiAgICAgZHJhZnQtd2F0c29uLXRzdndnLWZlYy1z Zi0wMCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KPiAgICAgIDE1IG1pbg0KPiANCj4g DQo+IA0KPiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIDMgQXVndXN0IDIwMDUsIDk6MDAtMTA6MDANCj4gPT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQo+IA0KPiBSVENQIFhSIFZvSVAgTWV0cmljcyBN YW5hZ2VtZW50IEluZm9ybWF0aW9uIEJhc2UgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KPiAgICAoQ2xhcmspDQo+ ICAgICBkcmFmdC1hdnQtcnRjcC14ci1taWItMDIgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgDQo+ICAgICAgMTAgbWluDQo+IA0KPiBSVENQIFhSIC0gTmV3IFBhcmFtZXRlciBFeHRl bnNpb25zICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KPiAgICAoQ2xhcmspDQo+ICAgICBk cmFmdC1jbGFyay1hdnQtcnRjcHhyLWJpcy0wMCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg DQo+ICAgICAgMTAgbWluDQo+IA0KPiBPcGVuIGlzc3VlcyB3aXRoIENvZGVjIENvbnRyb2wgTWVz c2FnZXMgaW4gQVZQRiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KPiAgIChXZW5nZXIpDQo+ICAgICBkcmFmdC13 ZW5nZXItYXZ0LWF2cGYtY2NtLTAwICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQo+ICAg ICAgMTUgbWluDQo+IA0KPiBNZWRpYSBUeXBlIERpc2N1c3Npb24gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KPiAgIChjaGFpcnMpDQo+ICAgICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2 dC1yZmMzNTU1YmlzLTAwICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQo+ICAgICAgMTUg bWluDQo+ICAgICBkcmFmdC1mcmVlZC1tZWRpYS10eXBlLXJlZy0wNA0KPiAgICAgTWFpbGluZyBs aXN0IGRpc2N1c3Npb24NCj4gDQo+IFJUQ1AgRXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBmb3IgU1NNIHNlc3Npb25zIHdp dGggdW5pY2FzdCBmZWVkYmFjayAgICAgICAgDQo+ICAgICAgKE90dCkNCj4gICAgIGRyYWZ0LWll dGYtYXZ0LXJ0Y3Bzc20tMDkgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANCj4gICAg ICAxMCBtaW4NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiAtLSANCj4gDQo+IE1hZ251cyBXZXN0ZXJsdW5kDQo+IA0KPiBN dWx0aW1lZGlhIFRlY2hub2xvZ2llcywgRXJpY3Nzb24gUmVzZWFyY2ggRUFCL1RWQS9BDQo+IC0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gRXJpY3Nzb24gQUIgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfCBQaG9uZSArNDYgOCA0 MDQ4Mjg3DQo+IFRvcnNoYW1zZ2F0YW4gMjMgICAgICAgICAgIHwgRmF4ICAgKzQ2IDggNzU3NTU1 MA0KPiBTLTE2NCA4MCBTdG9ja2hvbG0sIFN3ZWRlbiB8IG1haWx0bzogbWFnbnVzLndlc3Rlcmx1 bmRAZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tDQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBBdWRpby9WaWRlbyBUcmFuc3BvcnQgV29ya2luZyBHcm91cA0KPiBh dnRAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cxLmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vYXZ0 DQo+IA0K --===============2146986222== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt --===============2146986222==-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 22 05:24:04 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvtlE-0008Q4-8v; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:24:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvfdw-0001WX-9J; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:19:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23854; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from orion.lrg.ufsc.br ([150.162.63.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dvg80-0002aq-As; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:50:41 -0400 Received: by orion.lrg.ufsc.br (Postfix, from userid 3002) id EDF95A2A3; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:20:44 -0400 (WST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by orion.lrg.ufsc.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBFCDD6D; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:20:44 -0400 (WST) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:20:44 -0400 (WST) From: Carlos Becker Westphall To: ejiri@otrs.ts.fujitsu.co.jp, wagner@cs.ubc.ca, westphal@lrg.ufsc.br, stiller@tik.ee.ethz.ch, hellers@us.ibm.com, rboutaba@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e178fd6cb61ffb6940cd878e7fea8606 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:24:02 -0400 Cc: mboned@network-services.uoregon.edu, manet@ietf.org, policy@ietf.org, cost263@fokus.gmd.de, sip@ietf.org, tcpp-announce@eece.unm.edu, mmb@ira.uka.de, aaa-wg@merit.edu, ifip_nm@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca, gsmp@ietf.org, confs-conferencesa@comsoc.org, rmt@lbl.gov, netnomics@listserver.tue.nl, seamoby@ietf.org, all@inf.ethz.ch, kuvs-elg@fokus.gmd.de, itc@i-teletraffic.org, snmpv3@lists.tislabs.com.cnri.reston.va.us, conf@colmar.uha.fr.cnri.reston.va.us, giga@tele.pitt.edu, itc@comsoc.org, mpls@uu.net, spects02@comp.leeds.ac.uk, liste_cfip@info.uqam.ca, avt@ietf.org, comswtc@ieee.org, enternet@bbn.com, issll@mercury.lcs.mit.edu, nemo@nal.motlabs.com.cnri.reston.va.us, cfp@mmlab.snu.ac.kr, KUVS-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de, dares-announcement@enst-bretagne.fr, arl@arl.wustl.edu, mmusic@ietf.org, multicomm@research.panasonic.com, RHDM@lip6.fr, kom-meeting@KOM.th-darmstadt.de.cnri.reston.va.us, tcgn@majordomo.ieee.org, TCPC.Mail@rome.ece.cornell.edu.cnri.reston.va.us, disman@dorothy.bmc.com, diffserv@ietf.org, nanog@merit.edu, pilc@grc.nasa.gov, Georg Carle , cnom@lrg.ufsc.br, xtp-relay@cs.concordia.ca, rm@openmash.org, sming@ops.ietf.org, all_ifi@ifi.unizh.ch, tcgn@ieee.org, tccc@comsoc.org, commsoft@ieee.org, news-announce-conferences@uunet.uu.net, ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de, itc@ieee.org, reres@laas.fr, dnac_2002@yahoo.fr, nichains@BXL.DG13.cec.eu.int.cnri.reston.va.us, cost264@lip6.fr, lacomsoc@lrg.ufsc.br, sigmetrics-bb@haven.epm.ornl.gov.cnri.reston.va.us, tik@tik.ee.ethz.ch, wiss-mitarb@ee.ethz.ch, int-serv@ISI.EDU, multicomm@comsoc.org, mobile-ip@sunroof.eng.sun.com, rmonmib@ietf.org, members@ngni.org, amlist@takilab.k.dendai.ac.jp, gi-fb3@fokus.gmd.de Subject: [AVT] CFP - NOMS 2006 - 10th IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS 2006) X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this CFP. 10th IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS 2006) http://www.noms2006.org Call for Papers "Management of Integrated End-to-end Communications and Services" The 10th IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS 2006) will be held 3-7 April 2006 in the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Center, Vancouver, Canada. Held in even-numbered years since 1988, NOMS 2006 will follow the 18 year tradition of NOMS and IM as the primary forum for technical exchange of the research, standards, development, systems integration, service provider, and user communities. NOMS 2006 will present up-to-date approaches and technical solutions for integrated systems and services including communication networks, host systems, enterprise applications, service oriented architectures, and delivery of management services. The conference provides a peer-reviewed program of technical sessions, application sessions, tutorials, posters, application sessions, and panels as well as vendor exhibits. Integrated systems and services require considerations for today's multi-service and multi-domain environment of heterogeneous technologies, service offerings, management strategies, and business models. NOMS 2006 focuses on integrated management that encompasses provisioning, operation, and maintenance. This broad scope also calls for an integrated approach to dependability, resilience, quality-of-service, mobility management, and services billing. In particular, these considerations include the combination of wireless and wired networks and the integration of all-IP communication systems. NOMS 2006 will offer five types of sessions: technical, application, poster, panel, and BoF. Technical sessions present high-quality papers on the latest research results in the network operations and management area. Application sessions present papers focusing on the experience of IT and telecommunications industries, such as service providers, OSS vendors, and equipment manufacturers. The scope here includes customer requirements, management system implementations, and business practices. Poster sessions provide an insight into work-in-progress. Panel sessions focus on business implications, market trends, and emerging applications with panelists who are technology and business leaders. Authors are invited to submit complete unpublished papers that are not under review in any other conference or journal in the following, or related topic areas: Management Paradigms, Models and Architectures * Self-managing networks (self-healing, self-optimizing, self-protecting and self-configuring) * Integrated control and management * Distributed and scalable management * Policy and role based management * Programmable, active, and adaptive mgmt * Resilience and survivability * "Plug-n-Play" component-based management * Customer controlled and managed networks * Proactive and reactive management Operation and Management Functions * Security management * Mobility management * End-to-end measurements * Network and systems monitoring * Alarm correlation and filtering * Customer care and workforce management * Process engineering for operators' service and network management * Performance and fault management * Configuration and accounting management * Integration and testing of commercial off-the-shelf products * Content hosting and delivery * Path Protection and Restoration * Internet service pricing, bandwidth trading, Service engineering, and Operational challenges * Next generation operation support systems * Service design and quality assurance * Resource inventory, planning, and allocation * Service discovery and service negotiation * SLAs and business process management * Quality-of-Service management * Service portability/mobility (VHE) * Transaction-oriented services and supply chain=20 management * "Soft" networks (Soft-switch, Parlay, 3GPP OSA, JAIN) and service switching * Dynamic service requirements analysis * Charging and accounting of integrated systems and services Theories, Models, and Enabling Management Technologies * Theory (control, optimization, economic, games, chaos, graph) for management * Grid, middleware and peer-to-peer technologies * Information models and Internet technologies (Web, XML, DEN, CIM) * AI techniques (knowledge-based, intelligent agents, machine learning, neural networks,) * Data warehousing, ontology, mining and statistical methods in management * User interfaces and virtual reality in management * Management of Emerging Networks and Services * Converged networks and services * Peer-to-peer and community networks * Grids, grid services, and grid applications * Ad hoc and self-configurable networks * Multi-sensor and self-organizing networks * Overlay networks, virtual topologies and VPN services * Wireless broadband networks (2G, 2.5G, 3G, and beyond) * High speed access, Wireless Local (WLANs) and Personal Area Networks (PANs) * Optical networks (metropolitan, all optical, WDM, DWDM, optical IP) * Video and broadband cable networks * VoIP, VoD, FTTX networks, services, and protocols (IPv4, IPv6, H.323, SIP, RTP, RTCP, RTSP, MGCP, and QoS) * Storage Area Networks (SAN) and ASPs server farms * Web services and content delivery networks * Smart homes and networked haptics * Satellite and interplanetary networks * e-World (e-health, e-commerce, e-business, and e-government) Important Dates: * Deadline for Technical Session Papers: 1 August 2005 * Deadline for Application Session Papers: 15 September 2005 * Deadline for Tutorials, Panels and Posters: 15 September 2005 * Notification of Acceptance: 12 November 2005 * Final Camera Ready Papers Due: 1 February 2006 For more information on NOMS 2006, please contact one of the two Program Co-chairs: Joseph L. Hellerstein , IBM, U.S.A. Burkhard Stiller , University of Z=FCrich and ETH Z=FCrich, Switzerland NOMS 2006 Poster Sessions ------------------------- In addition to regular papers presented in technical sessions, NOMS 2006 also offers poster sessions for more informal interactions and presenting work in progress. Short papers (4 pages long) can be submitted for consideration as poster presentations. Posters will be selected from these short papers and regular papers. You can submit your work selecting "Poster session" in the NOMS 2006 submission system (JEMS) at https://submissoes.sbc.org.br/noms2006. Further questions related to posters must be addressed to the poster co-chairs: Lisandro Zambenedetti Granville , Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul Nikos Anerousis , IBM, U.S.A. Kyung-Hyu Lee , ETRI, Korea NOMS 2006 Application Sessions ------------------------------ The NOMS2006 Application Session submissions aim to encourage discussions concerning experience, lessons-learned, business cases, implementation examples, new applications, innovative enterprises, and organizational impacts, in any of the detailed topics found at http://www.noms2006.org. Papers for the Application Sessions should be written in English. The paper format should have a visual in the upper half of a page and the explanatory text in the lower half (annotated visuals). Paper submissions should consist of no more than 15 annotated visuals in PDF only. Detailed author instructions are available on the author information page on the conference web site. Further questions related to the application session should be addressed to the application sessions co-chairs: Joseph Betser , The Aerospace Corporation, U.S.A. Prosper Chemouil , France Telecom, France Yoshiaki Kiriha , NEC, Japan NOMS 2006 Workshops ------------------- Workshops on specialized topics will be held on the days before and after the NOMS technical program. Contributions to these workshops will be solicited and reviewed separately from those for NOMS. A proposal to organize a half-day or full-day workshop should contain the following information * A draft of the CFP (includes Title, description, topics and dates) * Why is the topic area important? * Likely contributors and target audience * Organizing committee * Plan for workshop advertising and publicity * Biography of the main organizer (100-200 words) Deadline for submission is September 15, 2005. For a point of reference, see the workshops held in conjunction with IM 2005 at http://www.ieee-im.org/workshops.html. Workshop proposals should be sent to one of the tutorial co-chairs: Ehab Al-Shaer , De Paul University, U.S.A. Rolf Stadler , KTH, Sweden NOMS 2006 Tutorials ------------------- NOMS 2006 will feature state-of-the-art tutorials from top experts in their fields on the days before (April 3, 2006) and after (April 7, 2006) the technical program. Topics cover every level from introductory skills to highly advanced and address highly important and relevant subject areas of Systems, Network, and Service Management. =20 To provide the best possible tutorial offerings, NOMS 2006 solicits proposals and ideas for half-day (3.5 hours) and full-day (7 hours) tutorials. Proposals will be evaluated by the NOMS 2006 Technical Program Committee. Tutorial presenters will receive a honorarium. If you are interested in presenting a tutorial at this conference or have an idea for a tutorial you would like to see offered please contact the Tutorial Chair: Alexander Keller , IBM, USA Deadline for submitting Tutorial Proposals: 15 September 2005. A proposal to present a tutorial should contain the following information: * Tutorial Title * Full Name(s) and Affiliation(s) of the Instructor(s) * Outline and Extended Abstract (500-1000 words) detailing the importance of the subject and its relevance and benefits to NOMS 2006 attendees * Potential attendee profile * Biography of the Instructor (100-200 words) If the tutorial or its earlier version has been given before, please indicate the events, dates and contents. -------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 22 05:24:05 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvtlE-0008QT-UF; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:24:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvj2h-00009V-88; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:57:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16198; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:57:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp2.dei.uc.pt ([193.137.203.231]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvjWj-0002uD-7y; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:28:30 -0400 Received: from IBM9FDB04D90E9 (a83-132-28-5.cpe.netcabo.pt [83.132.28.5]) by smtp2.dei.uc.pt (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6LLX9on004259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:33:16 +0100 Message-Id: <200507212133.j6LLX9on004259@smtp2.dei.uc.pt> From: "Edmundo Monteiro" To: "'Edmundo Monteiro'" Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:32:48 +0100 Organization: University of Coimbra MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_038D_01C58E44.7CD632E0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcWOO7baYROoNt0PSb+7e6b9NSiI+g== x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-UC-FCT-DEI-SIC-MailScanner-Information: Please contact helpdesk@dei.uc.pt for more information X-UC-FCT-DEI-SIC-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UC-FCT-DEI-SIC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=-0.876, required 3, BAYES_00 -2.60, MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID 1.72) X-UC-FCT-DEI-SIC-MailScanner-From: edmundo@dei.uc.pt X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1338f4ee677fe822e4246c6560199c52 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:24:02 -0400 Cc: Subject: [AVT] CFP Networking 2006 X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_038D_01C58E44.7CD632E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry for multiple copies ----- CALL FOR PAPERS Networking2006 2006 IFIP Networking Conference Organised by University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal 15-19 May 2006 www.dei.uc.pt/Networking2006 Networking 2006 will be organized by the University of Coimbra, Portugal. It is the fifth event in a series of International Conferences on Networking, sponsored by the IFIP Technical Committee on Communication Systems (TC 6). Previous events were held in Paris (France) in 2000, Pisa (Italy) in 2002, Athens (Greece) in 2004, and Waterloo (Canada) in 2005. The main objectives of Networking 2006 are to bring together active and proficient members of the networking community, from both academia and industry, to discuss recent advances in this broad and fast-evolving field of telecommunications, and to highlight key-issues, identify trends and refresh vision in the field of telecommunications. The conference objectives will be pursued through highly technical sessions organized thematically, keynote talks, tutorials offered by invited experts, as well as through workshops and panel discussions on hot topics. Plenary sessions with keynote talks or panels will open or close the daily sessions. The technical sessions will be structured into three tracks: - Networking Technologies, Services and Protocols - Performance of Computer and Communication Networks - Mobile and Wireless Communications Systems Important dates: - Full Paper Due: November 20, 2005 - Notification of Acceptance: February 1, 2006 - Final Version Due: February 28, 2006 ------=_NextPart_000_038D_01C58E44.7CD632E0 Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Networking2006CFPv10.pdf" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Networking2006CFPv10.pdf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 JVBERi0xLjQNJeLjz9MNCjYgMCBvYmogPDwvTGluZWFyaXplZCAxL0wgNTg2NjkvTyA4L0UgNTQ1 MTAvTiAxL1QgNTg1MDMvSCBbIDEwNTYgMjIyXT4+DWVuZG9iag0gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg DQp4cmVmDQo2IDM4DQowMDAwMDAwMDE2IDAwMDAwIG4NCjAwMDAwMDEyNzggMDAwMDAgbg0KMDAw MDAwMTM1NCAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDAxNTM2IDAwMDAwIG4NCjAwMDAwMDE4MDkgMDAwMDAgbg0K MDAwMDAwMjIzOSAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDAyOTYyIDAwMDAwIG4NCjAwMDAwMDI5OTYgMDAwMDAg bg0KMDAwMDAwNTAxMCAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDA3MDk0IDAwMDAwIG4NCjAwMDAwMDcyNDggMDAw MDAgbg0KMDAwMDAwOTEzOSAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDExMTU3IDAwMDAwIG4NCjAwMDAwMTEyODcg MDAwMDAgbg0KMDAwMDAxMzM1NCAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDE1MzMzIDAwMDAwIG4NCjAwMDAwMTU1 MDIgMDAwMDAgbg0KMDAwMDAxNTg3NiAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDE4MDY2IDAwMDAwIG4NCjAwMDAw MTk5MzYgMDAwMDAgbg0KMDAwMDAyMjYwNSAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDIyNzkzIDAwMDAwIG4NCjAw MDAwMjMyMTEgMDAwMDAgbg0KMDAwMDAyNzkwMCAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDI4MDQzIDAwMDAwIG4N CjAwMDAwMjgzMTEgMDAwMDAgbg0KMDAwMDA0NTM4NyAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDQ1NjE0IDAwMDAw IG4NCjAwMDAwNDU4MzUgMDAwMDAgbg0KMDAwMDA0NjA3MyAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDUzMTQ1IDAw MDAwIG4NCjAwMDAwNTMzNzQgMDAwMDAgbg0KMDAwMDA1MzU1OCAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDUzODQ0 IDAwMDAwIG4NCjAwMDAwNTQxMDQgMDAwMDAgbg0KMDAwMDA1NDM1OSAwMDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDU0 NDM1IDAwMDAwIG4NCjAwMDAwMDEwNTYgMDAwMDAgbg0KdHJhaWxlcg0KPDwvU2l6ZSA0NC9QcmV2 IDU4NDkzL1Jvb3QgNyAwIFIvSW5mbyA1IDAgUi9JRFs8RUNDMERCRjhCMkU1QzlFNEVBNUM3MjE4 RTg5NTNEMDc+PDEzRTY1MTZCQ0M0ODc5NDRCNUU1REJEMzU4MjJCNTc3Pl0+Pg0Kc3RhcnR4cmVm DQowDQolJUVPRg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KNDMgMCBvYmo8PC9MZW5ndGggMTM2L0ZpbHRl ci9GbGF0ZURlY29kZS9JIDE1Mi9MIDEzNi9TIDQxPj5zdHJlYW0NCnjaYmBgUGZgYMlhAILzSxhQ ATMQszBwPGBgcktAElaGYgYGJQZ+Rg3mPTwJ2gIMjO9ZGBkq+JrkgdrqBT4rKB5YxZHDF6Gpw3JB gsn1gbRDqdMkxiamN2yJ2x9IJKg21DE8YtzFsILRA2YsIwPDFQEgzQTEFkDMysDwaC1EnOETQIAB AHEJGxQNCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNNyAwIG9iajw8L01ldGFkYXRhIDQgMCBSL1BhZ2VzIDMg MCBSL1R5cGUvQ2F0YWxvZy9QYWdlTGFiZWxzIDEgMCBSPj4NZW5kb2JqDTggMCBvYmo8PC9Dcm9w Qm94WzAgMCA1OTUuMjIgODQyXS9QYXJlbnQgMyAwIFIvQ29udGVudHNbMTMgMCBSIDE0IDAgUiAx NiAwIFIgMTcgMCBSIDE5IDAgUiAyMCAwIFIgMjMgMCBSIDI0IDAgUl0vUm90YXRlIDAvTWVkaWFC b3hbMCAwIDU5NS4yMiA4NDJdL1Jlc291cmNlcyA5IDAgUi9UeXBlL1BhZ2U+Pg1lbmRvYmoNOSAw IG9iajw8L1hPYmplY3Q8PC9JbTM0MCAyNiAwIFIvSW0zNDEgMjcgMCBSL0ltMzQyIDI4IDAgUi9J bTE5NyAyOSAwIFIvSW0xOTggMzAgMCBSL0ltMTk5IDMxIDAgUj4+L0NvbG9yU3BhY2U8PC9DczYg MTIgMCBSPj4vRm9udDw8L1RUMiAxMCAwIFIvVFQ0IDExIDAgUi9UVDYgMTUgMCBSL1RUNyAxOCAw IFIvVFQ5IDIxIDAgUi9UVDExIDIyIDAgUj4+L1Byb2NTZXRbL1BERi9UZXh0L0ltYWdlQ10vRXh0 R1N0YXRlPDwvR1MxIDQxIDAgUi9HUzIgNDIgMCBSPj4+Pg1lbmRvYmoNMTAgMCBvYmo8PC9TdWJ0 eXBlL1RydWVUeXBlL0ZvbnREZXNjcmlwdG9yIDMyIDAgUi9MYXN0Q2hhciAxMjIvV2lkdGhzWzI3 OCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgNzIyIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAyNzggMCAwIDAgNTU2IDAgNTU2IDAgMCAwIDU1NiAw IDAgMCAzMzMgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgNzIyIDcyMiA3MjIgMCA2NjcgNjExIDc3OCAwIDI3OCAwIDcy MiA2MTEgODMzIDcyMiA3NzggNjY3IDAgNzIyIDY2NyA2MTEgMCAwIDk0NCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAw IDAgMCA1NTYgNjExIDU1NiA2MTEgNTU2IDMzMyA2MTEgNjExIDI3OCAyNzggNTU2IDI3OCA4ODkg NjExIDYxMSA2MTEgMCAzODkgNTU2IDMzMyA2MTEgNTU2IDc3OCA1NTYgNTU2IDUwMF0vQmFzZUZv bnQvQXJpYWwtQm9sZE1UL0ZpcnN0Q2hhciAzMi9FbmNvZGluZy9XaW5BbnNpRW5jb2RpbmcvVHlw ZS9Gb250Pj4NZW5kb2JqDTExIDAgb2JqPDwvU3VidHlwZS9UcnVlVHlwZS9Gb250RGVzY3JpcHRv ciAzMyAwIFIvTGFzdENoYXIgMjQ1L1dpZHRoc1syNzggMCAwIDAgMCAwIDY2NyAxOTEgMzMzIDMz MyAwIDAgMjc4IDMzMyAyNzggMjc4IDU1NiA1NTYgNTU2IDU1NiA1NTYgNTU2IDU1NiAwIDU1NiA1 NTYgMjc4IDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDY2NyA2NjcgNzIyIDcyMiA2NjcgNjExIDc3OCA3MjIgMjc4IDUw MCAwIDU1NiA4MzMgNzIyIDc3OCA2NjcgNzc4IDcyMiA2NjcgNjExIDcyMiA2NjcgOTQ0IDY2NyAw IDYxMSAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCA1NTYgNTU2IDUwMCA1NTYgNTU2IDI3OCA1NTYgNTU2IDIyMiAyMjIg NTAwIDIyMiA4MzMgNTU2IDU1NiA1NTYgNTU2IDMzMyA1MDAgMjc4IDU1NiA1MDAgNzIyIDUwMCA1 MDAgNTAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAg MCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAw IDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAg MCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDU1NiAwIDU1NiAwIDAgMCA1 MDAgNTU2IDAgMCAwIDAgMjc4IDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgNTU2XS9CYXNlRm9udC9BcmlhbE1UL0Zp cnN0Q2hhciAzMi9FbmNvZGluZy9XaW5BbnNpRW5jb2RpbmcvVHlwZS9Gb250Pj4NZW5kb2JqDTEy IDAgb2JqWy9JQ0NCYXNlZCAyNSAwIFJdDWVuZG9iag0xMyAwIG9iajw8L0xlbmd0aCAxOTQ0L0Zp bHRlci9GbGF0ZURlY29kZT4+c3RyZWFtDQpIiWxXy25bRwzd6yvuUgKi8TzIeXTZtA1SoEWAqKui C1e1HTeyHdhOjfx9D8m5r8gIkFyezPDNw9HFu49huHna/HjYXBwOcQjD4XoTkuPGNHj8Gb9jcXko JTuffRoOdxs/3Gy88z7E4XDc7OUz4fNl8+f27eXpNFw/PA4fLr9cPe6yo+3Tbp9c2A67vw6/boJ3 uZRm+vu36c84NOqHQj/rjsV0R+93e3Z5m4f3v+z2BUrffxh+v3reFZe2L7t9aK5tHx4/3+4qgPub wY6/fbi/vrLPx13A31f3xytzB4GTBd5cIbK4+6e5xcHVaG6pM6GJX2P04tYf97f/IVT4w4iV8fct XEHgz9+Gh2v4kOHo213ePtjn7d3fejpvL98Mr+As+IeH/v389QZZjNtLO3R6MwT74p3H33s7Ba9+ g6Z+6NugV6JJXg96E7IKFnxxJXsLuX9ayBQdeQv54u1THo5PVq7h6XhvtUmaAwv/0/Pzlx8uLsSP tn15edmFANvO5H+ubt3Xo/vyfCFlsiMIt6IQFQn4jET57e39DUqb1aefD5vuRHBogRARCFx0DI9o eLzaXEu/nnseOLlKK9+1S8VRhHv4d7MPUJVLHFCbwKjdT/0/YHIK02UqPuPf6ksVuzEWYg384t3H KOMShtthQ5iNRta1qcbhTpHSGpDifK2DylnmhhDBQq4kXT8ccSO7vEBOM5K9oxoUiS7BgQXiccYH 6A0yGgP5CLuIvFQXYoKsiSs1uFJYzHhE03hCRAWOoHv1iu9XxEjxrjHPcjd63KSGk7R0bEJm5+EI tbhCqhRPM5DyILH4VC1D3DQjNc45PJ5l9YRqUyTkMwGrrnKQTAOJVQ9JXtEhRUUJD1pjA4/ESYbW FFzyeT6RJGNyIqJlEH6SyogFci3YDehshmQwwUmRlEmN5kC4gznXakfHqAYlQt+x2hBcdIDPatGU FfyPeMGpqSzxzH6ajBuIpF+wA6TumgIJFEkJRU1GJEkugJuaOVUSnIAcvNwAVXNdyM0Rp35DkYJa wbhqqFaiWoPaINCtkD1F7R7xQpJVMGgla7pliKR3OEYLI9AkW7oxZ/MJJMKPGlrTVHFoaiP1ZEvm 4AKXQaQam7Z3K3WWe/mPZw1x2nzSZFdtNY/GqdIkQMwKChOipb8FtVoRofjta55kSz+VvDiBNmsi MwatqgxSmGwcz6xqu5JwSNJpa0WJgeAJlQk5zYiOrLYXYYNNQ7xGwFp+fesMyUIJawR1zMg1IXrS lvEZPUjsJOYuIgKSRl/8P3YJ966WFFBVLpFBsdwD4Gw92jh3P9H0ijDOiMbcuUO7GCYjt2WbC0Vz XpzoGZPRAfnNMkMz6Y2OzJGnqtZeQ+YMjrfOkKkSqBes5la1yhUpuFMkBLmX5F0zkEQWo1a5wm/i 1qcOepN2PGOvxbIkaSZUry4RauimlX8csYfyCiHjVOmn2AEMr5kKSC6zo1Q0NSQiJif1cpHWB0jQ 2TDkpEgNuV8BccFXCkFJuAlxMUrMFl1qqkPqIoQ6+4Vu4rjyXbS17mlTrkcPhjTqxbxBFr4Qu7GK jH4uvPQVCMelqxIlNXMVaRC51GgqhemFxoINIBpRVIAkNJjZMdk1dVX0LDzblqWAfqX7GQCpF2OU SCPiE9uSTWIaPUvWEyFgUNAjSpvWNMezNtLWahF+J6XfiEa+WyBIKJJBzU9rVUcBq5PjalgQR/WL rYGGD5768uOFLO2lNDYi4onHDJeGsUozHY82ZsKuyGtdnBi9HDUs4zAb30WmFCx6s41xbbqna3E1 xQkRO63YVkXxF7Jo4e6JIqii/BQQDUmeLkVIpS58N1luIO+dCPQEovVdA6NCkzzbmBB0iqxAaIic Fl6ONTD5eBaZ1bb1pQYCKrpwgMhbQdcHfGY8u4L6joHDbZGr1qHoyj1u8G7AEBnpC0UyHlChzpVh jyZcrVZBqKxPNNvF6CL2JLQhkrwT5DjSyH2rtKYH+nEPmD1G01fziMYLla2LkZKTaRCGAVC4m6i2 E4XxRA4+9h+HubtYOlXHph6mXp/ki8ZY2yTKeTxw/fIACqpbFhqRbElb07cpXGJLAjjHGyKF1MSz lTx12euelF2oDT4i88Q3DAml15CZOCY9M1Jda20q+umsDaQ1OMp7Zyacuw3eIUjC0hrjoZt6V+r6 4hD0kSFcJ8+pJTJd8vJc59cQ6dC20nOOFNIAlwjewdDDASlW7sICRqpVFsYEzwZ9BOqNHCdEdEiv Rr1DeOxrQNEelvJc5ED65BSrPifVUe3ZNqUTKwVTzkskoCOTaQ2Wl++SaQmWZuw/aMBHSHDEj0l5 ZHRkD3ry+MWBfwJg/Go8v/NpvjUX6jtk1BOKjrb++mQ8qdqime5mRJ6s4vMkJ+wi5BdyTfbIljUq cow2VMnmmuQXiE0V3qoi6g8lmQmse6xHEHGYZLmAEqW8OIH1YFPnwQ/4nYFlXFRhTsKTjOdR1BXO 2IaY/VSmrohSPzyzQzGfU1UTIzJ3G567saTXkLmCk54VEs2XEmpHIucVUjRT4j8LCcDblIwrI9at xEPB5BLHBFCy3onBUiQbdWJGPDLLassN/wswAN04xksNCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNMTQgMCBv Ymo8PC9MZW5ndGggMjAxNC9GaWx0ZXIvRmxhdGVEZWNvZGU+PnN0cmVhbQ0KSIl0V7uuZLkNzPsr zhccS6JISvFkBuxkQ8OJ2zAMY8bJBvv7riqqu+/swpigh7p6kMVikcfnvOeYV+a6fYzLp9+5uuwW C3bcYTDzbpnX8+Ez72k8EHfHL+3lMCfO5cccdzY7+7kQ7Z649zsW5r1nfln518MDXrjp1Q5vfmAl b/N4r3z/rETH79cFxwsNT0fcuWEigu4wHfcv2BOuL7qCVwZf8XFH29gx7s4N/V4dpu87/GPjgAOE Hl92BGLvuqDj1/FUa2VvC52we02u2O3LsAM4dJMTYfCRNxEO3NS38MRfVk6tOABHXLh1dMURnnok Z+iKnSknwiquaUNXAIgMPbrhLt22XXb4Cax9bCLRsLN/dgAJKy97wuuwe4AMdMEOcC27fJyL20+6 8FCP8bFx7dp+TtTKuNtIZWvCqfnTit2zuxLaJ28BNnwVtzRht5Guj11YOfPx3tFxA6kEf9O/2Dyp lL9WQM81CB4g8vzQHW/Y3m+bnuNEflboZd9dFZDwX5H1If4ju69Yd75Xvv+Bzt8f/5bvtqJ8A1t/ fFmZxV8yQN6DXa18i/zY5dtu67MDvlmMiv9rGljT9jUNCH+AAQd00i1ZHcJ8e7neCvJFphz7KTLK ifeO43QS8uunqMD75x/iZHn3i/9+ff738advv8b17Zer0UE4ht9NNBso3lGLv3z766Ndf77a9R+s LVD0t2tef7n+9vd2/RPSsetub2BMEMPXCkRF9Qb56mTIbGKsGwKabxPutURK/L0CRBpo5/29glTe TgKcK9/2efT5+KygMpGO9w2g5UDlvt84Nl49bpwFiuDx83XkHdm58neRPh//ePw/zIirUQNZwYm/ Yu3HZwUvGITZIIc7S6uG+wXBgLZ97OcD792N9fbasaEG+3PBMc8L2H8WFhZApffxtYTO+4Fj48DL hdeOl4uvG34XxPMn6hgK0NmpFouAPcLAYU/u38A7LtqNecCvQXSNPSnUi1p5jAXfFcNA/chmMQQE M7IO0GQh93NAzQsX+qwHlFjooZnsmFWhe9WBwP8KtGy8cUupWKFzyKQM8YIIYY5g9pAHgx7A9n76 59L+0ao+R6sHgAK7GuVpR4VQELrxvX7HEiJ0lJjvO/P0c2KCh3IuYZQ8ALup36Nx1Qtoq8MocOiz 6DO0u0JY6BUme7FNAqU+UyfWW5aKWvhtU+1hQToJihEU2shghc2dXMnJsIEzowq2TUS1yBTaeCuH Tqwjw8jN6kImWUBgXSyyDQAMshE3HK8wsnADWlvgAK6mngiaZOBop72A6JVs0pNXIHAMD7qyqR+V DltaKT/sHnmynVJsQMMo4APHAZhr4gL6MsQ2268KS6/sNmeYWSogwqbCXr36BmcsnrA7SZhF/tCn paZPe0fIp7VSUfa9TsLHnGKEgVmmZlD9irML+sUdknwwxaosh9jMuBargvYW9kkOirqV7xF2gBri 8GAQLB6vJrzaEmwrivJRHARHOTGyWyWLIDX48QLnAcLWD6FsnKiXpVzY7eCkSkZMogsywKpJ0kUn NgYaq0Ix5gp2aKzdlX3csDkSgXizgJ3iTeK3eeWOGkJ7jSXOYhwqtTmlDff9qE3bYrlyBxh0AKzh 2EbWaBbkytTEA1z9HDj8SfpE27bsfU4M0H3XML29ilvZ75rLSPqgOgAfFhjDALtZnHDb6NSiIrn4 sPtU3EnF4w29sAX/id2in4KSXK1xp+wstqyxz/7JcmfDj31K8+SC8gBfrDg/W0ka/jCs+DKr+v1M JV3pR5Dil1Fbi7HbayEgdqrDXnNR71W5uw1daLsfxs4o3W5oQbRTQ0qrOqKMyGemaB7KRp/1HTPG IekSLm2WsquFA7dZzQqADDHGJH+UrEaRo51dcbOGxagCCkXMOV1J6uqHK1LF7ekCrkbRIXIXzWMV QTCXqbjTa3zto9qLU7JY0vZilPoRWU0pjjOcwTdUGKOcnAepJ1PZJobEFk7t4I6tUpScDMnH2CY7 q5Dow14i1FhTYU4KDDvXiYKjJym66wnGWeoRqrRZH5AaNHcVltekw/J5qm0P8t6ZixKMfgaNzSeQ Vcw/6rqr9AA6UECtUgzqQlfYJBjlttcnaLOXBvqsZsHpSdlepatBvqTmZcY0zmDgmo+5kpoksmYZ DvCaZUAGCXOpAk9sSQ+hbixNsp6URHY3SUxRWyX+COTUxeoVxKQwE5hddWKcfvDGZqlKsP3kIlQI pqmcXolhGNrVNSnpEeq7NU1wHrE64C8CCcc+tyzT9wQK0/fZ37P6l/oRYTgdb62qClMddeF/XqgJ q1Vp88uNMG2V+pI0siZyvuhEiLmydiqEGNWVm3z6eajjyCdgsnocPlA16CEd5D3IxwwzfyFVczVc 5lffbIvQxWGMe92h0ZItS3MSdJADRpy+Stk7CtGIFW5ug5ziCNqF3cjqorZqxG/5emFTMTCxz3aG TfZdfGFmP7xnZE69rHLnZwMW2D9MLeqMVQNdgqZyQSXqp6X1KBI3BgkhdquBZbM50PZiIKfmOtHs jLedbRNMyxLSKZfY2yqGWGcM6+ViFD9ITBC8KM265F9DDY4hUy2Wpjb2RIJUw27cqyYLAsCmPF/b m5Xm6u9VKnnGJI2eZ0KLmo9e+oa88iGpMuuYdqtxOEfJlW87ZVg6jhWrMpz6xODwcbLwhUvPx/U/ AQYAgeOvqA0KZW5kc3RyZWFtDWVuZG9iag0xNSAwIG9iajw8L1N1YnR5cGUvVHJ1ZVR5cGUvRm9u dERlc2NyaXB0b3IgMzQgMCBSL0xhc3RDaGFyIDMyL1dpZHRoc1s2MDNdL0Jhc2VGb250L0x1Y2lk YUNvbnNvbGUvRmlyc3RDaGFyIDMyL0VuY29kaW5nL1dpbkFuc2lFbmNvZGluZy9UeXBlL0ZvbnQ+ Pg1lbmRvYmoNMTYgMCBvYmo8PC9MZW5ndGggMTgyMS9GaWx0ZXIvRmxhdGVEZWNvZGU+PnN0cmVh bQ0KSIm8V02P2zYQvftX6FRQRayK3+SxSb9QoGmAOCjQoAfXq911Y1uB7U2a/vq+4ZCU7E3aIoci QKyhyJk3894MtbeLvjNKW93gNxqp8OuNlKE5bQ4LHWHp2HjXd0qbZr+w0nXR1IXd4unC9hZHdeOt 6rz0tAkrgXZZ04UQGtv7TjsL23XSetgRQWW1N3ArOzctWKm66LIDa2c2QgSTDpQV2SkT0g5tHGwA cxp23/U9bBM610c60eNJA4TxnTMSIBxAIDdju+jZ1k7BRkztSowg68putqK7mNKnVLWNH10xKd58 BYXyKVBvCIhDMpGrgSp5E5GCydUIUqbk+kjJSSTLtpV2ZqMcVuYTvGI61eu0QxokY22nqICIoXtT bSqH74Lzsx0ONpdca0ZpHLNqdUJ1xfNucbuwSne9dwl7RPH2sxXXWesaq5CL5gJ5R9QGaCNUm7CD AOtmOwz8x8lDtTkGncgrVoMyqk/2UOWTY0z6KijKjoKyeLjKY7O4T7iC0vPc6opLv9QMXlmm2sVZ bmxz3N7LaQfs6Gceql1zKytAJnvZVA+Fp5pbZbKgqDsyyuLhKo8N8abBIelhyq2u5KprCf79xIoK nU25Vt6U7WzQsx2GW7AyX+wpt7xSq549VFZyjIm3gqLsKCiLh6s8Em/wmtprkmReKDVHo1s146Rk VlnTfedmPBIKN53PVs2K7VLtcrawUXOqfJX4dQfDq4RfwE9sGQw5H2pvIiWDKC656MmFjoA2tbfV oYv9RVCNAppZu2v8Sh4h0rnJRtjgYz7RS50mqqdK+06lCWSCSgGM1dXeJERRThsM5rFmf5h7M9t3 GD3pQFmxPLLgwNDIKnJCCGX1XHAaczjOBAdb9p4HaZJssSNKHvKJtEJDLJ2A4KSayQl1uryIUMno zbSD0jJcWZSFmPA+JlNyYa+42ZECCbpPlbMh9RZmadJEWki1Jp90N7kLU6l08dQVl+nFeTPXI3YG N1csYEo720GoVEjFDUhwsnH5RVlwq+nWSR68nTDOUyARfvX9S9ncnRZPVwuP8qPpevzLjyhu0iOq ZwPIXO0XfXO3EE27+mPx1WqlGtmsbhekBcMH86Py1DuSrl4+tqR7G7N9teFH26zeL16Lb/8c2iUo EZsH+g3ivG2XUndWvGvRcVHgNS5nJZpn9F6LscVxJ/b77fncLhFFDNlD0/62+pFAGQaFCuGaJkz8 xJB6UkbJBGB6wnGdz+NC5MOQcj/LBx8P5AJP+PBI+XwPMNCmOBBuTHxxbCFisc7Wjt9SMuBB3LdL jQzW2/Q6iON1Dn2zxIVvo29W32S8CIY+5OLdsJt9CxGLhxadLA60pMXN2PyUVsfDeYD7SN5Hdr/6 MnnBTMr+kF/y9+qQdnrUfonGEsOxxTgQJ6DD15cglMjh/KGVWjTjLUWiXMZ8imAE8TtjOrY95f2k IZK8eNGi/5g8I45nPvpwt94xpI9y5Ty+r8JncuUcfffMuKLHXL6svdWwuT9sN8DwAgoCYtkTwiDu 6L9jizkm1vumJfzP7mmNiMLYf8xTKaktMbznGN8Nx8M6eThQIQIR83Rcv9verNlxpWR5xYm74CQy J545UZkTQ5xg0CdOFLxnVnRlJSZWHLNiEit2xsoIDDLzof+VDxqSn82Hxs1eGu8i05Bb59k9lxd4 njQvk17eAq6kEUApb7aEjmCvuPGJMOS03rxpbseLJd72fDgn/b5HjRwcjMc32wPeRHHHWebuUtRc WQ7jjiGMd9sBW7U4EZYllXDI4oUFMqQV2w0DG04cb31gEDfNi2PGwwDGTXF7+niDQ+mpwaku04gs bbm6T94MqHQ0LU61pyT1WHIdMWIowF1LGIeyn5wD1+FJAx2965qfkxhIPHRwLDp4Ph7fr/nMh3aa pR9XASaoMp+pAhsxKNS8K1WVgbmUgSkycJDBkubPwM13pYPIpMuZDupS82LIrqYXigqzPmyGuQaM 0ZUAW5N6LcZbNNL+7cOZrhhqvuaLXDIs7x/oESMXM4SIDtSN9G5MXXbgtxdS40G+nOK8TiqlwcAq DaTSRyq5GC+vxdOHYwr3huf6PauP58vxJgN8ed7udsOxUPyqpZvm0PZi+46PDezkxFYa7paHO3UQ DZI0n359OJLQOVAvmjzNbh63ULrhbZVvbutv6cpT4ArfI+KH5tf0my/7I7cQeQ5wmlqNNr+naZaG G42lXPy/AJhQ7Hh1fbgpVXKf+gqRkr5a8RWj8dn8Scn+0/cC/uDBhxYf/a8ax/eeTs37f0y6n8bf tzseVc26sPL4OsFfYyn0L7mm6ThaajecTpA4a2e/59+HcmERJoibe+i8HQ+fmF/lAyXfW5spekp3 uAHRnNAvUDl1Mnk+nd/er3e7lj7rnqSV5vn4Zovb6VUauVJ8Xcb5J6eRVRqfzMxP87cAAwDsqALs DQplbmRzdHJlYW0NZW5kb2JqDTE3IDAgb2JqPDwvTGVuZ3RoIDE5NDgvRmlsdGVyL0ZsYXRlRGVj b2RlPj5zdHJlYW0NCkiJnFdNc9s2EL37V+DUgB2JIfito618uXUcN5InnUlygGVaZkwTHlJ0xvm3 mR7aS4+9dx8WpOQoipOMZyyKIoHF27dv3wZivtgLxPzjnhTe/MPe4/k8FErML/YyP0uDWAT05y7D zE9FomJ8i8T8em8c+EGgQrsErjKs81b+XnjjiZ/Iu9p449yfyJVHT6ayEL8Ib0yLyRMvp++aH6vd 45WYXuoS17FsWuG9n/+GcGIOZ/4r74HN7L5Bwrs99xJascPCkbzzUj+U4qg47xYjcVqXt1gvkkXT lis8EtIjKqKYhLkQR+U/y2LkYjrwxnQyWXgBYlmW3TWtlUnBgQRirHyV0Fmf2DiC4dSAAnG8pDgm 8jNOrGRTGvGsoVMmsrBHSmVDO516YxXSzweeCuQhPSpHgCaS4sS4F+07q26pK9448fMosVngK5uE OJ/4WcxJCH40g3Gu/DB0L+MA6RpTxWeZdysDVBBPRJiVuk9OhpNQ9HTUlpBS8ss8MVBplgxITdbL x7z8cVExMVrCgzA2tXhG58ZFWyyYAZrygrQgh76YamQjlTe0ZyxLfrvW7YjTLgAoPdx445S+6k9l dS9vcRwN4cRD4txhT3RXGUeCGdYJpWMh9lTyv6LlzCnac0p4JHJk85XR98bG/WC+EqJl8LP5iul/ vpEvNZzA4fnGNFctMAnlpblxmbJs2iqj7fTk6/Q4JtP7ja70mWl7VK5KXZeEwvF09lo8evJoJJ43 RbEodtRGMhzxrfzNNMtCzD73S5XVLaX2dNqX3YkBhDkgxI1cfhvIMPTTdAPI78WQVEvFG6q1QYOJ o0F3VpULVolU3hGKjKEuG4tt9h1Uj/pFM7foQTeeeeOEuNTVSyb0UUFCcDw/HYlZWS/1DQrf0ogE EmIQyh2oqh7Qv4x4RWKD4lTyVleXZiQOGbwTbBbJ6Y8SNCJBUeFPEjTKSd2DTXAHHMAuBH1Yn3et hTZBkQIQSDXJ8GvWggTdIAAPSv5KUsApQAL4jQfIPOzpGsNBCXmBun5kwdIfbKuwxZ1zU0qkONbY MJL1OX9Sfwjp4ZH72dHWeOgdFb+qay2Oi5U/Il2q+S19rnekbbu+0LFwwL816c4fnT5vDCNj5ZB6 gpg2HuXDRkpx4gjlgvI328dBUrmuHXxSt7RPP5jjhLb96RyTCHHVXG/UeF81mtm3Kg332NoDJsif xYZ/Lb1gpyAlk2y3QP/JpLYEIcKXRSNeWmV2d9ryZgzhz21fpe1RFx3TvwSkqaxJck4GzZnxgje6 rHckbTIU8tDdU3YsFu+yKjVX87QD+CHl37CqnXAnMrZRNU7V4kHVYGN2Yr/drLZb85FuV+IpDqDk uQc2lAR7bWslc3L1IMZqw0alTlY0ChKttNKLK/ZOPkySPeYbgjEC81dFUxkD4tvU1rt5P3Sp3EX+ WpvuQhyYbqXPuFmhEfD62EehxmkjkvhkvRGj7CmFqus3+yaKzilu8+jIUBF5UHfHg1dWH2I2NJlc auZMXX4iZRZTc31dOmKvrIoWhXiYvtsp+1oL3OFOsnTTk1g3ErNghdaNRHAj9wDf2HmtuuFAWlCW 2su/ICxxlWj69XRt++qhz8BWoYZsp/kO/GFNY1YQd2kVJFQknZtdQq2NodtytipQx8qacMVuDrpB M8KSrykpVjwpMyvXTgr3zpeZ2SFkYUCufsv9bmKPM0eUcsL/hmyPqZiD7ySXWEaQIrqyeeftysSW fLwmAlP4YDeM5dzS6YUXy/E+c0872wvFpPPXtv7s1GLnFTQFtA3rEVjyrdO9hryhNPrxxz67EVaa xOnuktzvltSWDVVzqxe94z608phSkAofj9kGHR7b2SWUT2fOXeRWaXMKZsWPrPtPX4JbQ9JzL6YC 6/j5Ow8VL15d28nJjUnnm79pno54KOpHJU7CnLM/xdQWy9QDKINWRUgQ70WsEQsyxE0/T9jTJXL/ XqRfEUTAnXMbCaXTxhPsltJN6O4HD4w09rqqivW4Ga7HTRxExXbYdC1bo1+4ESYjS5P2TQkT0MSW GrGh7r21iy8aWBq78F7Y6VTTOIJCiW0uxhGcq7XTFGpip9nN3/Hf2DutQ4MMPSgTS7KjhAxe2ecb /Pt9kKI1SL2vM7qmyUDMVvq20VcQUHmFSeG0tjlzZu4WNI2kL/ZRB2RVLou6xRDhIeXrSWItIhCL OJ2IjGoxUfk9mXKTxasze9IPmBiRIzhHhb0U6AQJgaPCsk/ne4qG3jQUmaI2Tm5m4keC3GYMYjbF 3sXewfzb0hGSgcTrRPp8a/wgQgVpHKLeJiqLv2H9yDVy/X4EENT3miu0GpoNmc4pfzhK0EOOK8qZ T/zDtTgrhGHbx10rQdcC+UgQz8UZ8VUKQtktNIgJb25lIrOsnBprMtFbEnnWG3QkS4+8vA/E8n5i uR5ZU6MrXxyuBGUem1yUF6tLUdwWNd2qhRZt0ZTUp8D6r7Y5FkiMBdTmaw0DQ9IxNfVF0RTEfXq1 Fg6riLFCpTnlUxQjYBuJ9obGBOO0EOfeOF8OAPh7IQ6fHfJazp71IuLUdHFZW4ONlm+NHnUXavaw VW5Xd7+rndmNpHVd3nvxvwADAD4TeFwNCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNMTggMCBvYmo8PC9TdWJ0 eXBlL1R5cGUwL0Rlc2NlbmRhbnRGb250c1szNyAwIFJdL0Jhc2VGb250L0tMTklPTitTeW1ib2xN VC9Ub1VuaWNvZGUgMzggMCBSL0VuY29kaW5nL0lkZW50aXR5LUgvVHlwZS9Gb250Pj4NZW5kb2Jq DTE5IDAgb2JqPDwvTGVuZ3RoIDE5OTcvRmlsdGVyL0ZsYXRlRGVjb2RlPj5zdHJlYW0NCkiJtFfZ rttGEn3XV/TTgBxcMVyaWxAM4NxZkAAzMGAB82DPA0W2JFq8pEBScpyvz6mFWnIdwzPAwPAV2ezu qlN96lT15udVaNZREKWx2fx1FQZhGOZmU6/W/IjBT6v33jt/nXqf/SgJMm+anb/O8fDiZ4H1JkNv uffB89dZkHobv8DfZx3NPviBPr71oxBfRj8KEs9dWn9dBpE3nCfjLq6fl30++VGEzdXG6MzBdY1p +2WXavRLTxdP9JN5BrZL7+9+iO9j1dfugy++0LI4DGWr8Mn4/9n8vPruecpMPZkQ/yIz1f0qiYKw zBK8IwKMuywoBKGAfwtr8Kkgc3EIsxXv87fNysZxUFqTFTaITZQGUWwAMSmxfHSr3erHzQo+Z6Fl Y/pokyIIMyxKg7QIE7N5gaG9RL64RT4R44wNNn+aqw5ovc/ARu+GQuD1wJx4hDH+Q3RZUJJf19ON rtC8N/PB9ZO/+chgyijIFUtsg6j4BiwpQBd5Wf43aNbEmn/4KXOBX5zjI3sFiwGtbRKEeZwKScv8 iiO94QB++2SqvjGE5XUIbJDH9hYCjsB77984zhJ2qtmBU3joBnA39obleOMIr4XJ8hQhAUn4dMuv RyS2ZWBpTfY6Hq/zCvF4rvqqqT74zFVlapgGCr4IcmstYS9DTtD33ubgNBckASsEK/awetjK8o88 7Hi4njVVLj7t4bnJDDvzLzfT1HRJtmE8tr0s3vMyYlRmqlHSyJl5MNtRd+r3eN07P8d24I/mqalg 6iL5KKZNxVNwKKdx2LW1Lkeqmxf18E5G1Hc3soPzFWP/e1d5b/J3LyF6pV7lLcpWolyTZctLLZvL 9O+5h1MF4SAbCRQug4dPZkd8ICJgdFmh/myH+QCsVePuP5JCkDAAM4/2pFjNeZo5golIZ+E9sQcI n5gzTTupb+dpAqlqCk7VXNgNErKJWDEf2gnhH6qGKb6rpnntLkN3oRjsWtcJhgaBA38jzZvNn29c Xy8JQ9GYZUGB+BPb2YHEG14ISe6dfRLpnj+1Mq+u5nboJ0kwMOHQ7g8d/s/m6Ja4AV7prSHtqddO suN0dljTNsDUskcsKja5k6LXCbGTw9ZSY+ZRSdI3E8zLc4NI0QmBzAejlOMDgE04KiFzHBmKiWbS Yv2RLdGdzv+vgdFc/W6zQREwm51QsihtfK0nBK++YuaKOgtTxnOtT2f6Kak+Uo1xCpfOdR5ObT0t qhQVyIPYZBAn/ECbMshSYUljF1mCK1Zc+YJApXkQYzkqWRIuAnVVUhZQ4M4t9J8UI8rtQ6weqERS VA/9zo1KhJ6DVC/JO2w/cuwcaYNTXtzqfHnLnK4zW2dO5xGsAeAD5w0y8Lw/aK4w65RohkMWs9DA 3KFv60rPzkxuIhZARsZ91be/+rQP76k+ynHi6LBGF+m2T7yd+nd0n3lpP8zum5VmrjQZj6D+fJ4H ERJVmYrTvyOFk0xF3BqzleMX7QF5L+2MUffLyY0zJd10H7CUMWMT2bGT6GGSyAhFDjHjzQ9YF1GV /QR5nw4qZidePnEun6redSxCkB/1kSPXm8Mwk0zRPif9Ui9EX5Tljg+Zdkqd66VoRIwn0eOgDXLe +g5KTmEJuYiokMS6iEOOUB4BAN0L9V0kLIajCZDsNyOOvVc7EpfEnhlODlVxNHU36GzK7MS7Ky9N 1epscMDe2CPTA0MMnx0zTIYq3mGxQNPZ5fYBHE4chL4nzV3f8lr0wHxUCgjBmfjQ9lrxpNTRkTpn dIxkr6pF847T91flySXd4yBGT0om4ygp2eQ1t3+A6eIv1B9d1QFUyDAt/AqjmUQJHZM2DQkAopYK sY/KDSrGDJ66/1w5iqgNylNh0p6HdYnMAcHfkeAta8ZLqxXR8ZKF10TXt+MwD/WA/Pk9bHhsbcFt UhxH2bfgTrP4q4WIcccJXNB7izQ12hHtBn3QFgylmqovH5FG4nl4OZ3RWeorAXiWWqJSn7FagipS Ru6bMuoVKMLeUU6aEwDa9iXcBOT/gvuf7OqwbTsnrTXBoJ6Z+kht5rgKM4oOmXAHsFdUyw3t3XJ5 lPfZ6eVRPy81OsijpLjrdv/gGrGRgrguWRV2lDLcwkNRdXT2C+qzlqBaaR9zaemWSyg3kdzptn3d nRuHdnx7npcTw90TSmS6lnxFX0OyrLvpNujaqazA1G7g21k3XJvVUqgeUQmRwb2mK65MScolWZ60 oKcxlCX+ckUOqZ3IREqim5TYpasotat4w014xj0MITR/Mj4KfQbZX1NrYcn3PT9X0k/jwBCwwtPX LaPgnlZ3QAP+ic4uAmgaQC25loH1oxcLh940smdDbQE9QCP5P+JhqYnaE6Hkk6HsIkFNifMyBupI E0Txs3xqeC0ojrzkBa0RD1QysAeb1lEoPt9NnM2Dp9HVP5meAm0UCpkpMI6X5Vj20/JE36lq8Bv5 WOpf8YyuS7yDzuhrLuIP/YKN7OOVdX3fBr456wVkEH72i17y20tbg8E6g08hJl1YU6yOvpbGhPTx vtbcEaS4EkQz58dxoO0yr2q2lTz1VK8an+wZtpESuoSO2nVO5kw+VWc2RvcLppQur/0o555vmh7a gzK70kK7xWcyVImanvQXq4kW1KbMn/2EL1on+dTxKI465iNt/Yhg93v5+nUOmt8EGAC+in2JDQpl bmRzdHJlYW0NZW5kb2JqDTIwIDAgb2JqPDwvTGVuZ3RoIDE5MDkvRmlsdGVyL0ZsYXRlRGVjb2Rl Pj5zdHJlYW0NCkiJhFdNk9s2D77nV/CUITuRK0rW17md6ce8SdMkt7YHrc3amtVK+0ryZvLviwcA JXu3O71YBgmSAAg8ePiH/SH0/aVvXdLsajsZ59Ndbocg8vLV+YzkUaddvivtvSvt7JI9jZs/bSZT P7lyl9l3LknpY7KdS2ijwhY6bvJrNfPW3IVvzpfb1sPxT+eScldZY9xfX3598+W7N+kuTZvCfDm8 SfhvZb58ffOH/cF5v2toIZ2wt8NJvmF2GfZeOucL2mYcZNwcIG/qi2todnJZDiWX7rztXQHFeCwf lu5xLv3zaaHH0o4SFHEyDIs5YtPadohGYedlcj4X2e9p+zuZvsR1Hqep8jjIgalJ/M7vPZ33o3hc bh7Xq8cZBz+33+Blbh8dhxfO1OxFZk8yxCaUtlWN8zeXlyS/M7NDWIIMH1i43CxhwyrdU88xfI+5 fetq3Nsjxw0OFrTuiTdpr3fU065dK3wVXUur1bW0Edd+chVtPzmc3B1dUiMDkH74g/TL6WpGEUXr nlZwFNnoQZLhpCtvL9FXeomp10v8eXyghVgRcIs1zsIpHmfQuLfTvdhCInZnpZPO3WTm5oz3mez+ y6B2B7Gq7yndm9VWuiH61TlVPQTTDTHKZAtSZW9Xv7Fgup/ZZdLK0jW4a6Lm0cfUb1Y0bMXEG0oZ 4AZpLRf03gZRuTOt/OFsaejDEgqi0Swu6WapUPdWNTmLM9uNw/ws2mn9olRhCqtf2dIgjcY4jgCX NoprrYrYIyMbi8wl0//W5XF2MufudFYhEaVHFYOCgopHrvMtzPH0rwolFOI4+UpV+v3qnC/Fuffj Hd0hhamig3v+Rd7GlNrvOKmAmoAXpG1tZwQ8Dh3O3RIOy0UkXjsrAL81j5veiDsrEXkJVU1xSjJg iEz0kCob7+Nl2W0X469N55rHbVeaogQohMoVfc2DJCIysLJHUQ6AoX6+Beh0g6tU4er9x/99fof1 tA/qO7PvKf6VpeHbKGfZLs1L40lzX5VrqDPOaN3rgrPp2AVXFQ31FAHEu5XJGUY3BP3DSQZeCUS2 mppl2/YV+YntEdHuIcjAERVIad7iIjAwOcSeBxccQpd7UJnj7+1tYPwWdR+jLkVGqIsTCRrQEzJP 4egeXYZ9PAM0yrU9wCeuiEryGd7PjCfyS4bx2IRUoyagW40yqutGHBPXmVdy+youaHsw9QMDRKYE oJEunTECZyAADENylccwdw4AcRKdYesZDYru0D62h27hds9WsxbFLCexhbV7O+hSkQR4fBR131ez O9+sL66t99I/xHbPtudse7Xa/tDK3NCewgMa+oz8p0YeOP+bZ3eaNvsVbBXhPsDGmu4n5cZZEnRn SIZxEgi/B6LVqCeUA9RaqfCZW+hFBG6rVGBRS2BKPrLtrPsQjFtzPYEtmfp4HbgLjtvEUU5Q5Vuo LovoR5lvIWPsXcDCcnIDZGrUwUnw5n6NG5T26zThQyHoh0/fd9ypanAzUSCzE1SomTv035K5hyjz jqhk4R6YZCqSCjfk5YPoPmvukaDF8voQtNcJrFfaKFC6uHfmeIv2/0z4YMatPeq0j8SWmDzeXLpv NtjQo36jZlpYRgbCzO7QOgYlOIPuagaRgypwN2Dorphuwad72gJZkGSvtZxyZS+5VuXP35Ane+KV AL/JwXAiTRDMB662wMLC5U6nMoRP8JR40yxG/XsZef+CzfwGCCmJ5VW8MXdK2quwfSsCWVMpXWOZ ITpDBTC3Zl1hawzQzym2X4spnvhRwT2ECaGqbLKMyWOQe8XrRMmapgaPkVvFszdDur0ZYpl+1FsX dJ2eWkHE7inQ+6AUgKvp87DyIEgXeGS1qzS35vuVXPpILumQTOkq2/Z1NZy+jAEwgrtW5hl19M8p 6J+oERcO+l14vn6Wl35r6/nmZsqpUYAjo0kWsP+dueuYaKM2K8aWBOl3cvwYC6I4yuCgb74HRLrQ jptZ0TEPqnUUrSASsYJXestLyv87W3AR/tv2nXAOyg6l+X8L9TCfFd+uuP/TDfc/SGb+W2O4fcNx h5OjgWr6Hmvjew6vGfq0z59pXo5kjGXXw3Iej6JF+YPILePYq+Is79lnpLguow21FvHvF86GIBku QjeIdJJEWc6iMvJn4gNQbvVavmBOe8LuK+qUbK1cudOnwC6VwqNzqibpBUxyMG6eFOV99BfvuJLr hBW+p+YiOp1scQyjGZ/CFBvBLx9NbFaJdiN9twk/5UG8XGvgT/k6NbuCH62mTy5nVgxkmUdOF8B0 gSdT2/fMK0cZPbTLmqvAj3GQ8f/o3Z+kd4/iAYq94WdPwf6kqA5+b7XRRemr5rqBa7uXRdKADzxx 1lhz39GlJ+OuXnAva2V7Y6TlFWWsOZD2ruuZeOFu2CggxZGF83gwg4vQ0QjxkfdHw6WzZ+KDtE3y NTAv+fEVQdZs/Uyh5dYdhM9Q4BHZ7nbUcP5mUZSG10jDA2vExdP98wv0FqpfkrfPh3M4XuQ++24Q gnYSGTyCOaH5vwxcZDrcSnpD1+xOFJTVgeltDxHzjwADAP0xOtINCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoN MjEgMCBvYmo8PC9TdWJ0eXBlL1RydWVUeXBlL0ZvbnREZXNjcmlwdG9yIDM5IDAgUi9MYXN0Q2hh ciAzMi9XaWR0aHNbMjUwXS9CYXNlRm9udC9UaW1lc05ld1JvbWFuUFMtQm9sZEl0YWxpY01UL0Zp cnN0Q2hhciAzMi9FbmNvZGluZy9XaW5BbnNpRW5jb2RpbmcvVHlwZS9Gb250Pj4NZW5kb2JqDTIy IDAgb2JqPDwvU3VidHlwZS9UcnVlVHlwZS9Gb250RGVzY3JpcHRvciA0MCAwIFIvTGFzdENoYXIg MTIxL1dpZHRoc1syNTAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAg MCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCA2NjcgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAw IDAgMCAwIDcyMiAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgNTAwIDUwMCAwIDAgNDQ0IDI3OCAwIDAg Mjc4IDAgMCAwIDcyMiA1MDAgNTAwIDAgMCAzODkgMzg5IDI3OCAwIDQ0NCAwIDAgNDQ0XS9CYXNl Rm9udC9UaW1lc05ld1JvbWFuUFMtSXRhbGljTVQvRmlyc3RDaGFyIDMyL0VuY29kaW5nL1dpbkFu c2lFbmNvZGluZy9UeXBlL0ZvbnQ+Pg1lbmRvYmoNMjMgMCBvYmo8PC9MZW5ndGggMjEyMC9GaWx0 ZXIvRmxhdGVEZWNvZGU+PnN0cmVhbQ0KSIl8V02T2zYSvc+vwCkBt4aM+CnymHj3spVyucra5ODs AaIgiTFFcgloZp1fn9fdICXZmVRSHhFs9Ofr183dv592/3jaJJvNplS79inmn1u1e336pD/aKE2T re6PUdwklY7HKK6TRs8nM8ib7o+owkE3yIuTGqz88q9RmiepHufPSkX/3a1mmmI101TBTFRrWNok uR5clJZJrUd5nElJodV7skZCG+0j8uQ1yjLoltef5Y6LyqTUqzEykTaNmNiRZLXoM0dWIv92uJbr Vi7bIco2ODx1pLPSCIefbbi5HMORk7go9jYqTpO0SBHcP0MO8yXOdJMFJ2ZDedzq47Fr1SU8DIYU IXfyaOXpEsX4W2o7eBXF7MN3UY1/VTsOIukjaE/1PMqNHjcKErhzqEy35BD7c8v7prr3R7yRYC4j HRy47JXuexSXEhQj9kYPckp+avWdavGy1mczm9ZbOpsZDLVGPFDlO/bzsR4MMjL9nz1pLfT/SGep r50fr069t55Cq1HeNINFgMc9gCet16RmuWj6lbPTIG8ZcrJHmbRCWFuuNsGiPdNZ523rr3MUF5RU lnUIgrOc62m5kFZ69ITgXI/tSBeR1gxPbhF99Gd1Jy1v7qRSRji1pzgy1My05y7a4ufA5ycyUehn PODtJE9wV9uYAJYBmnHa4EzU+BZ3C33uhnDx5jkiIviK3CTm+q41XsyNfD6EW38Vwq0f12b5lQue Lz25lxZQk12aMsu5e3Bp+1WnXtBSpTahmVtpTPsXPfKQPVTzMXsAB5HHLMmwISzrHOchgLUPbkqM kiLDv3vkZ7KzGwfTExjW7IqicKIGebTyKIyF+t/kP7NORwgAkN9orOwGyfIekhxFJlFUEkW+RMHm L2Qo09eItPeenCl1d7GExUIfRLwzS9XcF74mlxmjqbZBR9D4QH3S8Pf8A79ySiu3HmzNtg+/qH/x x/FjTn8LhmVKzQiIVdBOfZERJY0i3AbhkTqk4H4SB37Y7TKF2h6ftsm2ghsb/Bd+pjUoJFN5g9iY Ii+BF9Lg7EpOH0KVJrvUA1lAs7gr5afW+wuKgxw7ee260LUD+/Cv3dNqCgSTqWqbIA2bpC7UbJ+O Tz/tyM/iLT+zAlxbPPi5YQ/JOSR69/sTzFU5DAAOzaa58Wx949lAUbuzVebqzyN5jrQ7ZWb0RLxl nqhpmvAE4rSOIKkGRTIne1BesDCyAEJH0BWBxKvjFexM9DqZicenqGbqdepgXVAnyjoS3UOOfwwn Nd6dn9Zz0z+raSaXXuR2B1buvxASt1pdBzEyXfc9pZ0EziR8eFaL8+yoOEluEb4qitI/cEB5l67t LV0BprN11szt+VkNo1ftlfEnsWU0Dylu+P5F2nV162DnkFPERqsCpF86kbXC7+jwhvmPxfZyuOgJ QwM2z0F8pll7tKxuaC2SFm7+HlWhKtS+y+hgducHw2+QTHM4IBoH3lbOG2/j8Rh7cfcMqm+0udUt 0x7QdLJpcQKUGQ4Pacsoa58Q6YsNSRinC/uCvWVLg0KFgAf2QJkg1hPijFPjESHJjenee89BYnkL zr2OS1QNSJAQrhfFJ/bqYLyBKpG6iMbr0LXivcTv2aVwbxxcon6MeKchVAh/0xtCsGXROQQfsvwq +0bX92pvkZqXbi1jTlPlcMvPul6kAiHTyorU2slDboqIMQyNhEU3aTXThDyrblD+vHQjGwh156TW ul0Wsw17O0e0347LqT1whFR7Ej6xlJOXz+HKlV/texHs3Bk+7cUio69cQv44zcCKZcRj3f7Fzr05 iYOhgX545yrVOuaqVLl2eCqypKrLBs/LWL3b9MJE//n9u4/KUZFlLBFjAmqBKUtMnrpWeQlvM1Wg G2owZcXpXMjyW4osS3RliZ0hL8GwK0me7j4mhC0ToUswap4W5R2S36DLD4SHhSklL8IoV2YX5wkO cn7HiFRn22PJm0chTWFVrEI9GKwiL/jKjqZxrs+Liov5f7eoZ6PyoALB0axEzf6w1DvEtSxjhT6D jOJJtDDieO0P5CFSslnQNs6HqF7Fu6HtrwciBW/22Ace9rG7zAHHAPixO13BC4v/H3prZAI6TJXD GTBVflSefTjLmyW248hIkvxh7/E+MNFwEEEzQz9ozag0i6dwdrJy+y3A5WjutAiA48qVTOKfNH3S VEKD2O2v8uBkMLeyqfC+mlFaycQkIn5BYoHapCrPsTYBj3VCiEuAsab+GyAWZYG1ErcA3Iy2njsY 3taKQjJKZVy6LCYnUv1LxFsgt9rPsle9l++Edx9vqCGCWpowzsskTdElX2H521kWCFFGxYuw7IQM 3+G6YFxnhGs5BPl4g543+H/v/BwGUys87CkCsx+vXqXlPcDcs8rjUn0OvfMl0OfK5DxESWowYWaE ywQyg4/AMCo6Q59ubIV2lvk3HWj5t0gZ98jNMmVBpW8M9+aWkJB/w8qwXfqIEo2MtnJAKSp4Xcl4 HBJBTeMQlmHCrbjzvVOYnHEV9gwZNgWmBE+DaQS6e5nluMbTN3n4/Cjy1btiBUe6Lmq8mOGro+Rl Qdq/klFVyODCeEB3m693XbRZU91ImNZYUb4NC+1PFhX+QBOwYJ9TPdllX0npC1ZJ//1IS0oG83FW Unjh7WE1GJbWOqnLrLrrwgVz1NDrDgNfYTbwZBF4Mnzu0kBU5puh2/CnXygsKm7UENYE0bHnd8uO JJ+wQIvz1wO2M+XvVxqDTUWdZjPIMhBsJbKdfJVBSntV1FvZqG9d9U0P765eOnecOxR7WjzJ6HM0 PI1O+MbALq8alHbKwxIJFaBz8tkATewevh3UnwIMAN/Zh1ANCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNMjQg MCBvYmo8PC9MZW5ndGggMTgwMC9GaWx0ZXIvRmxhdGVEZWNvZGU+PnN0cmVhbQ0KSImkV11v7LYR fd9fwUcpsBRSor4uigJtnAAJkNsbdJP7cNEHrZZr63pX2kpaJ+mv75kZSqt1YqdFYMAmqRly5syZ D2+/23y93ZjSxHmikkrHNlFGl3GldFxaNbjNYfP37aaIi1xbpfHjlySbkUoSa6tTtT1ttNo29Ovn TaDC7efNl9utVUZtD5vI2FinSakiE1emsGp7v9Gx1roklYiXKSl+Ct67KYyK2AY/h8bERdAPT233 oBKt6TgLcvmj6E9BQhVk2xAXJ8ExjCr6RWtVH8detV3Dh5ewDPZOhaRTqxFHuOMUwqw0qEVNdRd5 +BTm+LhzQ1jFZn6ol2cPoYaG6jsX7Ws5+jXMcTCEUQ5d9VgfD5Gs93hzLTNdpn5o5bWRjCzpIvU9 P9fzxZ2Iv9C88zZ8X/M9Rr5krHEnNqsEKlrnsQr/tf0OQcD1xtqUgP4UfBi8+ed+BCzq0A9kjaj2 4mdLZtV8JySmx3pS58GNzps0KRFzLNG4blL1/rnuGoHSeUgBOHSdOrTuuFf9QTWwWHwTWM/y6GVy g2q8VSf5dOnYhqae2r4bVd3t186AazNpKiLNp2BygBJMhU0lLGNL4A7fliPi4DIALcU3kltuHpwa +2Pb+POJReWWPa9jXquvn+vjhZXIFW86RzoNemDJ5iU2NiWQ1oI14btwk2LcHo9q59SuHt2e4k3w uF/Ozt82taNjX+lsaPkYRGgcPUmy/Eg0v8JQVIW85e3v2OZxoggl3nGPxtTL4XjHd3nbHYscHcVv eWe87D7fIDl5PwTPepr442x3aPCbbpU9rtl9ZkHXTO2z3CDvjKq/TMe2g/v1rn8WbyfxE+8+uE6e HeqjmoO4Ct7BR2f1rCOzf58bpXADxrAdbozVh34CXYXfRxAUQF0aACNEaLvndoJpU08InNrpjpYM PHu/hRFg0zV11VePdTsA0HrJaC96HnpOMEK0XtDrx0mlYu32ixsCn+sHh3tuotgcL3uqd7Xatf3D UJ8f2wY3jk9uah7v1E5gQx0gft67xl1rVh7sfCwGZe5QMRk+ncWio8QGFOVEijJjV+krdgnX71Ut /ugTFKij2AdPYUSJPJK9JniEvclcF8+8GUOuRedZK7Lwa5EoAwbHqxPW40i+B33Hlq36kMljRNIk CXoNNyKtzRu9KNWo4yXUsNd/3IuyuDSl9CItqXSNivQie9OL0jmVb3uRlV5kb3pRJr3IBL42HWV3 7UaXVRvymTWL+g6UztF0krvrDmR9Oqw6kPVsuJMPZzenSjRn+3PrVi21DNweHHfNY9f6dKulHtzW LcnB4WkUmcf+zHzyW6pk3+Cg8CnZXo0xKbTvPOl+247WaSq9b251goupwF05kYbGRn3wZOJUro+3 7X+m6dMIK9GLH+qu/Y/zCS6SF2lfD5LpTd9NdTOnKCc7LT6GUTK7ns7XSbpL5mXiXnFNvWweF2Qz Dw2cf0i9t3IuepF0hZDu29OZ/anQG+pOVpPaw8CckCqpMrvxRcaYAq/nKispD24mtyvxf2eGsxqa 4NjrA1zhkyaLkxxllqwvKo7jX2Bx+deb1AJhMhij3xjvADnKdQqMvrmgMX6oqS54JAd1f0ErCN7J kCXBeY+O8QJiGXbmqSjxg6HOFrBno709NA+ipLBVi4f/i/mZsPRq8/t+ag/USWgGWgaDv1F5TKlt JtI74dF5qplS3XzwjtMF2bjjtAQjyWya83TgT5hblskzu6bzt5wyabU49afD0XZIq5+QNdwp4Rnb f3/xqIv9+Ww/RrjaL3goTcp11vqh5WrqPLO8ZBgYjCJvrCpSE2OGwr8fVOrxt6iqUki8FsgykDu/ /Z4VSZyvbiipfv+fEvKGgUBRLlZkVUX/4rCAKVBj85VEefPZv7D6TE+sJSQVk1dTEemtjCnjpPS5 uCLgP3xF20sVSgA5xebdTA0fbzSNksBbgF6y2D9rqQh7AaaBMXP1qTwh/nmmEsM9mSg5zvMYHw5u z6dkBu2l8byjzVzql4CaPwqoCJjMxtntZ4L6iuWJsQWKfn9c71NsV+K0Pdx+f4sPf0ri3xubUZ01 mFVAhjSPq1xFGY8pH79QHQRSlG5TVZUEOkMWJJx5UExBDWREntFZiprdnDZffnuCtLrvNz9AGYU2 YT0MVlbl6UoF41BqF41CNH7wDKsk1KgkJsGQQzfM6zKJS9K35avlHoR4jaCoeZYajNVXgpqloKS5 8OfHDkM3asj0K1VGKWNf9e1pN9QzW9+wEPmS5jeP/LZeABrMJzlli0bO2IRYEYFGwP+KvcWNwKsU DDNQBDuQ3JgkThPutlBBvixIpjZZsEfUU5IX43gWxYWajlAW0AspaMWiqG9D8Gq/JbJbSxdgy/6J VxE4lFqbUaXMyyyj/Fz8Vf8VYAArqxXgDQplbmRzdHJlYW0NZW5kb2JqDTI1IDAgb2JqPDwvTGVu Z3RoIDI1NzUvRmlsdGVyL0ZsYXRlRGVjb2RlL04gMy9BbHRlcm5hdGUvRGV2aWNlUkdCPj5zdHJl YW0NCkiJnJZ5VFN3Fsd/b8mekJWww2MNW4CwBpA1bGGRHQRRCEkIARJCSNgFQUQFFEVEhKqVMtZt dEZPRZ0urmOtDtZ96tID9TDq6Di0FteOnRc4R51OZ6bT7x/v9zn3d+/v3d+9953zAKAnpaq11TAL AI3WoM9KjMUWFRRipAkAAwogAhEAMnmtLi07IQfgksZLsFrcCfyLnl4HkGm9IkzKwDDw/4kt1+kN AEAZOAcolLVynDtxrqo36Ez2GZx5pZUmhlET6/EEcbY0sWqeved85jnaxAqNVoGzKWedQqMw8Wmc V9cZlTgjqTh31amV9ThfxdmlyqhR4/zcFKtRymoBQOkmu0EpL8fZD2e6PidLgvMCAMh01Ttc+g4b lA0G06Uk1bpGvVpVbsDc5R6YKDRUjCUp66uUBoMwQyavlOkVmKRao5NpGwGYv/OcOKbaYniRg0Wh wcFCfx/RO4X6r5u/UKbeztOTzLmeQfwLb20/51c9CoB4Fq/N+re20i0AjK8EwPLmW5vL+wAw8b4d vvjOffimeSk3GHRhvr719fU+aqXcx1TQN/qfDr9A77zPx3Tcm/JgccoymbHKgJnqJq+uqjbqsVqd TK7EhD8d4l8d+PN5eGcpy5R6pRaPyMOnTK1V4e3WKtQGdbUWU2v/UxN/ZdhPND/XuLhjrwGv2Aew LvIA8rcLAOXSAFK0Dd+B3vQtlZIHMvA13+He/NzPCfr3U+E+06NWrZqLk2TlYHKjvm5+z/RZAgKg AibgAStgD5yBOxACfxACwkE0iAfJIB3kgAKwFMhBOdAAPagHLaAddIEesB5sAsNgOxgDu8F+cBCM g4/BCfBHcB58Ca6BW2ASTIOHYAY8Ba8gCCJBDIgLWUEOkCvkBflDYigSiodSoSyoACqBVJAWMkIt 0AqoB+qHhqEd0G7o99BR6AR0DroEfQVNQQ+g76CXMALTYR5sB7vBvrAYjoFT4Bx4CayCa+AmuBNe Bw/Bo/A++DB8Aj4PX4Mn4YfwLAIQGsJHHBEhIkYkSDpSiJQheqQV6UYGkVFkP3IMOYtcQSaRR8gL lIhyUQwVouFoEpqLytEatBXtRYfRXehh9DR6BZ1CZ9DXBAbBluBFCCNICYsIKkI9oYswSNhJ+Ihw hnCNME14SiQS+UQBMYSYRCwgVhCbib3ErcQDxOPES8S7xFkSiWRF8iJFkNJJMpKB1EXaQtpH+ox0 mTRNek6mkR3I/uQEciFZS+4gD5L3kD8lXybfI7+isCiulDBKOkVBaaT0UcYoxygXKdOUV1Q2VUCN oOZQK6jt1CHqfuoZ6m3qExqN5kQLpWXS1LTltCHa72if06ZoL+gcuiddQi+iG+nr6B/Sj9O/oj9h MBhujGhGIcPAWMfYzTjF+Jrx3Ixr5mMmNVOYtZmNmB02u2z2mElhujJjmEuZTcxB5iHmReYjFoXl xpKwZKxW1gjrKOsGa5bNZYvY6WwNu5e9h32OfZ9D4rhx4jkKTifnA84pzl0uwnXmSrhy7gruGPcM d5pH5Al4Ul4Fr4f3W94Eb8acYx5onmfeYD5i/on5JB/hu/Gl/Cp+H/8g/zr/pYWdRYyF0mKNxX6L yxbPLG0soy2Vlt2WByyvWb60wqzirSqtNliNW92xRq09rTOt6623WZ+xfmTDswm3kdt02xy0uWkL 23raZtk2235ge8F21s7eLtFOZ7fF7pTdI3u+fbR9hf2A/af2Dxy4DpEOaocBh88c/oqZYzFYFTaE ncZmHG0dkxyNjjscJxxfOQmccp06nA443XGmOoudy5wHnE86z7g4uKS5tLjsdbnpSnEVu5a7bnY9 6/rMTeCW77bKbdztvsBSIBU0CfYKbrsz3KPca9xH3a96ED3EHpUeWz2+9IQ9gzzLPUc8L3rBXsFe aq+tXpe8Cd6h3lrvUe8bQrowRlgn3Cuc8uH7pPp0+Iz7PPZ18S303eB71ve1X5Bfld+Y3y0RR5Qs 6hAdE33n7+kv9x/xvxrACEgIaAs4EvBtoFegMnBb4J+DuEFpQauCTgb9IzgkWB+8P/hBiEtISch7 ITfEPHGGuFf8eSghNDa0LfTj0BdhwWGGsINhfw8XhleG7wm/v0CwQLlgbMHdCKcIWcSOiMlILLIk 8v3IySjHKFnUaNQ30c7Riuid0fdiPGIqYvbFPI71i9XHfhT7TBImWSY5HofEJcZ1x03Ec+Jz44fj v05wSlAl7E2YSQxKbE48nkRISknakHRDaieVS3dLZ5JDkpcln06hp2SnDKd8k+qZqk89lganJadt TLu90HWhduF4OkiXpm9Mv5MhyKjJ+EMmMTMjcyTzL1mirJass9nc7OLsPdlPc2Jz+nJu5brnGnNP 5jHzivJ25z3Lj8vvz59c5Lto2aLzBdYF6oIjhaTCvMKdhbOL4xdvWjxdFFTUVXR9iWBJw5JzS62X Vi39pJhZLCs+VEIoyS/ZU/KDLF02KpstlZa+Vzojl8g3yx8qohUDigfKCGW/8l5ZRFl/2X1VhGqj 6kF5VPlg+SO1RD2s/rYiqWJ7xbPK9MoPK3+syq86oCFrSjRHtRxtpfZ0tX11Q/UlnZeuSzdZE1az qWZGn6LfWQvVLqk9YuDhP1MXjO7Glcapusi6kbrn9Xn1hxrYDdqGC42ejWsa7zUlNP2mGW2WN59s cWxpb5laFrNsRyvUWtp6ss25rbNtenni8l3t1PbK9j91+HX0d3y/In/FsU67zuWdd1cmrtzbZdal 77qxKnzV9tXoavXqiTUBa7ased2t6P6ix69nsOeHXnnvF2tFa4fW/riubN1EX3DftvXE9dr11zdE bdjVz+5v6r+7MW3j4QFsoHvg+03Fm84NBg5u30zdbNw8OZT6TwCkAVv+mLiZJJmQmfyaaJrVm0Kb r5wcnImc951kndKeQJ6unx2fi5/6oGmg2KFHobaiJqKWowajdqPmpFakx6U4pammGqaLpv2nbqfg qFKoxKk3qamqHKqPqwKrdavprFys0K1ErbiuLa6hrxavi7AAsHWw6rFgsdayS7LCszizrrQltJy1 E7WKtgG2ebbwt2i34LhZuNG5SrnCuju6tbsuu6e8IbybvRW9j74KvoS+/796v/XAcMDswWfB48Jf wtvDWMPUxFHEzsVLxcjGRsbDx0HHv8g9yLzJOsm5yjjKt8s2y7bMNcy1zTXNtc42zrbPN8+40DnQ utE80b7SP9LB00TTxtRJ1MvVTtXR1lXW2Ndc1+DYZNjo2WzZ8dp22vvbgNwF3IrdEN2W3hzeot8p 36/gNuC94UThzOJT4tvjY+Pr5HPk/OWE5g3mlucf56noMui86Ubp0Opb6uXrcOv77IbtEe2c7iju tO9A78zwWPDl8XLx//KM8xnzp/Q09ML1UPXe9m32+/eK+Bn4qPk4+cf6V/rn+3f8B/yY/Sn9uv5L /tz/bf//AgwA94Tz+woNCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNMjYgMCBvYmo8PC9TdWJ0eXBlL0ltYWdl L0xlbmd0aCAzOC9GaWx0ZXIvRmxhdGVEZWNvZGUvQml0c1BlckNvbXBvbmVudCA4L0NvbG9yU3Bh Y2UgMTIgMCBSL1dpZHRoIDIxL0hlaWdodCAyL1R5cGUvWE9iamVjdD4+c3RyZWFtDQpIiVr6Zo7n WWYI8r7MAiQDznMTTy4FaydJC5wEIoAAAwCJ/DFtCg0KZW5kc3RyZWFtDWVuZG9iag0yNyAwIG9i ajw8L1N1YnR5cGUvSW1hZ2UvTGVuZ3RoIDIzMy9GaWx0ZXIvQ0NJVFRGYXhEZWNvZGUvSW1hZ2VN YXNrIHRydWUvQml0c1BlckNvbXBvbmVudCAxL1dpZHRoIDgxL0RlY29kZVBhcm1zPDwvSyAtMS9D b2x1bW5zIDgxPj4vSGVpZ2h0IDEwNi9UeXBlL1hPYmplY3Q+PnN0cmVhbQ0KytA38jV4fDf+2eu3 f35SHd8gwIb4W+E34TvptyIPhP+n/TbhHxafDI4ff9EPG/wZHBo+v//of//8uBv/sjhbXweyOE8e u//Xr/+1/gl679rtSIPh44NcNyQ+3S3+G/khg/4M+RcP9kJ4r4MQrI4YhhfDCsjg8qAsiD4x/+S5 c/BEOT4afVP/+Sv9KuGtrjjz5giCDk3JuRZkOP/6cf+Icij//S/7j4MlmRcyQ//Tcf+uQ7//wyOP /vJuyOX/9Mjn////r///////+0o//DCyQ4/8VH/qRR/+o/XXERkq//////7QxwAQAQoNCmVuZHN0 cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNMjggMCBvYmo8PC9TdWJ0eXBlL0ltYWdlL0xlbmd0aCA0NTIzL0ZpbHRlci9G bGF0ZURlY29kZS9CaXRzUGVyQ29tcG9uZW50IDgvQ29sb3JTcGFjZSAxMiAwIFIvTWFzayAyNyAw IFIvV2lkdGggODEvSGVpZ2h0IDEwNi9UeXBlL1hPYmplY3Q+PnN0cmVhbQ0KSInslwtwVdUVhi+0 09apdIqAiY9arU3UII7pqFHRTmunGhSnUiQKJdOKiiiltQyK+GiqgICIoiBPSx8JSEgjUvKCQUaj lCBQgaCBiBasWHSUFrFIipV+9/43i53zuicBaTvtmX/OnHvuyc3+zr/W2muVlPz/+M89Fu0uHbjx JDS4MacDF+jfTdC+A97DRz4K1Ks+Wigd/k/9VyAbr/Ti/ucP59fmv/ck6rP+M9I1L3+xXWfTkaIL PAy29uOb4ZU6/GuGbAgxea9q/OxRQy5JUa/ZV4NmtXz7MKk9LiNYxGUXcYw+soCBh5BrWyZO+0eu FIiz4u8voIjfcZFjOnv0A9sOeNFvWr6F15KfRcgR1H6X4yeywkD69HHTh6gn7D9WF8jDcs/rRdHU GV32O3vUXK58dTuqaGxe2pSUbr72yWI0/Z8nBIb30l1z0JDNeVJGZBkXncX+r46gywCOLnul7/0v nX3ji+J1kVHRLbWvHVyF5h7IDzRayA+9URxB7anYgQ5GxPyRcnli9RYBGnJWv5Vf+O6yThdVJ/KW SOcVVIH84IJmJORftfST3J9SSNMqjNpaKIUhB6IdhVwGVoL0/FtXI3hRTnH9yUXPHXf1s2nw0ys7 ZZUnPlfaqfMT5X9YAfLk/SdxlvzI03bezQpn7ZoghSGHWRyxZR+Oy3gq2AFj1xeOWTto/AZJHy/9 2Rrhu3ZD/fkeS+t31CiLoX56+7OS+8vazojqwOVFuDysqYD3M+/dqf6v3IzumMsK49se2wwj59Fz miSu0ZDJmwwcauwWNcgX91m14eM5RLWQTz5/5NB7l0keZDL60oYEBVzyIwd6BzJBEhgDHXaZTJy9 fBMyWKWnK7EDftXoRlHLa8J7yuyttJ0gP7zvNJTV845EYswlfWdJ9l9Ux7S26r11UoTLrngyuoi1 y2WDgjcN+9s351bt8IibAofavCavuxc+j/AXWPYpzj1OnJhITIL66+c8ILlGE9t+o/3I1DpC2oTL /KGu3ezogMuCJWJRkjcFW1a3s7K+jbjD/Znlb/GwvBY1LvMnLx28W1EN8ujGc1O80rBT80ZJhky5 9i/Sj1yyvRjFRI7vsioVgaqcBQco8dY17EJrXt2DdM1Nl5qQAJm/RbJYLg+c14cC3oo8JtGp6NxL 75D4j1P/dBPSaingUiCybWfYzQMKbKCe2fM06pjLKlYsm/XL62mLtol39eb3UWPzB5KBi5rHLLx5 bMkn/WWxkHtd+9M2yIlhicTlP7j9EempXeORlmcOBiJbeEuGbNt0B1xmz0XpeFYvUbVD/orRRdaZ rxThSvzlq/auO/iwyzvunTO7dJ3uRe5UlEgUzHuuTrIKZjglQftydPnydN1xXKahQliMWUphZBY3 New3tRw4YOB8JaNBrqjeS1/NlqSQFvJVkwclEksCkc/IHyAZMlKUojCXzb7Dr9jqqYhMIVtZVtq+ veXAC5X71tZ8BK9JyHxLYOPvnz+p1y4MrF18KWemmjG3gqWQL08kcicsLEMuskhNdl8OBiIH9mAZ XZbF9BIgp3fhlMvixVl4Jbksbdj2V7lc37APGaY2Js6Fjw2RxVJbl0HOPuuCQmS53MdpPtvlsmfO itNjq2FGIJPLRKnqFcJZ4zVqidjmhXA2f5XC2pvufPN8tdwOrwc5F+ra9etAZl9mqZytaId1X4HI 7e2xy1ZvRuynuEwuK56JZAVzoKxoI/LX/OVsRp9x2yQ6bUV1kMsFKXX++QMPzX7vRmBZaiByRpfD 5qkIZHUd9EuYCwukrrMel/nIMwppRH0Wpttrcb7mqSHJWfL0Sgtsf/lKudz5iV/OJB4iAvtIuexW YEtYD6xHfEXCWsBzXfN6jcZDg9XFT7Zepk7bBkn/vizkY7uetmzr72x/QYt2l0rtyuWICubnNQG1 8qkPA0l1UbPyHb0ca73YwhZsmwG1QtpS+Piixckp0kFuU64PIWf36//jij3jlMgSbaTkQfZvze2q 2GKUU8aFNtS1eC74qnLh+7SUSnBt05zVfrA3UdXJu18fPAdkGZ03orRT7xc0QkaW64JjunaveKbO jerBjTkoENltM2zvHrdjaPx92YIzaV/VnrEPbpw8bTeaO3+vLkaPfwWxR7uTI4wilTRGDZ/+R+qP cvnC++aINyqq04mcfeE3ilZ9tNC12LroEl/D6XoHqQmveT+89jgVW8gVjc0ouTBWyDovqqaOUbrd PcvAPdIowRBx3ZTayW9fDO8x33kxmcV5S1xex+IxZjHIsljIWue8d6dKfmSPrFcRsjtWeFLeX65r N+1EyeWlkBP5i1lzVr+VOcX1iH5MwxHg0IldoyIfuamBUe/H5Y20OLkjk8UrPnzStVjddSCyW99M FMkpb43CX7x2h0ePIpBFnRRpeFE1i0dQwyJw6GC3s2D5igeICj3PGwvnTVmciurju/Ve/8YaAN1Q LNlenFbq8LscOFz0STUw7kfrwcKQOXpkz0fJ5bV6LWqBH3f1sxbnwhcm4oXwFQ/wmPL3lN61ybfn rVpeiwnp8W8NUvvhr9V+5MAkDfsqTveV33sBal1ha1jSSBCijuNEuwQmZ91Mw6aCmWpGJcz+alUo bxI5d+x9pbUtE8Vry5O/Ych+On+cuyU9o8uDR9Yi1pZep0W4srut6fYG7CaP5V68lF2bYnjXuHcR MeNsxG3aj9tuelxV2m+ZG9VhLrtcnrfhjloZXZ5etR4ZsqjTSpku8KRS1qelkSGrfPjI9bSgpeUf 3H7PX4TMRZeu0w+lcOvGBC8Nud8y66vdVUW77HptyRt/rPifRe7SY4JL7cG3UFc1RkxJQ4evWL5q r+LZeKXiWxr9vGv21fhjj/0FRSB7cPw5G/hANDLHgGGViBWq5niQPR/PK6iiW6NSwUuf5oEVPve/ d32D8Y5/dD4pHJhrnkLdLpejz2HIDLzYtLSpGbX6MsYtPmBSjnLzFoAAKS03pBXVe/3OmuDF5ZNP fQDerBOuZUtidgjk1ZyYETkQJ/BjxsCGV8hquX/x4DpildzkQpoyeyszBZh4CiYduPnoJ7WbV/Rf bLtwj+zLx9RfH7in9J3XC4na70XEWOEZHMJeSGDDKWQD4cKk4QIZjhRoq9/c1kYa5TIx/Whlvvvy v7/lmF6PJmZWL5ICcy1srAjrwfxPhgW2ALHSoDyKYHS/JTZ65s9ohT3Ey/iQSHTuntNtyNqeWox4 +w35IYqP7GGhwaa1puLRZrObW4+d0WUd8CI6bdWi+JiKAZxNwqabDQ9skldKUm/OG7AjyXt2wXlI 1IFLKvFVbBOMyI8c+HBExdZwAUJl/U4LZoPyn2UrOXviKaNUk9vCenmlUy/7Mrxf+drpNVvWSWHr CXSZMYRREYmailf5t3Kk6ge+JyQiXDZqeA156L3L0IWXTB18cwPCSs4UbTB7nju22/E3OIx+Ui+s yeVtL7J4pWFNBe5XfOSFBKZ2xL/QIWTxIqbaVoRcnwrafswAixTPcXj9yOpVxBtdvjLuy2GHeNGE hWXHdj3NAc9uC5iZVBo4YihqOXDg1nH1k+Y3SDGR+718HBJ1mJsGG7P7CjvgRThy5cDrHK5s55xZ 37yycN7K3yOQpy3aRvuNVD1QHGSKlbRodylT2Kfksh0KQpArXnqeAssmG5NUsNqGhEyfY40r7ZwU B5nibLLB09Nvh82VMTEJudnLN0mihteQJ5bN5YKs9ONzhwLF+7n78Yf0roRMFwed2713O2FGRWOz FI0M46FRa3ux301D9lzER1aWGTJKry2FDK+LXLmxXg4ivRYPcml1c0FhuTCJZ11wB8VEtr0Y4XKf oJa7vcNjIPL9c5Pqe0MV1cbWNrVyrRJQyPD6kVFdwy7EnzNzaTQzWMzVLxt12DJcl+95vUjijpvL ZmjgOeO+7B5alSGfdUFZfu8F19212pARGzQ7ddEttYhr3cRThhE+Mnx5hlCotfHZj0evQcgCHNyY I3FHFTtsgPLPLzGRjRpeIcuXpFlZ5WQl1x5k3smJZy6QmwarC+6PGL8C2XafkbfEty+r0UIRjbeH XYqPbAfIFopLm5rvfOQ5LohPEQlKF/ZRnvKiBo+sVTUQsqhj/l8PMl20xE3AcdzF5H6Hu6+wA2R4 XWTCePq/2C97VrmqMAr7B2yE26iVdqaysrfygig2gmChVlYWYpNYpIxlQJSAcButLKwCNhaihZUE JSApLIWQws7ehyyyWLz7Y/bMnDtoyGYxnDlzzpnz7Pf79q98ZU9Aw9Z8an+Emcii3usf24aTdC0J mTZM16glyx77yLqcy8iK3DkyMvIB/9Uinz/spbPTTuRb928cU5dX1k7kI5/fRTY4BQvGiwc3+aRy lSnjgIz9X1hPkItUvPIzi/W2jo3H4sxKv5s48GgV5AzSUWHaK30pG6PJOzgpFWS0cvuRyKXmlsmi ++sE2S8sdQ0ntBeufJUlGKk7zds3R27pisXLDLXSY9M4Id6fapsDlJe4CqykxpsbOaYHk7ZFLkZs Dd3y6tdR+pKLuomif5B8gWxHNyVGtcqUJzZB3ePzL97yDiz2z/siL45Oi5MUxRSJhU9cV/IF6qLN +80vd1Ei60Z9XvviJ2lb5J1m7e7MyMoy4tmzn43MhBFtR+GLWsh2Em/XZSBPrGm09Vg2MoYjMFEi 64wHB66RfLuQZXdUPGQr5MLSdeC9ihTIemEBIv+kVJbJqlzAsquX3dgQeZSuGS6YMmjAvv37a/qx 7j6Mnq/YdLm5/ihLJ7KmQnuCEzvX62JSN/I26qQ2xJtDLJDSGUwQx/nrBLk136d/vq1pwsgcr1tZ 1ikVVl+RkpuED3NGnp99SCKjfIKgrC5yl7qNZemd357LYQoxS3Il7OtWjjp7VbGJyMAuTC5hKb02 ohkrPymDZU5DkHYru6t5aWO6Vv7g7kvIsJ/ce40dOG/abGV4qYtMI6FeIqtMnuzKyKbTLiG5jU6q z8naXTYT8WvbvLXI0CFRMz11SVcyNivfwcj2W9zPVtb5kuuMrF1CiQwOjQ3+w1/gPLpFbq/2VU9u +4EWmYCV8OGELaPTSiwnMl4qGVnpy449QbaVS55POxZknMRtjGOqi/zhH68geElWk8K0GMsTK6e9 kN3PyBm2tnLJ8+7ZTC1kxYXDx7d3kW3it+48g4nx8I/uvUos88mxjF6a8Eksd62sn4wsK7cRl8i2 sgC9UW+89x3qZubS4edQI0CxKIpl4jfvnOmnROb8qDM5GFlvNUe2mS5+/B0ZxPWu/Ws9LYugfTut DBeCS4L3h39+tnSSAxzgmFhukQ+28qT46mnO56+/f1sysqxMZ4WMTB9iOu0GApmtOMDKZRQ6zLFX 2lQvJepSo9PKUBuWDhNluuZYJxHIpLitHHsnstLUvlZeQUY6RpRjGMvAyJnP/7pmbRjLO608iuU5 cvY8Gk5RQb54cFOiCenmKJUwVbEV5PzTy8jYmYfLKukr/z1j2Y5tv83Zyo0oot8+ZSyPrFx6jFwZ F8Uf0sq0W1a3AzHyopU3r8tG1mNJyFL71xnIOi7IsrKJdKYtwcS4RGI/ZSy3yKUbUUOiGznQGe+n ZlKkC0r3pdGJMw5nwM3u2aoN9suz8iRjP/Vo8rLfStlga+CaIGf9pR6dxxilMIeX/LZYl7vDY0HW i82RRz02GdjgGqzce2gnr7z8JRK1n9xOUqpBQoaRuMaTZdzSfe1EDltcLalGjeKkqZBLcGMatFhZ Q8TTZzeK3dPnRZ1v1SJnzBZkEjWddrd+dZGN6XnWULJpe4Hv1de8ABk587CegzMrTWHQdz/+XreL urxVFxlhYnIUP4kUdry9m8a3Qi61potc0peumSB3e9ERckZxOT5/ODOuWDmp2xcoyO29BZkzo+5r hNx9pQnyaE4s7NIIedu1V8M5Wv8v5L3GitEysgBHmGXEaK+8JMayipXnw+NotVbGZAlVPh3FvuyU yNtaubWgAUuyevys3Bq3fC1ucErk7L42sfLIh33c3Y3TI6cee+TrPeoDHnI88uZc83Uk75N1zPpX gAEApmqnhAoNCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNMjkgMCBvYmo8PC9TdWJ0eXBlL0ltYWdlL0xlbmd0 aCAxMy9CaXRzUGVyQ29tcG9uZW50IDgvQ29sb3JTcGFjZSAxMiAwIFIvV2lkdGggNC9IZWlnaHQg MS9UeXBlL1hPYmplY3Q+PnN0cmVhbQ0KSPGmLKJZCWQUOblvCg0KZW5kc3RyZWFtDWVuZG9iag0z MCAwIG9iajw8L1N1YnR5cGUvSW1hZ2UvTGVuZ3RoIDg0L0ZpbHRlci9DQ0lUVEZheERlY29kZS9J bWFnZU1hc2sgdHJ1ZS9CaXRzUGVyQ29tcG9uZW50IDEvV2lkdGggODAvRGVjb2RlUGFybXM8PC9L IC0xL0NvbHVtbnMgODA+Pi9IZWlnaHQgMTA4L1R5cGUvWE9iamVjdD4+c3RyZWFtDQrIu4IHCDhB wg6DhB04Tp06DhadB7p13TrT3Truu67r9136/fr/v/1////9//r/3+vfXvr31fVq9rV9Wr2tWrCt Xhq1asKGrChhQwrwwUGCjgAgAgoNCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNMzEgMCBvYmo8PC9TdWJ0eXBl L0ltYWdlL0xlbmd0aCAxNjkwOS9GaWx0ZXIvRmxhdGVEZWNvZGUvQml0c1BlckNvbXBvbmVudCA4 L0NvbG9yU3BhY2UgMTIgMCBSL01hc2sgMzAgMCBSL1dpZHRoIDgwL0hlaWdodCAxMDgvVHlwZS9Y T2JqZWN0Pj5zdHJlYW0NCkiJ7Jd5UJPpGcA/AVkwHlzKLWcgCQFCSEgIVyDhSEIgdwg5uBKugAEi NyFCwn1EwRAEOSKRM6CgqKy663aVrrpd3XFaZ6e7O71sO+2423bUP3a6Td+ddDrTmc502lXZP/rM 7598k/ny/PK+7/M8r1b7/3izQf58DACrCSE/0O91Lm8w6F+OA+yy//QFBOjwaY979zq71xnBczy7 LCDUyCCY8vp+PorqxIY3orhrBXZfQMSCaK8z/b6BWJICWTupJmbdnWbiKDmkEan8QOVV7h/ViSMM pMKbIxTv1SGNdOALgC8W7XXW/0vg77YBWTvCy4r8+bxUA1VypQRi7cONJJddU/opgxL6SEVbFSkG cvEVua8yhD0vkLxfD3wB8T/W7LXBfxFA1k6GKVd2tTSoMYIxw0NpcaJLUs6ywF3hi9BhDhR7MGZ5 rEV+Qn8id1XsVuXLtoioE7mUSTpnrRj4AkJX5Hut8h8ifEkCH6HYkV5VkoZTRWvFgeoI3rIIo0+I 7SMeUwV0Pe3ftt3kWLiHFEeVd9TItjj1vWbSeEaiIUWyJUdr8fiBFNmWPHOlCPh+x8YP1BrIAuo/ M3Q+1nlVBpTv1OH6Eplz3GA1EmxXt1If84sF8brUXxW2ZrNa/7ah2m2x2jbKtiudhK6Hio+SRjMQ Gkz5zolAFRyIJ59Or3ikB7J29lruXyJkOBU/lA4QrMiqbjbkzQuCmxAUUy5Sg43VY6efT43+wsCc 5V14uepR5a+6q37XtjP+bMJT4d32cSd/Way4XtXxqMNPFRqoDqfPMDKM9JTxLEJ/UrQmruSTLp/e ZDt7bfmPALJ2cIPJAJQmpmKnljpBE65I6HOs2VcLrZ92C1eLwaZVvFcrvlJ2rOK45dXiDdt19W7r waKjM1+bx5+ZHPn75beqjH+YDTgBj9MTss/l5lv4pNPknCkm4xyj8qd9yIsSwF67avF3muwU3u+k TmTj+0nkczSwsl5VAaEnUQ68A9nT+f71Yc4Fh0VrpRnGTGfRAYgGVb6rHHt2FmI7+58I466LXcXu EMt5H8fVs9rfWXoYPHeWHHbgwwgjqSmG1OAGBLoTK/mwEXuvA7CHsslbCjvF24q0MXKkJiZ+kIjW 4Va/Xb1ku7RuW/+3bNg2zn9tmfzjnPnFkvmblRWbdekbq/F3M7N/WZr608LYb4xTz2env7o4++eL DXebsP2kstvKkJMowkAac4aDt5YA4lZkb9mU+MU4ekcFKLjTULKpyJlhRndhfZRBoOCgO3HB9YiQ JmRICzKoITKoAeFW4eNdHeyjCg5vjo45hSOMpsbpCF5Kv+ONiCB1JFqHD6gPo05QQpsRYS3ogBPh Ea0xASp4WFNERCsysC4U4rhyFwvAy5lmXumNaiBr523K2olZlAg2ynLNrOP1EdFafM40K0qDTRoh +1QHK67XcCzC+g+bEG2x2k918OZoUJp4a8K63ZbIltjBzw0nd9vU91uSRskci6hwvRQ/miK/USXd KkN1YMuu1YjWZGAzM+f5oAB6Kvzx/ang5eAnwhpRuRd4xBUZ8W35wtfL7FAfdtHmhaKNEpQmljCY BIoqxHIkDpMzztIjW2PDNWiMnpgwTHIr94a3RCPbkeQJasIYGamLYy8ViKwlUZr4rie9FCM9fTJL YBUxZnMzxrPi9ETSWUrjR63qB03ND1sUNysL1mUeNf4Q5508C5dqooF/L7QZlTPPJ1pLAWk/6X6z spsVdmg3a5GtaPF6sU91YGxXQvpZ+j6uq0vhofheEn44ybs+KKAOjtLG+NSGwKRH3Mt9wWjhWuoO vgMxHVsfdqWNZSLaY8CRNPxyHJR0UMEg/v4jcu8UA8WR73So7CimjwhxXfxqwyQbcnAoII7LfuFh mNQjcSiZPsMCrTx5KJ15rQr4vlHlzN0WgGBDUbmjBIcL0YnJnWUdKD7iLINBfMfMc1kMCzflbKZ7 jW9sNwHeGeNd7Z9rzi+/XeNbE3z610a0Fpc3zwlvixaty4TrYuYcT7hSUHqtevKr85SJ7Ib77f61 Ycj2uGOVx9NNNHQXPnsmL9NEcxTBwPryl6Via1FMD4FuZoY1wjOn6RUf1BKuVdp5E7L0e20A8WYR yDNOn4jrTSYMp1Xfro3WYhz4ByC+U56Zk3omK3EoI34gKaItljiY4iSGUUwM+XalI/9gbC8xqjOe MECGGBAYqnmLBS6F7qofNWN0RM2jHuFqUVBjJJTv7KHwG/pymHWhwKc6KG2MQjHSXMRuDvx3sD0E gVXqKICRJ3JyZlk+6pBkA1W2VoK5UmXn9combZbZSR9PZ85zqt6vAyU0Z4aVMUEHRWl/Acyl8AhM 6im9JEdqo8F1IEobv/pX6+wLM7wZEdtNxPUk654OpU5k08zsOF1izjQbHEbqRE6snihYk7AXBIJl 2bptM8PEKL+lWrVtrn57WfO4L6INlWbMThqhOgkOQhwn7ACJamJAeRDOkEyZzCWOpp351VjamSzK DBfwen2jliQAkpHW/FE7vi9FslFMP8+F8pxOPemBt0ft4zpD+Q60OVb2DON4Y0S0Dg8WqPyGKkqL YS8Jwa0hWosFFwEPuV/vZ6OuRd9NFw48Z5jUTf+zIR9loOZJ1/AXBpjUK74n+aDMM9OUlT8vyDjH II1SEG0YtqVQvFHsqwqqunUCErgeLPLq+ERPHsvxqw1V3lWDtSZYRHZelyzlgR7AviBQ3VOjOuJA x8mczMEOJEBsR9BWMN0EkiFDuCbG6pPyLwpBlQbJgPWCyTzje5JAKzH+3iS7LJ96fp5tKRCvl1y1 XVn8ZvnMb01btm3VbhN/SbLw0oLpJrZ/rJl7dUFyqZQ0QiUNk0u3K0PUKHCQQ5tQFbeVHmW+oJel gy7AgOjn2aB0oE/hozQ44UoRuGIkTWXb+f6ySWey7bAXeXlmLhh10D34VGOW+eWKa7E7bZbV83QQ jHyl28oAVTD4mDL+d9KrNKit84oKECAkFrHvNhgoYFaxCAFiC6uEJARCaAdJLFpYhBCL2ZENAkQA gylmX81iTM2OjTEeO7Sx03ps13Fm0sZxUs+k8UwnS9M/bqaT10vUafPL4zQz58fTmzd673z33nPO Td9H9vs/H4rUkZIuZ5EGky1EJ4/tIDe2kW3umlB1XEtbYEFOzlvi6Z8P8Nelm8jOdWSz5VFH+9Pu gb8Mk4dTz7ZEyg5U9fcborrJ7rU+pYeVBF1cyihFsCnFF7v4NYRiRTZRuvicKxyCjpg5SW98eCHj QRvgF5Il7pUZkDaSxbkqgBZ6Z5KKk9iDtrQ+6XKWnxJvSWIHkvNXhKBdnmovc54lBGPqNJU8mJQx xhh9BUXcWn599d0XwxvIdQiTUNzYviQIWnvIDdYSz1nhBRXfQ3Y3kb20cZpoo3gb2d1CdvQvByN7 yawr7PKj6jN1QY1/aKfP5mXN5NqWuCpuV/vUBeSu8EwKzCGfw9pIX8w/pfIWbBWSL1EAv4RvwiMt oPimnDbLDOuISRulmXGtzLm48x/3Ke+pEobT7MrcTDlWAU0h537fgC7ANTxoyZ7Jq3vQFtIeGTuQ FNhBwIntoTrUWUZkT7QZxxKVa9r5p17dxz05ywUQpL01/rAs2Mvdc5f5az+sMxfYGeM5Z1tCPTS+ hVtlVfcaMieYwo3i7k968q7xxbulbc90BatFbU/O0+aYME3GLGyYNoa1JIjuSYCGp60LDfj/yEav CAGld6pTJ6gBjcGRAwn4Mkc0F4spsp38evbXX44VbstyV/jB2qi8Zf4GsknsiR3562jhZmHqWIZk T1G8K6t8r071vgYcFiYaJ3Xo+UQPVV7551r8SKpfU2D+Gu8AOZTuKjCFuMDmILDaoq1i/rpYtCGl zbOTRynQ4fH9Kf2fDfCuSUK0xNaPdJdeXU4doYIs+NQGmQqtMIV4NMcSdgroJVJ/UuzQO9THnQb8 XLLMZaEBle/VWkudo7sTUy5TIfmb8a3BN035lhiBhZXU4aw2gj7PZswVuFWcsS918ar351wTluyX gjFBsdhrgsKDMuYq10nuMfbVJDTq9OulmL6kgFaCiQCD4Vs7Kk6lT9E3kJ3S/cqgVsLwF2OjX85M /GOx9+Xg6Kupme+Wzz3scK32dtf4OJR7qu/XQd2TRjLxZS4QAKCvYM3ES53zl3kRncTkqazyu6qs eRZhSwr4uXzBDgD+2pDkS+nANKI3xr8x1LLQAV4BL2p+2lFyu9Kt/IxXjZ+dwtW/Laz7eV+gNhSU 0zjfxIyLQbExEAJPQDUCe91B9hInMt2qfJxUp00EYNZ4DN8Sjs6IZ2Evc5bsy+4gRzG9sagsFLbI zoSLQ+ViIHnC8+Th9MxxesMHrcU35GFdMaDVBF1s3f0mmH0wAhTTnDGfmzmeDfsIaCNjqaDybl3C FMOAtydLO240IGcqL1JHjutPBVuRHVTJbpWfvIVhSp9l30AOMqboIe0E2HFclN5ND1slu6UZ4wxn hQeaDXNqBsNbdqhKHc3OmGIsvF4+pfYB/4X7GBGQtQW+EFHMeDbmQpyryqP+SavyqAr2vi1kb/2H zaJtOWiRo8wze4YVqg1re9YFakboJICVg02r7mn418QolhGqAJM5QctfE2KFtpQphvB6MbkvgbJR lvS3ecDb8yUf1QCih1LhAMO7YghdRLsSd+WRyloM82uFkzhMfzPX/9mQm9qHuy7OHM9xV/sOfXEZ CnQiI5koYnfCLrLX8+IioStOeVs9+fc5L42fucgakiEIuFEexlPj56HyhXMzF9ngiuxBr7LnWeBW Qa1hloV4+hwT7CmwhRDYEhHYFqy8W5W/KgzpiOj5tN+/KdRV5T351ZRdiauFAGsjcf7VubAwbZQ5 zzpKH09bZHJX+XFTLNK+zIC3Ict90mlAbDcpfZLBulJAmaKjC6xATOof1KPYZiimacYY/QC5CYHQ ReHZ/uEFO7mT/KBKeVSePJoJQtT95279i4FIPdmnJchO4eSp9nGQuZqwsTDjLkov9XEdSZ9Y+34j dYaVMkYBAYe46FXjHdNH8moIQPMs4ONtZW4XPuqB6QD/JehJ55/pIFpI95TaZzpc4Ul9y+9Voaio M5qzqeO0jMkcyb7CodQDeom2kC+8LirbryDfbwW8Dd+oNQGAMpMn3ipJuUSBcGgmsrYscuSuCUh6 sgkbA5bU9+ngwOdD0Ja0BTYcPlZiP/b1dPoolTSYUHJL3v7swukaX9MC0DQ8SOiP04qH/oRyyG5V T3+7PP3N0tS3V64iW/yNYlQu+uQx/v9gzrPBCu2aH3dE6YneGj/IkwW/KQpsIkj3ZH7ngjyrvSFe OsrdLr4cg6WpaK8sd5Gtez7gey44oi8OFhbWsjB7jEo8qDLgzWQT7msNOBHYlfwgbWjKcLpTxanm x+3pY1T4eO2HOtoMC1/s2vt8CKYJLpR3VdH6GGM+1r7UPUxLuo7sQDwI7oyCUzIX2MDOCxL348Ba YUTWaJElsLaR2AdfiIK/da48Der3U7L/oSzAGXOwHX/sXv1+1UbmID+qlt+qDugIF26JA1rDXcu9 IKNmTTDhDD2qfdF8K7tiB9goTTnW3poAxizLTX0mpj+RssgHvJlv7GC6AQ5Kj1Maf8j/MT3xruWe mt/VR+qiITyT+lIsBHjhtvgmcos8kHpa7YXm41BMdNVva8qPakAx1v51LfFihkUR3kyAA9uquFNp kCnYDsw4WLsSx4pjteyOahc5bH7UJt2V46WO0DD/VTADX+hw+1Knue8Wlbc1qGyjmg8aKo9rHZWe KDq6+rguZYQi2pB4VLlDiksbpZxW+3c87WHMFxhxMMEd4SDXhM5Ijyqf8G4y4M180xbyAUR9IiT/ 6L4433rYfSyIPfGRXURTriX8DGoLie0jr36/Un6koi+yIe4qD2tyFjgJl9NzV/nGbCzkJSuxHYYP BQKvcbGTuSYMpIGDgDcZ5+NgAP1bQ1lXOPJD+dnmcMWhEu7/pLInlC34tmBJ5gJLGGRribOV2AlF QSkOqyvuqCvu1UoPlL7twcTexH/TXaVBTZhpOAsCAgEVuYUgcoUrnHKFmwQMBCQQAoQjEI4EEkJC wBAg3CFgOAwJQUBuuYQICgitynitq1Kt9thttbVOx6pr23VHa4+xNvu6aV23tjPPj0xmkvne73uf C9dPtOe7+kiC0bU+4YrY9GM0JN3UucYroD2cPJ1NWykirBZr8KfDLuRrUHqOyz7Hg4IZ2h1lU+Hk JvKJH0rsvicXXG1ouNVqx3XBNPla8e0t2Ta1t5pda31gr/zasJ4Ne+EYy+rlE+qTwdJIMFAIfqfU q5AbQ2UxyROZNhw7K7YtMs+Evylou9Mp+7IPfC1xlIxI1vpt2F/5q00xrLlZf1Z9puISH1Xh0nGv N3OeDjpsUWKrnbHVtQ4jfzxoU+mE4jlH9OIoc1nEEaJDlbtHvTemaa9jDTphKoUyRytZZUSdrwL8 qVItMwHs07zs4/noWgy6xoM0ScU0+oH9+bZhgYbwcFF9+/YI3WUPlb33ZfrZ270lQUEHI8Fhmz+U +LUH69G2t3wkHft+NmWGCj0XxXNBkPR289DKx4PmpSijYnPulWrgb/FZTtWmCEIv1Nu3+IvcQjGw ZNuGy+O4FyotS+3Ce2N77ivCD0XFKHEWJbsIw8mY1oC+ByMorj1Ys+hmG5CFfCzLtz0w8CA2a4Fm yrBJnE6DgmnBtIsYSNDgD+fFjicDImUx9BWGvyTYju9UdaMOXeddeq7CkmUfoojJWSzybgsCM5V+ 3iXcFEENjJDhgHqJ4yn1HzdZltnRV0p5Fw/4irGwVJjWvY0fiSHvAXObP5Y4VLn5tgazznNhgSPk OKws2r7SiX+1Zjvd8pWSvzHyFirSqNB04JuR0WdTlpzdxeuc4nVWwSlG6RmO5HZnaG907jqDtyk0 yDFJHKOAxccMxO0WONgdQHfelUXKYt2avCL6YumrxZJ78uBVtgZvD/tamcs2uGmLWX4dWCu2PWWB Nvl8HnYV108oPMVCELVhHFAtX3EgFD2QxKJ1xrL61NzL+aK1osq/VW6jm8PFLoLRLOVBFdIib224 JclbLoofToWdN2eiSJOZ4DWcS5Wr6lUAugYDHHQUeLzF4u3wDfi7jzhIOxNZ814L/d1S/BABDNGz 0S9Gsa/s4oGiM2XwlM4ir7SZrImfZkxKdtkLXI/+MEOaIZsxUXBgF6Gne50PfpYKeHvepEW6Bnhl HDwEGBkQATqvSr0GoR2O5N7kJ//qsHu9t2uDR6QCf0J9ImE4STfTMP1knkmpdcJYSvU1UXgPvuUT iRbFANxEH5w3G4lI00Pmm+adZEIiAncO7I2Mn051EXkHdoSCLCj/2Q8E73s0YFpmo51puDULdtv4 lXPBvMm6hWslQT0R1nyH3q/6SZMZ4bK4SAVh/9FUqELyx0N+EiwoP/9KDf0dBmujHGRZdFN85Ml4 0VqZEc0U24XFDe0L6QgjXZcA3p438norANPsb5xv5tkYQJpN418Rtt7tPPpioea9Zogu7IuVyq9H S85ynKo9IClZsextuc5wM+mqLLd6XzAF47xtzrUeEcoYBFlH/5W//Fd8srch83bgBuPFd6Si91vI 09R9g4m9D/urrh5YUB+feqma+lG1pD6p/PrwtkKLX7mcvR0yth51GyJFx4aD8m4GjhvzL1ejuA56 VCQ0CAjzhvk7a2+09nypdBS4qdQnys+XQ2Do+uJQ6QaXe01IVeWbMawThlPgHjDtWA1+N2/UkWSA h8gbK8O5N/ozzrKrrtQRp8nSuz2ST6VYWcz0T8eAQSCSDgIPlNAZ4ChwdWvy8ZIEWZejdvH2oOs8 QR4RZN3XwwLgM7z1lgxkwwftBavs5Ely/HjKoftyOOScWjX947HBbyagIEw+n0VxHcGw4Cc66fpG +SbaOUgIdVpk3bihBNoqE+oA1Aqbcgf8EJE4QmJvVNlXoDGtvmYltloZBkj6TmPazvILfKiW5Pkc jDgQHMqxzhOvJCRdEGjw5rBBq8UaVFziCTeF2K6Y2MP78f1J7bc719VrrbfbgzrDfMUhjgL0HoEr 7GdAx6tGQDhCMmOaR/TF2ZY7pU5Raq83WpTa6ecaQet5g4w7tDL0LVm2EOyjFPGwJ6yNstQp6tQP 0zPqRZV6tWCNJf28c0G9Mvp8BgoRqDf4bN7J4qDOYARFzyDb2JJlffCzbvyRRB9xsHO1GwQe/+7Q gW9HIEHpZ5lQF/Knf54b/vcEUCZhJEHx8LAVd0/SbLo1Z09Yb6wpw9Knyc9npRTw5rwx09ka7B9N C+3BBbRHwINCl4S8xzzPLTnHq7nRPPxsfEW9DDsDfgcJCuaNG95vTDMPU+Ch7ySNUcBtQcaRuaaQ E16bKawoCBQQ0IxhkzyeMfzdVO47xTlLxdAaVOoVaH/kabLgau3CL8vHfl6EF3cReZkUWMgf9JuD 1WYagtfv4jgoHw35SAIbP2waezoDgc2owGzoyZi7yNcgz6T9ziEjmpkOxUj4fmPhOrPji25/afDI 0zG7KpeQrmjuZUH+Ag17ugLwf/OOkDWwKLFzEboHSSO8W4JoSwwEEZG+RKu+0eTVFEAcJUGESJpK DZCGBXSGgwjnLtFtuU7RffFOAjeIWB13ur2bg3cwrHQy/mepCNLWwA4sLElMXxxxlAKSEtobKX+g SJpMnv9laf7lUrSCAP8M9RD8XSfLKPdE0Tn1+ZQpKiJBCxK4To6RJW+34tFAqBzX+IHYttyx5e8S uwqHoX+Nezb4Y7ui+X8V/CXVALFfGzeUwL9aK/m0O6A9ZOzZuH012pyFIowlF73LipvLA7w5b8hm PQA/mEBV0fdKw2wrnTKP58YOJ+lRt4r/0VG4xlA+GjDOM4dy1HWvN36MxDzNmXg+ZV3mWH2tsfJa XdZiIfAdltCG4/hbfkBqHhckdOK7o0zIjQQEgqiF4jnOvpiBuwI3H/h2qOJypUmxdfMn0rkXi8NP R5fUpyIU+MCuUMOcV4zQzTTWoRm5ifxgXeH+xbe7gQJAT5OiXcNPxlFcpzAZ3rnWUzfHUCfDeEeB FVVV0PFZl39b4OT3Rx2E7uD4/tIQ0Oq9neEavJ7XrzsKwN7gECaTI+UEE6Y1RZWFHyQa/ofrKg9q +kzDkVvCEQlE5BIChpsECIGIiKICIpBwhCSGI0ACRAIIhPuSGwEBBSEqyCEQRAFXULGo1a3b3da6 rnW3090/HO2uurXjsbXb0Zm22Sf86Op05vkLviTv+33v+xwZ1h2P++TLBUHtYSShCSnJyL+NGz2c kHs1X/3dqZAuxNgKVjNHsZKv/LhQeaOEUcs0kliaiH99XJ7h9qN7VrQ35Ffyim9XrGg/Ep5NixsX 0Gs8xt+c2T0UhwOMOr+gw2GY7QtasNaUQ+EWA2iZBBtBwfIi7aKvse9HeRN8RqVPWG+EZ02A7yF/ 9Muo8sMZc6mN8SpdIHRYSKm8cZFD0Za0hRxKrq17jc/2vijZcn7Q0UgC7/mqP1qHw+EBnaG8aSEK VqwUNtxvo8rthp6rs6/nU7JtMW/6AvJmlXv4scjGLw+BQ+AGT7+eUL8cj5sSlN+tEc1muFX7GKyZ JZ3zRzvCsxlL2uv8qeT+J8euaK+IzkmHXgwrVgoG/63ufzK0sdCZqrB3Lvc4/OhI3b0WbBNek67y 0heYGovNNiBYiY0F59NUd2qT51KTZiUR6hh2a4hoNh02nqgHzUK5LOU0uDg8JVIGiacHS8+fFDNb g+2K6A5FLts1qQTem6uheKD27iH0EnUi1kSyIbQnQqARk2LWlX5asVHp5F3HxowhCRqJdJdZ80X9 0WfH3ap8nVSQ4FB6uTfsvWg+lZSgv5rp1sLd6p1bTWvnk6ZFmYs5V7XLyFYpM8Kcqwcua69VfFYL e0zLdSLx1tmV0Is/rdx1PBq+iJRoABXT2fUMmkGKsfCsuOFBCyQGKrC5xJ2qsBOdS6u+14SpNlx1 Jji5qcAJOhg7kTyrXTz/y8LIqzGqfCPkMmlOUvJJceyigsCabV6QE4g+vo9excB9Qjv0ko2RQA1T zY3TzYwkZh41LFw+vpkIp161Aed+OZ+2KHMu9WQ1c13LPbZ27+h61O/Z6GuRRYM9WLVJFkQxeALk hahRHllqaZRhAReReVmRpJFofl6ovtvsXRfInxDZFbja5DphTZiNwUiga0Y6xcyl1MMog6z6rCZj Ue5a5eNdG7gx33l9FiXnmqLgZilGnTBjOAnqgDTAheqQYKIvNoXPcSllhB+NZDWy9s1KAaLfxDu1 BHzr/VyrfQSaNKeDDFwyaf/qZwXGegJjdleYXTGd4CK4AhyY085nLuYhe/o0sR2K3bYPRnU9GmBU eutJTIw+0CMTCQU3H6nelzy7P3tZuX8xi7Sb5FMfkLOsjBnmn/rPqE8TU09gAisSPcLnHtvp38xd NZZr/dIKNlNz7KvuNChvlbDauPDPruXelpk0OJ+qew1mUirGWEcUKSZw+7B8eNnfaS/MaeeuaC/L VvIs5LYRA5GMSk/O4XCA6Df6ZjGBzCV55sW8Hceio0/xT76e6Hui7numHno1trU7AmWAnwlmQBn+ 7SGL2qWkKYl7DcuvnWN9wCG4O7zv6Qn3ahbcF0lg8GHe0ROR3au9hDOSuntNKAMyjUHtetiH7QA7 xY0lcrt2DDwbZjYFis+n7xyKQYQkBoOcZmV30IlRzay5X49F8K4PxK9gSTFOAmTeiaSQzjBoPaqC xLtX+axLMkHjBkLd+yIkmmVSOL3hJX+qTp1JZy8dYP9qOeJulhPIuJCRuiiLm0neORCRuaSIHxck TgkPXCsOOrwVgmsGNkizxBNjnOr+0ph1KTt+Ip5e6+XXGOha5s5s5SCg0fIc4XIJGvmwZZ0wyakj r0f6ng5UfF7hWOSSrEnreTZ48sVo/detrX/vzL1akDQtxJrzpoSkuHXrJeYgCrLUyrHMxSzHGjPP qPS1L3Ro+LJdclHq2cLaMxyPBAeYZVtDo2Gn3WuZIZ3hvY/7W75qa/mqa+hbtWetL7ON49PMCW3f FvF7FUD0m/bXVgLORc70Mu9kTSpVbm+jdHIo3bKlwtfvEAeUwjkSTk6nogtQECXLOveGsuvhEeQU 0fms1q87i26V2h2k+zZyrLI3YWX0BWarrPU+1WIkNmTbTf44M/zyFA7HjCYaSyzHfzgTN8lv/lsT soxnrb/tAced/ZEgXrgOY93HKfg5JD49iSmsLBbcucxt14kY1Rd15tk0U6nlplJnh/JVuRdDuTZ4 1vjivydfnkY9i9pLHQ97wcwBHVy4rO2d20JXDgJrSfBWBQHBjCj1oiysdw9vXDj9br7v+Ympt2c1 P81iSveejLeS2aALgxRz3EZI5469pxISNfvdG5gFt8uaHrT61DHple4IVhYyGhafKPj/0E8m2xa5 aH4+N/jdiX0TvO5HPXBEqfPSsTdTEFD/Dq7qz7Ws9iDYKvwFgwTixTwjBWASBJoUbveOqHF+/HhK yz+6GFXe3N6dG2SbIA32RL8SCgYPDgH3Q+Ib2xZudlHR6WVem5TO7A4uzMzQN+qtV4uAtXm+VU4g 51J2+pIsdiTBsWSLXysHj6InJkuX5ay2EBhmYn9XOcSJ3R02/VYTORxvLqUV3i7FbzmVuQ++GEEx NnmOhimGHzYLgHI96piguMkfz7Bbgyf+O+nXwoEPHPt+cuDpAKs5eGtPqHdjIDmNmn0pn9kUTBIa gfTIqVSQoZnUpv+JGgklUh3f91Tt3cCm5dn3Pz9Jr/JCXtAtjphCllJhP8BXM+/OwWL1PB48+9Os X0sQKnSp8nQ96Ba6UgAQ/e5ZLiIgu5yXekEe2rMbKQZ0pLypSjmfPvGDJrCNG9a70yKThmtEv5Ss TZK5LBzgjQsQfNSvxkpulzuXeKi/HYPfsM5zgHv/bb/C9R41un5n3s14NwZMvZ1OmBSTokiqz6uy lhReLQGWCtvdg9EkviEGGEJggF0QU9ZLMKUsqtz62L8GOR1hEcf3+XdzRQtS6xxH8Nu2nm2ULKqR SMcVlpkUF5Unqym4/n4zDs/+cm7guXrHsajQnl1lf6wu/biEuSADiH5jP6kioFxWZF/Oh83bN5q0 dzQROsLuCLJT2pHi9ZHCbPId16WsRxZAGbtOxs5rF1Lns/0a2XCMzLYQ3rSg95tBz0NM4/0WGEWA kEK9ZFNif7EFp16MwHJs79uTf70YK+ZS7kXikTA88L1WMvtDD9qvaJehGiS+ke6WMihYZJtCR0OJ ReFNFfSr+9FRr4aAzIuK2NP8nI8KD/5B5VHtR043R796Sab4Hrdyn55/Doy/+R/bZQLU9JmG8RQE OayAB3JJQIKgCBIIZ1IgnCEcgWBuQiQBIQQI4RQQwiXhvsJ9yqEhhCsBUYysx9haR3Fot9pVa9fR Trej2207rrse7fz3zWbrdo/MOxmGSf6T9/ve53l+74zsQRtDmUZTskFEgR1hpowdYfNpUPp+Q6+X QJEXBJbp1rAjhPbG2IqcdOzKtWx80J6pzYefGtIXjWJvN0m1MuKYORZjWh63wgKLa8WDDRJ6Iuru NeZcFgk3JKa8D43oJoCCLY+715F1iB4Uw9SQs2Mby7zpUfMKsl61VYeTERYQ9eDzMcAw4eV8fC/R ox6bd6MQ1qikadavOKqzdCAcwGDuauaJy+Lqz+qArud+mWfNH09RsmUPmlApJnr+MWCaAQ5ZpO8x PGYMd2ST60SfTYsciAeBJE0lV23WEWfY+vr3ftQbDRXWS0qcpZNGkjMu5aKL3JsetidNM4B48e0R IT3RBgzdTUHW2OY6Nj1qm/n7DHQaP34sR5sf1B5y8m519qVcwHv4zA7uHubC8QytiDKdsp1raazD Lau2r7sgfLue9doVYCZ+nIHeMzdy4DQg7q2FjoZ0c0yZR909GUhY34VunnlWhowd2dqCU3drmSo+ HEhAc4i1EM1c4NT9ofFf/XJ0Y+BdGwj2AkCuQdRLyOqpu/V7hXawIqWv8Es+qQieTNHX+3592oKh Km6Xg6yIA4DQCVpEy794Apa4DwW7ABHJZ1Ig0+E3AG6hy91kD1sVb2fx3aHuFR40BdupzP3Ehrjg k5P2YgxMo30+Zg5Z5K5l+DbigR5NuLothiiPNUs1hweShpNWkVUlsriAaIo+rmTNpbPV/NGXM+jC gyY8q10ZtuDJcKp6IaDo2xiLadVb0uOarPhxGmSlf1coeyG99atOt/KjOiRgAtVb6Swu2QjchjSe vJ1tXvxxMWs+3b81xLcB75iHDvldkb7e9+s/RIbC1gbEjFFoShYcOCre0LnsEFXBGfx+gqpkgE9C 1+CZ4LSQ0ae/bFa8UQU0h+JkQdGDlIAWQu3vZflXJfvFB7xqAmAwSm5Wgjt1P+sDC4Vb0KmeZyXU SlS/qGCYgcSy1vMXkRUNshY7Es9dSttANio368Ei6HO6vxseNROHogJbCcapO1NXBPnXiihTzNDu GLAg15OH48+mdD6VQzLCzOuWoxP7DtX5OIidBr8foyvZp+6fhicfbfb3aQ6OHzvGVqYdVmfp632/ 2M4ofVnx93k1BMA2VHqrou/FiH8THjjBiGFqJbABy4IE2c4yR0sOpK9mLyHqnA2JdTYaMA8WOui9 99tBbEMQ/Kd6q5F3XsBZStUiV+ImqXB0ekmiKMa0WRZk+tQrReIZWvuTHjVyofx2FfAqrIoVd6rB 36T3Gio3a4G3I/tjwdJhnJwKD8Enk1VMv2ZC4gTVQeKCLnVpf9IBPgAbE0wO8LafLMSYaebTFqT8 eXHg+egacp53nu9S5gbPOaHNizrLSphPS/jVr3T74EyyvujnGEGtIeAbsIES5eQl3RVoOr7ps+Tb RA0kQCShqIbMOXbmBeh3KedKno3QHlsf7FJ6BNdIAAvyafDbK9zf8V1/59OBiZ9m1Mh5Yi8J0MI4 1cKct3vip4mSmycpU0lqRO17Gt/1tA9UnKUVJU3TEs/QYXKgX4aKB9FvwDClnQVlkS1Fti6lmI4n /cc1mUR5TPRgzG6hPbAWcKOnFAshkjzLNmKaetX6h/fGCNZyUMe2A36DpgDOowaiAftdCg6wtk5D SX/zClUL9JV/LT/zsihqMD6oM4y7zIcEtxTYpJxj8zQZ2HrcfrETiKXvu37uMncRWcjaEO3M3Och 9XWr9gaU7fnTAICQo8Sl9Ws56HcO0cifD5pxdQiq25JSjIWXci8i2pyr4sjRBJzso5EfJ8BeYLwB Ziz4ltOvFHFjVIaSESaPPPtWuYAsZ1+V7My0hoFp+aojY00U2k1KmKAB7TiWuMoeNgGxRPbFzb6d txDuM+GYgt4BfrLWxYuIZvbdrGc9ltARcVDqFS4nhW81Qv2234h7rfry7wzZl+dIHqMS+2PjplJi RigN99u8avxEG2KPGl+wfXQhRvlOyVMLJl+eqdyshsiA1IOl1bPev+f5AGWSCktN6vkMxbvZFUQD gbs700EXMTzdVkhTcCB2F5FV0nDi4Sqc5EZp+kqmYC0Xvu5a5TnwYmjgxaAB3Sx2hKJBVhVvls69 noNMMUw1L759in9BBMZIlEd5VvsZp+3krmQU3So35+6Z+Zui4k4FzMY2mhm+I9QuD41KNCIOxWKb AmFQYYPzkuJSr5ZA/W+/R2SEohslydMpyQoWoTNi+tX0CrJCGk9CkVEoyjafBv/QnhiY8OrPaopu lal+Vvk0BTtKXEFozkXueVcl1VsNAM/oQvfSTyvBhfZmO5hwrHTT9c+q3JSCLZ97vbiMrOLbw8N7 45hzPOciVxB1cHfE6F8nV5EL2VfE9gUYsDvQdceTTutsBwcxeIWwcrOGOZcO7YT2RQNdJE0xGr9s MePubvpjl48sGPwBrrLm89PFN6tiR6m51wvIY4kB7WGupUe8GwkJDzr1Jf3PV9AlCVT4MDnrWn70 MMU+D4NK3IaiGx2R+g395czJO1UOYlf3am+PKu/Wxy1p6jTQdWQ/GbYSQkcYutiNsyQYfD5qn+di yDT/gGl6sMLLrugA/6KINJTgUYONGCApf1HNI4uggiVEc7D8KKxCFZs1nAWBrQgsHbeOaLMui6wE tv1/Hp1DltWQoZ/XWvCt7QudY4YpTQ+7qCqOd2NA/Hiifd5+dBFm8Icxt1NelElmUGsYKgEFYdfx jdyAZr4rw672i2Z4h0CJG6dW3pEGdhH19V/9fiSP1td+sYtXHS56NC5+PAUMp+vpEKbMk6ZiOhdi IPLArtOWBdRZFvBGwfViu1wXrCzQufhgYAth7Icx0nC8CceCqUkHvoKIlH4hAwEa0s12ZViPvJxS IcsKZBlk61x6iDxJ7fq295gqNbAtzKvBN7iNCIxtk+s89UYBApx6fc5T6uffFuJa7oXvj5A97kyc ofk1BcMtY8rcj9Tjup/1g8pAdJ51fgYsM0CsD6imhZ+WA5ECwEBUhXTHgMHiavzp99v+b7+Ef3Be JkBNn2kYj1td6gpei4AIqKBA5YZwBcKZi4QkJBwJgZAECDm4Isp9n0ICcgVCOCQREq5EiEkAxbNO t1VHp6O71W09tnXbuqOd6aq1OtVmX5vZTmfabXf3m3eYIcM//N/ve7/n+T0msbXQMrRPSwheRQ1q j3Sv8uSa87IN/IlnarBX2EDbPHuqikqeSpE/HOq41RXQjIQ0AWIFEanrztH0hSzfliDQWLjUwW0o /9awrYKdzsXuO4v3Dn4pX7KcXLSYhedKIBqQJmjyfwynaDKQ7ZH2IlfeijioDQUnVXu9Efw3d1UA bgsavoXv6Fq+v/5Ga9GFsngFiThGgc+di/aIzheVvVdlX+ACkAMuvC3fWfV8Gu4LuhcNty+mH5c+ mwNGuVuyn2YqgGr82bI2i5Qn8U8JAekhIkUfRSsfjdpx7BHk9eCewEW/Z25xKnQB2szScyAf4ZWk fRU+kbJ4p8K9ojUJQAioU8/9fhh1k8UIF5aoovV/MRTWE9txVwYjOv/dXPRAHEQw2HnAs/gRAnoQ D7eAvcgDEHUodeMYBeJLZXsOeXEN/G15Dp5V/rH9Cc0320rfrcKNE0VnJZXXG50PuwPECs9Jdghc hWclQJVAI171/vCSlZdrAbTcSj1BuiFG8QwFSKPQWj/vF1bUMN5aHFMBYyEL3ZuwmeuISP4dSwfp b4VrFiDSNiJS17GWcuIGk1CyhFApOqg9vONWp9liBokL6Qj3rgkA0yy+WO5Q5GbH2WEvdgEkg71S P1GD53rW+aFk8ZVX6nzqQ2C7xGfLYuR40YWygrMl2wt2wQC/QWIAqhP52wucnUr22nEcYDOhrwNN wbhRCkmTXn65BtT7jwKnyL5E25ytzBPZIC8Aop2f9CBob0ObojPi/VXvUNTp4F9YORa9lBcqi4H6 xX4J11ushTwSAc8SJ4igCUCh4ErAvQjSOvp0pke5V+wQHqwB0DesKyZiIJ6zkg+CCR568P1qqpoR JkNpXs4sWRb1Fj2cctONVto0gzRB3pzvqHpyHPJgnlkU3BpmtKw13GzBK6kbGLbgILurvCCXIejr fer9wZ5wymQAVOUjABgU3ETCJC24HQVfZbaYdOD7Z4qpmjTvuiD3w95MHZuopjoUuh25LV21nEL3 Yp0P7mOdyEG2h+8o2EU/XQT1i83+2G+UURirSNqWuy1UFo1Vkj2r/Tvu9A58MVZ5rXHq2YxHuU+u WVx8qaLig0YYgK5PeuBK9j0YKr14SHBKhO7Dc07yAee03+n1FmNYZ3T6Alv7SgcTPvx4tPpqE0Cj bwNy4TV46yzPxPdvRSIybJyK9xSfL3cp2Wdf4Dr1jRb2asGiX7Isk9X06H4MaSIVXDJvWah+Nb9k Mbbd6Uydy4bu2m9LScfSCs8djpDGIVJs/sAGnN64s9AVUsx2/i5QdY/6AGv9p35hkbRMa0V2x0f1 J9KnWYmKZNCEqec6GDDpnd54OTZCGlt6sWLm5SxjnpNrFkHM0byYL7pU1n2vnzabhRkhQCgA2ly2 LKdpmaAejuI9mm/nDJalwBbkuoyN3nWBmm/nAataP5IChcIcQqDAKDAUIG36xr7P5AbLyXmLHh7n GYUgWZVXmnybggK7wgA/Fl4bgaWZ81yyig76FtIeXX61PlwaCxaMm6CkzDLti1wSRohb8512FbqH DuF+s9/YP1VZi6FhATsFtkSi5VgHsbObxBPmM2k8GYFDkI+nxw8lbRE6etUG5JoKZr8HSzVnG3Kd i9z5q8UhUgBp5apltfJaA32GCVd75tX89MuFGYve/CaZNkT3xZksy0fvy48/1fo2Bb7FsoHACHcc MGwDYzPHwIMAO215Mx6y+/07S/YMfznEXy2su94MCK15sTD5dCrLwEvTskRrxcLTkuijGMXDMdpc Zt3NJvjEo9oX1ZNImqDwjFxkLxbqV5r9sV/0moS9WhDWjQ5pQyaMJBFGqfU3miGG2ORssuPtCGgP B7eN7o3hnxa33upcs6zlLPE3MDdzlvmQeoCFVi0rE08m/TrCt/DsN3E3J2vouu8XPcrfOfRe1cFL 5dhxCkiBXe629Vm2tgL7DSw7mEZICt41gcMPlRC75t80C3ffVHm1bn+NX/+D0TRddtkHNbGDBMEZ CdfIh2QEEg0CQlUxEJS3kiZTOm7LvGv9PMo9gT8zdWysItmnOdxav94vrLiLtdaCQFfxfjWMTZKK 5iZxh37hIGzYW4AAwfv6PlOkzbB3l3m5Vx1wlbiXXjzI1Od4NQYCRMEway36hX+/tnCtNKADiVMS jj+bKblUKb0/MPn18aprTeNfH1v8QdZ+LHhE+5Nf9W9gbFH1Tw12goxg2NC0TNMPegW3uOXPzU5i l005dq0fdYjPlEAgAhc+UB8QM4IDIMcNE+JVtP+pX8zlhpBu1MDno3QNUHqSY/FuOA44iCwDR3pv EH6K1opa/iqDlwfYK7tcQ9Uwyq7Wcoz5/BUB96SIZxRlG/mZulyeScxeKmAv8vHHqMmTaUQVnTCe gh7B4cYpiaPEqAFMaDc6sjsB1Zvo24yM6seAp4PUB7dHhXVFxQ0SIBPFDOAo0wz2Yj6YAl6ZHD+E jR7AEMdT4cVI6lSuSchZzl/PsPOu8SWr0sDU4Fk7gau1frNZ66J+qrBWeGfMgbpgvJJC12S4Vux7 m2VbfaX5yMd9tddbS9+VME9wWYY8liE3G15mlp06k02fY8TIccAqtNnMdB2bPJVBn2WR1ekpWmai goQbo0Cggy7820MCpBHQPkGdEtqJRnUnwIiCNCE7IjDDpKRxGmY0Gf4S/i9tOj1lKhPyGmgUZ0VI n8+CyAPAA7yRt1LI0uXxzCLustBN4hF6JHp/pZ9PW3DcJBl/d/D/6DfMICg5d9hJtBvOF4gIMojm hXb29eL0N/rxpxr1C43muU79VDv6lWr0qzHl48mBvyt6Px2RPxrvf6zsfaDo/lwuu9vbfW+w529D 7R/3tP5FVvFhQ/WHzUUXDpdcqBCdPyg8XZR7Ssw9LRKeKswx5+aY4QQz02ayQQSIk+RUXSZ9LiNp lEwaT8GNJWNHiOA7gUdC/ZqQmCECVkHxrUei5bjgjjAH4U7UUYxPcyD5WGpwVxRUlEEA9V82a104 9b94r/KoJu8s+rGHXRQQrSxSDSD7nrAYggkkhEBIQlaSQMJOZA1LhQCBgGyJQsoeJAFkkwDiNqKM tVXRjp05U0dtz8wonY6ns7RjZ6ba9szMybycnOP/41jfuSd/5Uu++/u9d9+9dMAhNYFjEAe2RUT2 YzOmGM75nvjRNL5BDI3KM0j4Bj57mcdY5sOAm/5ImQDHghtMwfRBNyYxztIzz9Cz9AywJXG9OOhP dFt4iCISrznmUx0QczLuYCPatybgncpD2FP43CUBXOKxYQphMpM8k5OhZ4AlpupYZC3No3Sva4FH 2li6s9jDry4IDAAom1e5r3f1u6AeKJ6je7HX0cEUWI4l16TEdYkZ/xNZc0VfKAPAywgvFQW0hoDd JU3TQEjtePY+1X7YU8lWLEf4PDZKsMp17PutGnQppgtD1GaW36w69n6GBdMWodv5VB+e/2F+yWjo eHiSu5LvINoNCav90ckIZbT2bzNhihjICLvL9lXeru34rGvi77NgU81eDtqevSSs2KoAXQLnJv2g pmSzxrcmsH77vYGnmpqPauvvtkYpE/3qAolaqnBNlD3HwhjEgNfmC4W/KTNDdl+eCdddH0yepIIx 7t0ZmnihB7WU3WlCMizdK7xTRglTz3X+9cFg2glTFIRhD4fgLwuqul2rfqY5Io+e+lZPGCWHtkUt /GhIGSaKNyuAY4g8WvG4F2Zw7OuZzs+7C6+VtjxQDv1xYu6lYeyv2kMngjO0dMnliiPyKM03k3QD DzwYnCFCswpRRA9+eRrTn3REEc4xiEI7YxOHcJi1Ut5WFeD1yL7iSzrDOHo6lXtODNESTBdjnkPV 5Ry/IV03nvcq90uboIR1xiof9ZZfr43tT75uvAYiE9IRM//D6sTXM7Ltlvq7jQNP1Oqdwb7facqu V/rUoGtvNcDQ1d5qhMyFUaeAQUI3h6HlYag85z2V74BnAOsCqSdcgZFck8I0lW3WvHdfUXhDihtP h95IUOF2FXntKnQD1lk6NndZwFgRkH+lNOO1yZqLdLvZDPJ0bnBrOOlMVvoEybPigPJhF8gLdCNC tcS/ny64mD/y1RhICnU6x6PKG9QY04dvuN+u+Wp49vul4b9MNn+iqLvbWHqrOvE0DjwGuCl7vpsl xwH8JMJEIXwUQrMGce7//eA+6UG3wj15G+Lep+qR57o14wbRlLkain4urfqwvulj+eCXI6ongzD4 sepkSBycZRHkkfSZ3DfIt/BGDYA6DesDSxil4DVEeGGY5XcbgvXfz+dvlMK0RpzEgMlUfjYw/+Na 8yedpi/QbBGKJUQtwUUJQrMIbAmkzTDpc3xgasN3tmDac1eEupezp54NhXdiPEt9Ci6UW7OdHMWu DhI3EAc7rpMNx8m1bC8MKV6TlqhKRTKRwLYw4XkJKF6Wng2aKd2qzpplErZqExYFgP+TrLmw60UA yv0O3ro4uC06UXWMbFoQZGhv1dMhML3QzOnarFBFbNYcy3TjPBTYMFSeyRXDmcQOHF0xQmoqtct3 hulzk+xp+7QrqjOh43E3JCOEao1QrTzLfM58OxPZi0UYdvCsDccZnrWg2zfcb9V9t+hV62vDduj+ vA/bnwyeJ+BEMGHUZEW45wSYXhw0nhlvhKy5UrflgEBdLuO8xL/pMPgBrBof2BIK6g1BBnQDwsXy v5chHbAWedZ8Z7i+3SX7gbK90M100Tl25gY2nQDNDjeUvmZcD2qJsOA42AmcrJi2u0s9nQv2ovhO Njwn1qLILs/VtwE982Jh6V8G9c6QLd8FYaBM22okM2EAB48zVvjWLEfyeCb5FwoT3jRfqKhL5WZI 1kWQCr2rD8FYUWeYvnWBDnm7YXuO/GkUybFNG6NAOPKtOQwcQ9tjcxa4VkyUNde24eNWMJ+Zc0xL NspZuKt/R7Vk3MCo8BC4IGCC1J83XgAvB7FCerMSYdqWfVgV359kw3OB36m73aB40GHBtHGRuJOm qeRpOssg9Cg/0PPFaPQC10z5zZJ9xTf1g3pA0WYpGKFwRXzKCAlsYUBrBIweXF/yaeKpLzSWfEec htjxmy4k29qa7SBYk3hXo0Hrzv3nItjRXcX7pv+pn32xMPnNxCXjFYouu/qmDNyjfd6uzOnsKCUG JXQb/fP4uvGS9h/TXhXeVkJHS7aD9KYs6RQhXo1jLuVln+XsL/Ph3Gu2lx6M6E4CvHGy5jKTjZvj AZSP+kUbxT4ydKomI30i+2BdkOi8hKZnIemIbxO67aHSnu90VIPnGsRgHiCTgtUHJRdcKBx8NpKk JlKmGWApPSq8U0cyfGr8wIGDtkPTYlS4A5V+8GuUqWzIXDmzHCQHscx1iOzE4gbThReLQtoiMMPk iFVRmpYOfAE/EVlzmckGnWUAqKsS1jw/pg+bPcsmjhEJIyRnsWfqMNlgXPWXBSIZ0Kj43AWBe/kB rAYPwpW3Wsg2iBC6rTULVXSl8nBjGIrvXHilIrYnASEhfo1BU9/paXo2GBXLXMf2T5VFV6WFm8cd BXuiBhJjekyrx71of+pkTpxBkjJKBfzUZM1lJou7WgWAtGJaMWe5SRp8ho7mKfUFzWy8J7fluHiU eE89n4nrSQ6WR/Q/UYOMgy8KaA8v/lmlvcANybGBbZW7yBWuF4M+uxd7y+40XzNukcZpSK4NKHxc T5LiQTeSZb3/uD/0QPwQLqY/CbqaZxCmaqmAt8D0VYUu8c2gQZyZzqndbgjriIewkD6VDasEoSA1 2/XyX7bD8pXdeS91OAMUddW4zt0ocCnyDO+Ir9k+QTvLQbItXUQePTsqD6mPe8kBJ7F71+Nuv9oA Kz5qT/l+dFMw9HCYIj5RnYLtT8m/XEhfFUWO0wBvn6+Zsv96CSB5jMxYZhdeLg08EU6ZYlBmGNz1 Asd8d9UfhsafT4KxJ45mGoyGI/Kw+rvybD2dqmOA7YSRVO0MQWjlnssv36oCYUdYKHRT6MATFWwu 1wL3LD0LN0Tylx1JUhGy59jcxbyjV2UA0kdNgLdM9lUlnMsHYFcEDbfrgk5EELVZ1bea2Ev5EFdD O2OC5ZEZWlqWjtn66y7JZtnsyyV0S1jdveb8DXHtLRk4ZNeCvTC5FTf+q+KpL+ZyxgtxRgnwxItK 5Ci6zfb1nB1o0+fiMTsA2KwKWRvvvD0XiCBeHijPQoDGLH8gMl8aCkRV52qFU0Q7bnf5Lgp1nO4V tDTaqNUcmE8rT9d13ZkQtDgM2HZa+GVh7fmG4qMV0vkq/c+mr/+/3rzTru16by2ohuUE5m7nmd7J 27NcpnmqVekEb4x3fzFHeaq7zWqolwfWsxAA8ax8p5n6BLfCs9XKJaq5J8q0Go0SdmW4zPANXxMt kCIB7BQolmpWnK0JWhZWf6EBWEozhbDLFqou+rFMrVwXGMvAROs4w9NzQWDQ6ii/BUH8yeLVZ2uM VycAEVuaFBANEs9CANC/SsDsNsnD8miN8VSvgmPlwD6F74Jwm35X/0XhQUuiIlYnCOVIASsp+ylu hUfLGPyYfZeEyhcoazeZWE10kilSjdmQCuznVpyqkctWirjQqroiCoh0NmdAvDzQ/sMOgJ4FIs2l McqLIoAo9mS1ZoVu+o5s7UYjYHsM2GAQzZRN3J6l32oB9K9ItqTVJGdg2eUz31e1Ui9mUyqwHeI4 1TXjfKPCqkT5DjuIlwetZyEA6F+IZ1X7HBRaLYCo4kyT+0x3kzbrzN1FqhW60RtSTLtsxLOkXab5 hq2INu2xSdiRKpwjZdZpnX2tW31ptEKXPdC/QAT07ED7hlgA9C/Es4abMtwXhPjM9Q9ZFSNdopxz oNSi0zZ8ZWzshjS7qS7mXVYJm5MEU6QyduYnnWvRXpUAQUDPDrQPyAFAzwKR0f4K8VojIKo+19h7 f6JOnbHdFPfsAwXKlWrOU91St+WaT3a13p+ttSwGiCD+HWiHkw+A/oV4VmVBKBDxZEkDUez6tOIT le7rE+Sn+bosCDbeXwT0L8TLQ9qzcADxL8SzaP4FIoh/B9qNNAGY/h1oFw1zABgApuiIwgoNCmVu ZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNMzIgMCBvYmo8PC9TdGVtViAxMzgvRm9udE5hbWUvQXJpYWwtQm9sZE1U L0ZvbnRTdHJldGNoL05vcm1hbC9Gb250V2VpZ2h0IDcwMC9GbGFncyAzMi9EZXNjZW50IC0yMTEv Rm9udEJCb3hbLTYyOCAtMzc2IDIwMDAgMTAxMF0vQXNjZW50IDkwNS9Gb250RmFtaWx5KEFyaWFs KS9DYXBIZWlnaHQgNzE4L1hIZWlnaHQgNTE1L1R5cGUvRm9udERlc2NyaXB0b3IvSXRhbGljQW5n bGUgMD4+DWVuZG9iag0zMyAwIG9iajw8L1N0ZW1WIDg4L0ZvbnROYW1lL0FyaWFsTVQvRm9udFN0 cmV0Y2gvTm9ybWFsL0ZvbnRXZWlnaHQgNDAwL0ZsYWdzIDMyL0Rlc2NlbnQgLTIxMS9Gb250QkJv eFstNjY1IC0zMjUgMjAwMCAxMDA2XS9Bc2NlbnQgOTA1L0ZvbnRGYW1pbHkoQXJpYWwpL0NhcEhl aWdodCA3MTgvWEhlaWdodCA1MTUvVHlwZS9Gb250RGVzY3JpcHRvci9JdGFsaWNBbmdsZSAwPj4N ZW5kb2JqDTM0IDAgb2JqPDwvU3RlbVYgOTYvRm9udE5hbWUvTHVjaWRhQ29uc29sZS9Gb250U3Ry ZXRjaC9TZW1pQ29uZGVuc2VkL0ZvbnRXZWlnaHQgNDAwL0ZsYWdzIDMyL0Rlc2NlbnQgLTIxMC9G b250QkJveFswIC0yMTEgNjAzIDc4OV0vQXNjZW50IDc4OS9Gb250RmFtaWx5KEx1Y2lkYSBDb25z b2xlKS9DYXBIZWlnaHQgNjI1L1hIZWlnaHQgNTMxL1R5cGUvRm9udERlc2NyaXB0b3IvSXRhbGlj QW5nbGUgMD4+DWVuZG9iag0zNSAwIG9iajw8L0xlbmd0aCA2OTg4L0ZpbHRlci9GbGF0ZURlY29k ZS9MZW5ndGgxIDExMDQwPj5zdHJlYW0NCkiJ3FcLVBNnFp48gUReTVDXpfoDRQWSMAFBeVlDCDgu JJiEiNa6JmEg0byYGUCKComKoNVSRXxSUVtRkfooPrZn6+LR9YFC8VXR9bWybrU+qvUtoPsPVEFb d8/Zc3bPnp05/5m59//u/b//v/fmThAGgiD9kBKEhYxJ0mApFwubJ0LNcQQRClWa8Ii5968T8P0K 1OmM+RQIPdgxD0H8RiEIh53tyLE+RA/mIsigeCh751gKs7fMq9+PIME0fqcJ12f9uX4yjiCh16Ec bYIKbzHLiSBDUqH8nslKzShIx0ZD2YEgzE6L3agfGD8Q+hpaiSAMl1U/w8FkcWqh/RGIBza9FR9w zJKDIMMHQvyXDgJ3zPbeD/0HWhCEBXkgjO6bfiKCLvgUIt2X4CHqEtzjeoSWji197MlwY9a4BFeh 6hKTwZB6of247j0zTA4HQadyeWFcBpvhGslksGvUaDoq6qPxXz+4xB+J775ViAEhETtiQXCEgmM0 faPgdX9snyV186818zqXxp9LqXseLztY4/J+H3UxG+EIYQoF5Q0nFlyvPfhN1OHVi8qahjRpdJ+i nq+4MtiQkvMz6RD0XS4rg80T9NfhhFljzrEBLZFHUkCJUwV2Yrp0AOpHA/gCr5cAEcBsRolUhIb2 TAT1WpqtONBQeqvDbMsBGpzINxtxoLbbKekINKIHHaZUgVRMloilYtqJQCaXK9K1iiQRGG4MiRkJ Xl8DHTzAM2YkGiWNQEei8JoExRhpRKT0Z/F/fwPOtX3PnMFBWM5F8NzLmU4nckoC7ppmisQSp/8O 7s5a/h5fzwnnNW157UcjQ3eefuTxwYj7Nyqee/Rr/ctvJ/2h+ftHZTuqG+cH35yV6UNOm3Es16/r UOajkLrMKVXsLrHBN9Pp35RbeSYwM/zMcSFnbvTXlVsa0sbduBMXWK9bOTtgjaW0cVzK8mkNG6PP dHqITzXErGayYFK/kRIsyCvWd808zuiTN0o6is5sfrC1sJPTuSwhN2hz2PDLHwvw8uei+YxPJq0y NPnWljzYs0+454Ru5XR3g+LQ+i/ORxVzAi8RYnYpp3amR/+lQvndx/3TvnNbvNrHkvmcF7W8qXzt ZbZjTegs/eL91/m5qzYdzjYkJiyrDIxYEVi+4FmW+3sPTz6D+dsMRzTTD/nGd9V5+e2AjuTMueVN yWUVwXeEU///knirdBga3ON48D+n8XKn/Lfu9N+i+PJ8eL84H1/Um55wE7hjNgonbDiFOqt/kdIL YRTm0yldp7/dUL+oIqXiQoPvFPMFXrGhgittbnlR9mnyWSy28sZp7vvV9etnTLr1tNOoUO3l29Af 10fXiT0u37MPq/McP5UTpSpu0apa94gS2/iti/ZOebG7pLW9qqE4EEv0sZxasZ2h23DgW8na2AfF mzI3ng3Er31cN2PNH8+lJJo+EM/q2sVksH4loa1TO1b+/nPzV6eKHGGGoMFJYPy2IL/DFPMp9tOw QZO3luZGuYc9+uTSlV1V1xfW/q6dPDLWo3r7+YXn/ZY0sa55BOu43ys/T/nixITk06N0DwOaDwyN EwdHtKy++qcxKT+0WVPyrzWiG7xLWorb4mbXPF0WKg3ze3ZEePvi9hsZMkeyWDQbdXlshMO7hsVk MJk+hdlVtjnbW3cz3rFVNzbguX0ZM2FC63/l1N8eoUhU2hPw0FcZIbdbrThhNOstQGPPpgr0BA7S 8wwWM2nCCRLIZd0pOQodIY1G0VcpSYsRkVExUTGTUBfjw/84CWkymtRjlFBQUCDJh4YkNJQY7dZw 2IHtpJmyE4Xh8nQNvYadcEiAoRCo8WyJiM5rSao2ic7laOloNL7HT1SSOcdMwQWxJCC36EkSRAIx SDMbCTsJKfTy0Okt5iw9ZbbbQH6ElI960PZcATNDIxWgvrTgLuBN0JMmWHqU3Sb1Qb16jsJNjWdZ 7bYs6WDUn9awhH697uWQo53odvtynv+WeXjA4M0qcjE8Eah3Z7oYDKSh4uTQTVl/v+l34IW1SKbi PbWH5rZIBmo2RkRfOW36a1QX9k5bVSf+rUYI9rGPfvTwqMNaeev4V9tC0VURmTN3b54enLOy8WrB D5xrP7ZXPa7n/2bjl/FzHVef2CerZtm91YoFfmfxC3GA056wzrI81osfLLgdcAwsjvnIMIdzNGhQ p7p6a3Vq1dl4ZWaCq+iOR5Rul6kxUbE+Trqho21ZR8Zh0aYNB0JULQ+W3mUNKbrnF7v5yZb0ORyr 4e5CQdmoc+3+XuR+7pivhx+42bwk9/C+7J3rtIHf8XNmPplfWL41m7dl/LMuIqCz9MNDD8Z53crU B6W17ojNuiL4bMqRedbU/tsS3GAhb3BxLqIuzrnu6LwrYDNRBOXTr95sNovJqUGdZbTEYDtL0Nkl PkVVfzsh7zKtuD/quC3uJ75rnfG/UEguDrMBfhWiATQTNoPxgj0AFaL0l1/vl11/FtOtBIHRhhAe m4tC8twxqIsd3QfDo01d7CCoHlITUjLMRFEOMjY8/F8UxjoXa6/TxWrQmswkMOIEZc42G/UUDszd BUMnG07SVUPg2TiB24y4COhtWcBMkSCPhDASkBRhNlKWQh6ZZ5iGGylA2UWAMuGg9xBe+aXrJZ3Q Gym6IcLWROFW3EaB4ZBJCA/SJGmAVILCRfL1ZoveYKGZvO6tdwNAT8Xy3rbROJq1QmyFbiAOwBXE BJ6bh5MUOeZ1nJ3gQehL4OsxFYGIqJhIGEY97JCyfBwq0ux5NkoPWenMeIEIhhDEjEBHRPIyNDKI cxQS5hwTRTdJaUxM9BvuAJBZLEBNI0j4Q0TCnoxnSYBcodbKMCVvgkytlim1mEIDkjCNPFWGpSmS gEyZ1KcPp2JpGGzDEh6NVmLKlFigHasAGRoFUCXDV0zT7Q5LxuQyrQJAUaNVY3Jt6kSgyUgcp5Br gVZFm/B0CjUG/1gp++AxlRKkq2VyLSZXQDvoIE2h1ELa9BKYRpMB1/sH81UeFsWRxV9Vdc/goKIg HmC0FRFQww4eeKBEjuGQU0ZQRF2GUxQY5QoImHFEF1A5PBNEEc8lGIUkKJooQlbUFVdXjGuImogK Lqt+JPE2TOcNCrjs7vftX/ttv+mZqep6Ve/3e0dVC06B8zz8AtAWWZeRyi4EgqePv7fnW5sVC/wD FEql0IMKSfB18Q501c/S0ytDu30UAS4e2OxC6RcguHnO89Wru+F/J8HfCW10CfR2ChD8AwP8/ZSK CZ2LzPf09hZ8/ebJnBWdJHkrOhVc/HyVirmBaLynk/cEVPH1nOcZ9Fany1g/RBUguDr5OLkrlLaC UqGQ6XHq9wv9HK4KHOWtRKZd1Jj78egydVTvWIyOScSyEBkhxKvj9WEVFRMZoXyTCE5JmBlhyZhA sshU1O8M7hRVbHKkkLhUhXEQr04SwiKFcDU+iuicRJUoqMLDkxPeZGCUOiGuM2dkKW+2GxyBkaq3 wNPJVrbPXjP5v0nzrv5YdbTaNjomSr7mqL6SCNyaQ3KNXCMxDF3vQda/UBApIdhhLTHAqsLzWEEH D/+P8yNJ8rDukVQeJDcd3KseyvGwQsxmdXVaJXYyG9OzE3fXFCE2RhVmK8QmYS788+kSOi/54Hcq nTlnIJdgtcNPr3OP/qS2zXtvWmBT0qINlnUHhfbY6i/S3dJ3l6w6uVLiYWoc2bDY5sVch5yVlU8G TUttyj9iqLEvWOyx4yxMkylrZk8Vc02s4sB98nMPb9uEn+sbV3e4qkfn/3Vzyd2tj1pFuFD3OGH4 d8Us/lhtePrEVFeH3etyX2etn2pt23pw2lTHk7/+orWw03KjsQaPQOjy5P/B/vFvDoN9JQZvSKE8 D3vWHJYP62apD7N7d2Ph8IzR0zK067XtyEf2KHJ2xtwA/g+JExt8Kqovtj07HH+u3zG5/zvD+9o5 y2fvGaoZDEpIgzgIAzXEggBR+BsPSaVjNKP10fQ2mOK6DjWd0ZSUkByZlLYi8ne9jjSclsDCcybn lrXuylH9eHLEo4IKWVWxuePDUqchblGR9Xnn1x7XLnbOz31YcGnWj3PWfb5q2NGfig+zV8Gni+Pu Jl1pbnL5KcK6JvWl37ItQ4779Lt0Lzds0/LPBuwavVT6w6BhaTljgh9ZZYVZDEtNpty0Eq/ZZjV/ UwQ5WvsOlb4XbhW/cNy2vy96lb7ry4QRmWWHnikH7nzaslHbmFNSO2qVUXPb7ZgFoZOKvOhpj08/ 3p+9/oHDbZ3fzqutTeeaY8ddOxX6Vf3Sa0VWKuvzmY2qe4VBl01jjT1D75E4z0STT3aFmtw5YNG4 qj5dqDZZdXCoCCk5DS2Fdy4G5zVrZ17IP5Stu3gy/f6kG+OtS7XkCp7qGnp8IbHTklPYdUIfZGuq /+/fX6kpnBpY1OTyaNRrtwVZOX92yy6wfDwotFegBsuHvhunht0NKcEw7X7C2xnpXz3s5PiuIbeb Mmnywn8J07bCgn7X9soqV28Rn5tsM/LqHVRrNIr01XEhcVOc01O+u39jxUvTgV6FwdcbMmvFaD/H xKcZN6OmSJdHKgb1N4ePxFenispsilNaqtLEIzMzv1+07cljTWLJwLI+ZpkbLozKmrhmUO3l+0JW U9vE7JC0OzdE87KthY7a3BDLzbf2PZUbO5euHu2X1cfj15P2Ox2+/rTRt2VjeaK+qBHuEikAHoAv 4idh0/LNL9sDUdS4L+N5QolUQnkp9Lp81PFqmN0utIv8Rp0bmWRgSOo03U/5xWDHe8NIvIezrWAO IN55e9/TBYuP+OVgoVsm3rQywsFfvr3fXCqwhCVgA3OgDtrhNBkH/nBGvALhsIB+CO9jfz4chzNw G1whAiiYkQwQxGLYCGNhLeyB6ZyZWAXe8MDACAbDGJhB1CABU4iG3eQmeIIXzuEA7pADCfg9F/uf k2n4hIAMFuPqW2EnnIa/wA8wDGe0hevo+ufiV+CCFSUc0uEE3Oad+Q1gAoVwCMqgFu4TW7KftLHH YpXYIP4DtWzADuwhBKtPGGyGUhx3CC5SC7ZPNBPTxT+K52E4Wl+OqGvhLK71jAgkiITTgyxN90qM F8uRh75oM1qP4oRofCEJDuDI6/Ca9EHRUoF+QMN1A8UhIIWRWOHGo32BWPFWQzZsQhRFUAJH4QH5 gCwll8hj2o9qaA3vL/WV+vap6fhWdBef4Rp9YRRaOx+WQypqboYtsB01S3GtP6G0QwexJw7EkXiS AJJP1pMD5AUdT7+nr1l/ZsQmsGAWyjJYM3tpwHf46Xboroj+YipySZBzGXrSBXHOg0WwAhLhQ8gA DVqXh1KA7JWjVCCfNSjfwC24i9ICD+AhxhyPGGVkHIocxYHMJnNIIPk9iSaJZAc5RqrJaXKWtJEn dDK1p9OpHw2g0XQFTaIFtIJW0hp6j/6CVs5gCpbIPmLlrI6dZ1dZEwfcHE7FxXDJ3FaugvuWa+ee cDoeeAsUW17F7+nYq/PShYhjRQcxTNwkFqA8QI5HIJqxYIV4/NGr4bijRCOqFbASJQ25W4eItsNu 5E7P3jGohq8xSuvQv/VwBZoQ3y1ohufwEsnR4zMlo8j7xA75nUXcURain1JIBtGQPFKEPFeSKpQz 5Cai1CHCIBpMl9AUmkE30R10Jz1Bz9Dr6AmRSdATQ5k782LzWQhbwpLYdvYx+4TtZiWsmp1h9Rzl ZnD+XAK3livg9nJHuXNcI3eTl/MOfC5KBV/Fn+JbJMYSc8lkiVJSLZUYpBm0GujgCzgHlVDVO/dJ NhlAKuEz0so4pqENdAE1pNeJlrtMrNADMwnwebjb/owWvkeu0qlkPgsnC5E/LYkiIbCLDWd72Rxo 4OOJkvmTCFByO+BX/htQ8bn0c0b5XNZBXtJyWAp5dHlHmRhM+oOS7KcHMWIyYSbYcGZwnU7nThBL akNrpEdINThKJWw6m2FghK397C6aqTQwIm2gYr+RX23BTVxn+D+7q921fEEWxpYtjFYskmPLsrG5 +KbakiUZgrBjW4ZqgbS6WNRmKPYkQMelpLQMJRXBo0xmINPLNNNh0sTJtEcGOnImpX5rX/LEjNsp fYBwaR9KyWQInaYY9T8r2dgp0/axM13pO//9/P+ey57dj3H/3MK9Ncy9jc+Ee+SP0gtY3SL/C/Q5 Cd3k0pNyeNegcVGynrtEdi+eXvw9/8PcT0g19zHAYvmij/PjituTm+GuwQO4+OTvwk24xt2APfjU SOg751Pce9/AJ81eeMyV4n4K43Nk0tvT0/0lT1dnR3vbtq1bWls2Nze5G10N9c/VOR2b1I12xbah dr21ptpSVbmuYq253LSmrLSk2FgkS6JBwLdWaAyqfVGFOqNUcKo7d7qZrMZQEVuhiFIFVX2rfagS 1d2U1Z5e9Dz4BU9v3tO77ElMigc87kYlqCr0o4CqZMm+oQjy5wOqptD7Ot+v84JTF0pRsNsxQgla xgIKJVElSPuOj6WC0QD2lyk2+lV/0uhuhIyxGNli5GiVOpkhVd1EZ7iqYGeGA7kUq6I1aiBIq9UA K4HyjmBslA4ORYIBq92uuRsp8SfUOAW1l65x6S7g19NQ0U8lPY0yzm4HzimZxvnUa1kTxKOuklF1 NHYgQvmYxnKUuzBvgFZ9847lqYidm/2RsyutVj4VtIwrTEylzir0raHISqudtZqGfWAs5+iLpvow 9Ws4iqGwgtm4M1qEkjOYUmF3wu4qf39JNcg00UMKLVJ71bHUoSjOTU2KwvCUfbamxjuXuwk1QSU1 ElHttMeqarHA+kwFpIanLld7lerVFndjxlSeH9hM2ZoCU1K6kkku23ROd2dcaHh5ZAmrSH0eVwRV EgpWElHxntpZk2yHVKId3fDSCEbRUZyRcVrkj6ZMnUzP4qnBYVKV1GeAK0C9/5fVmlhBIzpMnwFj 2TpZXmtoX+Kpy0UbGtgSkfw4p1hjty5vczcez3I+ddKkIMHhg0Ec25jW2YzDb7ezCT6X9UIcBXpq KJKXFYhbZ8Hb7NIoF2WW+SXLuj3McmrJshweVXElX8HzC2AdlZ3L/zWmyrXBsU5KKv+NOZm3h8Jq aGhfRAmmooWxDY2skvL29mVbgaNr/RHeyhU4zsrrVlyUB5admRApoYID/6K+qEezkoyrUtcQpY+a ojvzrWa02//LoGzuExalk6dhhTJpp2u13LVKXlVeSYrHggUnFxrZl0oZV9qADZpc/KQb271P3nvc JB/Vh3HldU34CE9Vdn0O+GqHmIE7hisQEwAcwigMiTOwQ+yAnfxp6ETbCMKNttfR5kD/IwX6OteR y6F+F+ITRCMijFAQcYSG2I34FmKI64D3Eecw1sPiGeXPQ4Txht9AhWEvbERqFu5CjXAb6kQr7BSu g4o6J+bfYiiBAeQdhpNQIdWymNyfUd4tOtDnr1jDy+AUPoR2jO0ynIFKrH0H2toN9dArHsB8t6ES +/mZ+CdyCOkuQwB1kHsgAP8H7HsE65hC9PEPIYixzwsu2MHvwvu7Dm7up+BHGkT7OkSL8CO8Jxc8 hzyrvw15Dek4+gxgrAvtO3A8fVjrIP8p7EfajP3u538H18kP4BLSBfTfKjyCteRzPa+H4GxhzHYc KxBFmBNFshnp3xCP5L1QL92FEPb/4hLlt8BBNnZ4wo8XxnQK4w9iHh//czhUGGOGTSyXDHBPuM51 yJA7j/euiBdwzk+CG8fmK9Jd8l0cqwEdFyCGtJ8B+2tHtCG6Cug0XCFGRDHawyjvEochwSDZoBVj mzDXCFsbaNuMdeoo1L+7UL9Osc5mHFffUry4CxowxsWbIbwCsIyH+L7xEL9zdEouYcwxjO/mWvA7 6CT3dh7g5825N3gz92Kegor8d3SKseQSrPetAzNXhz8n54QJUom746t6+4Le9uhtM2u55tlmmy3L Nc2+xUjjbG09kk3e4ls1tpY6s81Tx+Qqb9fhetvNmWrbLcR7da22Vz2tttOIZsRxlJlf3Uy9baJu 4usT35s4K7RBZSXOsrlc9mbJ7V/uqSiqKGpLZ8mvvR1S+ldS+rKU/pqUHpXSX5bSfVJ6u5RuktIu Ke2Q0pukCtksm+QyuUQ2yrIsyoLMySBXZHM3vS62+StEEyOiwFpB500ca9lGxycBR2QOv+7oWj7E hcK9tN0Vykq5YdrmClFpcH8kQ8i0hlrKvZolMBLJkhxTnbGyU3sOCMmdOW8tUE0jITqfgFBcoY/C apYY8UFlUHsJNYcgNNJrgcrjPZYec3d5R1/gGU200LqeXhbXyis0OPUh2Mgx9vFFjl6WbG9ITBtG bVrXppk2rWsttfRCKByhM7UabWVMrlYjl31XvSfYe0BUDSYRUXru+JiFnoorSsZ7tfCC4IzGE2OM xpL0qpoMUK8aUDK+E88wn2BmnxrIwIngSCRzwpsMzPq8vqAaC2hzMEDimYbpVem+v5RuDhpI/F97 zJI467KBZRyYfkbGaWYeYBmnWcZplnHAO6BnDI6He0loMJKRoVfDw0enl7liI05V1GrXeitNk936 vHXZLa9YPxCAvAPFeBaX4HtdKYKZ3D63j5lwwTBTGXvlK5gsr3TZrR+QdwomE6rL1V5wHXN94XqZ XWAJjgcYsJK53Dx3atZsa3Vp7Jzh2BGEX3+4jXHSurwbRCmBOoOQ4MEoGhI8z9UUSUKCQLVc325x DZgeevoXPQOmR55+06IHejyLHoaWzfZye7kDG1zb8Fjh5x97DfAPPHHm9VPuOncDn33FYJ8Dnlzx lhVJUFMqVpeUPrCzbl0Dd0z3oKf/fstmUiGqG53btm7f0lrJ3Vi4+ObCwpsXFzhfni7op2Pr/9lP +x/7scsIryy/v3w7/wQDtorWoJTnBeSnC7yI/I/RCkIRSk/g/QJPYAOZKfAclJHfFnge9QsFXkD+ YYEXYQNnHpmaTB6MJZLKu8rIWFLpnzgycRRVin/ipcmJl2JHxyeOKJOHE01KIHY09h+cmllnSnji 8DGm+SepVM/SMBRFD4VCoEP9A8LbS2LbLShi0cHQJIU0u6Q2JoXXVvJiIZv/xclRZwd/hH/AycnR 1XpyWzvqUB7369yPcx9co7wF+3qu27Wp+o4aaK2iWZaXRkWpSYtVOh36oTcKO+NqPlnqIP47RIwK t0hxgwTXtAqPlBi5+AGWWFDKbZXCOaOCfq0T4jOpUEQ0+x16F4Ine0462m2mMGZG425XY4h5tBu+ Hly+Luyt1xd0wA5NG7En4w6ldEWcZygFVtRTDOEj5KwRdYc8FeaYCFtA/ro6I6/mfsU/tftkN9f5 Sq6mXGMDB/z/Gb3PZluQOt+4x1NuO1ftky/r0BL44fLluLbP/tv7ev19an1YLYat38v/EWAABzIy zAoNCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNMzYgMCBvYmo8PC9TdGVtViAwL0ZvbnROYW1lL0tMTklPTitT eW1ib2xNVC9Gb250U3RyZXRjaC9Ob3JtYWwvRm9udEZpbGUyIDM1IDAgUi9Gb250V2VpZ2h0IDQw MC9GbGFncyA0L0Rlc2NlbnQgLTIxOS9Gb250QkJveFswIC0yMjAgMTExMyAxMDA1XS9Bc2NlbnQg MTAwNS9Gb250RmFtaWx5KFN5bWJvbCkvQ2FwSGVpZ2h0IDAvVHlwZS9Gb250RGVzY3JpcHRvci9J dGFsaWNBbmdsZSAwPj4NZW5kb2JqDTM3IDAgb2JqPDwvU3VidHlwZS9DSURGb250VHlwZTIvRm9u dERlc2NyaXB0b3IgMzYgMCBSL0Jhc2VGb250L0tMTklPTitTeW1ib2xNVC9XWzEyMFs0NTldXS9D SURTeXN0ZW1JbmZvPDwvU3VwcGxlbWVudCAwL09yZGVyaW5nKElkZW50aXR5KS9SZWdpc3RyeShB ZG9iZSk+Pi9EVyAxMDAwL1R5cGUvRm9udD4+DWVuZG9iag0zOCAwIG9iajw8L0xlbmd0aCAyMTcv RmlsdGVyL0ZsYXRlRGVjb2RlPj5zdHJlYW0NCkiJVFA9T8QwDN3zKzyCGJKLkI6h6nIsHfgQLey5 xC2RqBO56dB/TxK1hxhsy89+es+Wl+65I59AvnOwPSYYPTnGJaxsEa44eYKTBudt2rua7WwiyEzu tyXh3NEYoGmE/MjDJfEGd8NwflD3IN/YIXuaMvKoP78y0q8x/uCMlEBB24LDUcjLi4mvZkaQlfgH DltE0LU/7drB4RKNRTY0ITRKnZ/aoyC5//ODdR3tt2FxbGuldSvy9o4XXrnp5sOuzNliPbwaKRY8 4e03McSiVkL8CjAA6lJqlAoNCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNMzkgMCBvYmo8PC9TdGVtViAxMTYu ODY3L0ZvbnROYW1lL1RpbWVzTmV3Um9tYW5QUy1Cb2xkSXRhbGljTVQvRm9udFN0cmV0Y2gvTm9y bWFsL0ZvbnRXZWlnaHQgNzAwL0ZsYWdzIDk4L0Rlc2NlbnQgLTIxNi9Gb250QkJveFstNTQ3IC0z MDcgMTIwNiAxMDMyXS9Bc2NlbnQgODkxL0ZvbnRGYW1pbHkoVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuKS9DYXBI ZWlnaHQgNjU2L1hIZWlnaHQgLTUzMS9UeXBlL0ZvbnREZXNjcmlwdG9yL0l0YWxpY0FuZ2xlIC0x NT4+DWVuZG9iag00MCAwIG9iajw8L1N0ZW1WIDcxLjc0Mi9Gb250TmFtZS9UaW1lc05ld1JvbWFu UFMtSXRhbGljTVQvRm9udFN0cmV0Y2gvTm9ybWFsL0ZvbnRXZWlnaHQgNDAwL0ZsYWdzIDk4L0Rl c2NlbnQgLTIxNi9Gb250QkJveFstNDk4IC0zMDcgMTEyMCAxMDIzXS9Bc2NlbnQgODkxL0ZvbnRG YW1pbHkoVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuKS9DYXBIZWlnaHQgNjU2L1hIZWlnaHQgLTU0Ni9UeXBlL0Zv bnREZXNjcmlwdG9yL0l0YWxpY0FuZ2xlIC0xNT4+DWVuZG9iag00MSAwIG9iajw8L09QTSAxL09Q IGZhbHNlL29wIGZhbHNlL1R5cGUvRXh0R1N0YXRlL1NBIGZhbHNlL1NNIDAuMDI+Pg1lbmRvYmoN NDIgMCBvYmo8PC9PUE0gMS9PUCBmYWxzZS9vcCBmYWxzZS9UeXBlL0V4dEdTdGF0ZS9TQSB0cnVl L1NNIDAuMDI+Pg1lbmRvYmoNMSAwIG9iajw8L051bXNbMCAyIDAgUl0+Pg1lbmRvYmoNMiAwIG9i ajw8L1MvRD4+DWVuZG9iag0zIDAgb2JqPDwvQ291bnQgMS9UeXBlL1BhZ2VzL0tpZHNbOCAwIFJd Pj4NZW5kb2JqDTQgMCBvYmo8PC9TdWJ0eXBlL1hNTC9MZW5ndGggMzU1OS9UeXBlL01ldGFkYXRh Pj5zdHJlYW0NCjw/eHBhY2tldCBiZWdpbj0i77u/IiBpZD0iVzVNME1wQ2VoaUh6cmVTek5UY3pr YzlkIj8+Cjx4OnhtcG1ldGEgeG1sbnM6eD0iYWRvYmU6bnM6bWV0YS8iIHg6eG1wdGs9IjMuMS03 MDEiPgogICA8cmRmOlJERiB4bWxuczpyZGY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzE5OTkvMDIvMjIt cmRmLXN5bnRheC1ucyMiPgogICAgICA8cmRmOkRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIHJkZjphYm91dD0iIgogICAg ICAgICAgICB4bWxuczpwZGY9Imh0dHA6Ly9ucy5hZG9iZS5jb20vcGRmLzEuMy8iPgogICAgICAg ICA8cGRmOlByb2R1Y2VyPkFjcm9iYXQgRGlzdGlsbGVyIDcuMCAoV2luZG93cyk8L3BkZjpQcm9k dWNlcj4KICAgICAgPC9yZGY6RGVzY3JpcHRpb24+CiAgICAgIDxyZGY6RGVzY3JpcHRpb24gcmRm OmFib3V0PSIiCiAgICAgICAgICAgIHhtbG5zOnhhcD0iaHR0cDovL25zLmFkb2JlLmNvbS94YXAv MS4wLyI+CiAgICAgICAgIDx4YXA6Q3JlYXRvclRvb2w+UFNjcmlwdDUuZGxsIFZlcnNpb24gNS4y PC94YXA6Q3JlYXRvclRvb2w+CiAgICAgICAgIDx4YXA6TW9kaWZ5RGF0ZT4yMDA1LTA3LTIxVDE1 OjU3OjAyKzAxOjAwPC94YXA6TW9kaWZ5RGF0ZT4KICAgICAgICAgPHhhcDpDcmVhdGVEYXRlPjIw MDUtMDctMjFUMTU6NTc6MDIrMDE6MDA8L3hhcDpDcmVhdGVEYXRlPgogICAgICA8L3JkZjpEZXNj cmlwdGlvbj4KICAgICAgPHJkZjpEZXNjcmlwdGlvbiByZGY6YWJvdXQ9IiIKICAgICAgICAgICAg eG1sbnM6ZGM9Imh0dHA6Ly9wdXJsLm9yZy9kYy9lbGVtZW50cy8xLjEvIj4KICAgICAgICAgPGRj OmZvcm1hdD5hcHBsaWNhdGlvbi9wZGY8L2RjOmZvcm1hdD4KICAgICAgICAgPGRjOnRpdGxlPgog ICAgICAgICAgICA8cmRmOkFsdD4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHJkZjpsaSB4bWw6bGFuZz0ieC1k ZWZhdWx0Ij5NaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAtIE5ldHdvcmtpbmcyMDA2Q0ZQdjEwLmRvYzwvcmRmOmxp PgogICAgICAgICAgICA8L3JkZjpBbHQ+CiAgICAgICAgIDwvZGM6dGl0bGU+CiAgICAgICAgIDxk YzpjcmVhdG9yPgogICAgICAgICAgICA8cmRmOlNlcT4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHJkZjpsaT5F ZG11bmRvIE1vbnRlaXJvPC9yZGY6bGk+CiAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvcmRmOlNlcT4KICAgICAgICAg PC9kYzpjcmVhdG9yPgogICAgICA8L3JkZjpEZXNjcmlwdGlvbj4KICAgICAgPHJkZjpEZXNjcmlw dGlvbiByZGY6YWJvdXQ9IiIKICAgICAgICAgICAgeG1sbnM6eGFwTU09Imh0dHA6Ly9ucy5hZG9i ZS5jb20veGFwLzEuMC9tbS8iPgogICAgICAgICA8eGFwTU06RG9jdW1lbnRJRD51dWlkOjhlMmUz YTkzLWM2NWItNDY5Ni05MmJiLWRhMjlhMGY4YjI4ZjwveGFwTU06RG9jdW1lbnRJRD4KICAgICAg ICAgPHhhcE1NOkluc3RhbmNlSUQ+dXVpZDphOGVlNmEzMi00Yjg5LTRiOGMtOTZmMy02MWI5ODVi YjRiMDU8L3hhcE1NOkluc3RhbmNlSUQ+CiAgICAgIDwvcmRmOkRlc2NyaXB0aW9uPgogICA8L3Jk ZjpSREY+CjwveDp4bXBtZXRhPgogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCjw/eHBhY2tldCBlbmQ9InciPz4NCmVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmoNNSAw IG9iajw8L0NyZWF0aW9uRGF0ZShEOjIwMDUwNzIxMTU1NzAyKzAxJzAwJykvQXV0aG9yKEVkbXVu ZG8gTW9udGVpcm8pL0NyZWF0b3IoUFNjcmlwdDUuZGxsIFZlcnNpb24gNS4yKS9Qcm9kdWNlcihB Y3JvYmF0IERpc3RpbGxlciA3LjAgXChXaW5kb3dzXCkpL01vZERhdGUoRDoyMDA1MDcyMTE1NTcw MiswMScwMCcpL1RpdGxlKE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIC0gTmV0d29ya2luZzIwMDZDRlB2MTAuZG9j KT4+DWVuZG9iag14cmVmDQowIDYNCjAwMDAwMDAwMDAgNjU1MzUgZg0KMDAwMDA1NDUxMCAwMDAw MCBuDQowMDAwMDU0NTQzIDAwMDAwIG4NCjAwMDAwNTQ1NjYgMDAwMDAgbg0KMDAwMDA1NDYxNiAw MDAwMCBuDQowMDAwMDU4MjUxIDAwMDAwIG4NCnRyYWlsZXINCjw8L1NpemUgNj4+DQpzdGFydHhy ZWYNCjExNg0KJSVFT0YNCg== ------=_NextPart_000_038D_01C58E44.7CD632E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt ------=_NextPart_000_038D_01C58E44.7CD632E0-- From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 22 11:01:51 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvz27-0006Cu-Ao; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:01:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvz25-0006Cl-Tz for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:01:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22563 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cluster-d.mailcontrol.com ([217.69.20.190] helo=rly16d.srv.mailcontrol.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvzWB-0000fP-TY for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:33:06 -0400 Received: from hhe500-02.hbg.de.pan.eu (gate.eu.panasonic.com [194.173.20.12]) by rly16d.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with SMTP id j6MF1T6S013522 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:01:29 +0100 Received: from eundadmi01.pan.eu(10.100.96.64) by hhe500-02.hbg.de.pan.eu via smtp id 1870_a8f4d7de_fac1_11d9_8016_0030482aac25; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:02:45 +0200 Received: from VPN-MRelay-01.PRDCG.Panasonic.de ([10.100.176.55]) by eundadmi01.pan.eu (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.2) with ESMTP id 2005072217012287-58682 ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:01:22 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by VPN-MRelay-01.PRDCG.Panasonic.de for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:03:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: Simple estimate for Nr. of retransmissions (WAS:RE: [AVT] IESG comments on draft-ietf-avr-rtp-retransmission-11.txt- Issue 4: more parameters needed for RTX?) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:58:49 +0200 Message-ID: <4D2F935F08D41A4C8866693F4F0D7C4F31EA09@lan-ex-01.panasonic.de> Thread-Topic: Simple estimate for Nr. of retransmissions (WAS:RE: [AVT] IESG comments on draft-ietf-avr-rtp-retransmission-11.txt- Issue 4: more parameters needed for RTX?) Thread-Index: AcWOzRFIeSO/tta4QXiiRuvtfGDnXw== To: "IETF AVT WG" From: "Jose Rey" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Scanned-By: MailControl A-05-01-05 (www.mailcontrol.com) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 223e3c753032a50d5dc4443c921c3fcd Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org [warning: long email!] Hi all, Following Marks' suggestions (quoted email below) I will try to draft an algorithm for finding out a simple estimate of the default number of retransmissions (per packet) that a streaming client and server using RTX should attempt in order to minimise the packet loss, while considering the available RTCP bandwidth and the client buffering time (both values usually known to the client). The algorithm also requires knowledge of the RTT, which shall be known at the client at least (?). The absolute minimum number of retransmission attempts should of course be one, but the algorithm tries to extract the highest number possible. This email shall be thought as a first version; there many assumptions I made and some of them might be wrong. As a result of these simplifications, the estimate seems overly conservative but that might even be good. I would like to get feedback if people think this is reasonable, in the first place. I have not experimented with this since I don't have the resources to do so. Also, it would useful to know if this would help someone creating SDP sessions using RTX to get an idea of the factors to take into account. Here it goes: Scenario =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D * streaming scenario; two RTP entities:server and client * retransmission draft used * RTCP bandwidth for SRs and RRs =3D 5% (default), 2,5% for server and client. * RTP bandwidths of 64, 128, 256 and 512 kbps=20 * RTT =3D 200ms * RTCP RR compound packet size of 44 bytes containing: 1 RR, 1 SDES item with CNAME, no encryption header, no profile specific extensions. This ignores the other RR that could be present because of SSRC multiplexing since it is not useful for the calculation * AVPF Generic NACKs used for requesting retransmissions: this add 16 bytes of overhead to the RR for reporting a 16bit mask and 4 bytes more every multiple of 16: 20 for 32, 24 for 48, etc. * We assume 1 packet loss every RTCP * We assume that the additional retransmissions queued on sender don't add any delay to the first-time transmissions.=20 Observations: 1.- The RTCP_interval at which the client sends retransmission requests shall be greater than the RTT. This is logical otherwise the retransmissions don't have enough time to be received.=20 + this means for higher RTP bandwidths the default (5% RTP bw for RTCP) may yield two small RTCP_intervals which have to be adapted using bandwidth modifiers, so that the resulting RTCP intervals are >=3D RTT + For this it is required that the creator of the SDP session has an estimate of the RTT. 2.- We assume a worst-case scenario at which a new Generic NACK report block is added every to every new RTCP compound RR. This may be too conservative for some scenarios where the packet rate is low but it is realistic for others like video at 30fps (which may yield in more than 30 packets per second). =20 3.- We assume that each packet exhausts its corresponding number of available retransmissions, N. This means that if a packet is requested for retransmission a maximum of two times, the corresponding generic NACK report block requesting that particular packet is sent in two consecutive RTCP compounds; likewise, if it is requested for retransmission 10 times, then the RTCP compound contains that generic NACK 10 times. This assumption fixes the RTCP packet size (leaving out the averaging with SR packets) to the same value after N*RTCP_interval seconds, namely to 44 bytes + 12 bytes (fixed Generic NACK headers) + 4*N =3D 56 bytes + 4*N Solution =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D In the diagram below, the worst case situation for singleton losses is represented (first packet SN=3D0 is lost). There, the client buffering time required to allocate at least one retransmission is T=3D T1+T2+ (T3+T4+T1+T2). The first term accounts for the downlink one-way-delay and the lost packet detection time (due to reordering buffer). The second (in brackets) additionally includes the feedback transmission on the uplink channel and the processing and queueing delay. In detail: T1=3D physical delay DL + transmission delay DL = (=3Davg-packet-size/downlink bitrate) + interarrival delay jitter T2=3D packet-loss-detection-time + time-to-next-client-rtcp-report T3=3D physical delay UL + transmission delay UL + interarrival delay jitter T4=3D feedback processing time + queuing time Sender +-+---------------------------------^-----\----------------- \ \ / \ \ \ | | SN=3D0 \ \ SN=3D1 SN=3Dn / \ RTX(SN=3D0) \ \ / \ X \ / \ `. / \ \ / \ \ | | \ / \ ...... \ / \ -------------V-------------/-----------------------V-------- T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 ........ Receiver If there should more than one retransmission required, say N, just multiply the second term by N. This means that the client buffering time required assure N retransmissions is T1+T2 + N*(T3+T4+T1+T2) . Now we have to find out or simplify each term Ti. We start with T1+T2. We know that T1+T3 is ~=3DRTT, so T1 ~=3D T3 ~=3D RTT/2. On the other = hand, the worst case T2~=3Dinterarrival delay jitter + RTCP_interval ~=3D RTCP_interval (?). So T1+T2 < 2*RTCP_interval. T4 is probably very small so we ignore it (?). =20 If these approximations are acceptable (T3+T4+T1+T2)~=3D RTT+ RTCP_interval_client <=3D 2*RTCP_interval_client (as per observation 1 above). Summarising, the *very conservative* client buffering time required to guarantee N retransmissions is N* 2* RTCP_interval_client.=20 T =3D 2*RTCP_interval_client + 2*N*RTCP_interval_client =3D 2* (N+1)* RTCP_interval_client Numbers: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Some numerical examples for RTT~=3D200ms Table 1 RTCP_interval_client vs. N Required Client Buffering Time vs. N [s] =09 1 2 5 7 10 1 2 5 7 10 RTP bps RTCP bps=09 64000 1600 0.3 0.32 0.38 0.42 0.48 1.2 1.92 4.56 6.72 10.56 128000 3200 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.6 0.96 2.28 3.36 5.28 256000 6400 0.08 0.08 0.095 0.105 0.12 0.3 0.48 1.14 1.68 2.64 512000 12800 0.04 0.04 0.048 0.053 0.06 0.15 0.24 0.57 0.84 1.32 Table 2 presents basically the same result as in Table 1 *only* that those RTCP_intervals < RTT have been replaced with RTT!! RTCP_interval_client vs. N Required Client Buffering Time vs. N [s]=09 1 2 5 7 10 1 2 5 7 10 RTP bps RTCP bps=09 64000 1600 0.3 0.32 0.38 0.42 0.48 1.2 1.92 4.56 6.72 10.56 128000 3200 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.21 0.24 0.8 1.2 2.4 3.36 5.28 256000 6400 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.24 0.8 1.2 2.4 3.2 5.28 512000 12800 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.24 0.8 1.2 2.4 3.2 5.28 Summary =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The conservative estimate for the number of possible retransmissions as a function of the client buffering time and the RTCP_client_interval, under the assumptions given would be then: N=3D [Client-buffering-time / 2* RTCP_interval_client] -1=20 >From the Tables it can be seen that the estimate does not result in excessive buffer requirements. =20 Comments? --------------------------------------------- Jose Rey mailto:jose.rey@eu.panasonic.com P R D C G - Panasonic R&D Center Germany GmbH Phone/Fax: +49(0)6103766-134/166 ---------------------------------------------=20 --quote > >>This still sounds like a big dose of handwaving to me. Can=20 > you not at=20 > >>least include some min/max here so you are sure that=20 > packets don't get=20 > >>lost? A recommended default that would at least *work* and=20 > not cause=20 > >>lost packets? Sure, leave room for optimization based on bandwidth=20 > >>modifiers, specific configuration, etc. but I'm afraid that=20 > without a=20 > >>starting point or specific algorithm you could end up with widely=20 > >>variant choices here from future implementations (unless,=20 > as I said,=20 > >>people just go figure out what vendor x does and copy it, in which=20 > >>case it should have just been in the spec). > >> > >=20 > >=20 > > Of course, the minimum is one. For enabling at least one=20 > rtx per packet, the server is only required to save it for=20 > some period of time. This time has several components: > >=20 > > 1- the time that the client takes to notice the loss. For=20 > single tone losses this is when the next packet comes (taking=20 > out reordering buffer now), that is the intearrivel jitter plus > > 2- the time it has to wait until the next RTCP send time,=20 > which is ~1/2*RTCP interval if we assume uniform=20 > distribution,which is common plus > > 3- the time it takes for the server to process rtx request=20 > (ignore it?) > > 4- 1 RTT to account for the initial (failed) tx and the=20 > time it takes for the rtx packet to the client > >=20 > > For more than 1, just multiply. =20 > >=20 > > This is a rough & quick analysis using common sense but I=20 > haven't experimented with this. For bursty losses this is=20 > more complex, of course (term 2 is complex). Reordering is a=20 > fixed delay, more or less. > >=20 > > The maximum can be calculated in the same way by using up=20 > the available buffer. =20 > >=20 > > For the time being, one could make a table with link=20 > bandwidths, typical RTTs and what the buffer amount should be=20 > as f(RTT) for different RTCP bws, at least for the default=20 > 5%. As well as for the maximum rtxs that the buffer allows. > >=20 > > Does this make sense? >=20 > Yes, it is at least something for an implementation to go by.=20 > Since you mention=20 > that you haven't experimented with this, I assume there is not much=20 > implementation of such a method? I was hoping that there were some=20 > implementations to try and document here rather than=20 > designing on the fly based=20 > on my comments. If this is brand new, perhaps you could pass=20 > the table and=20 > algorithm by the WG in a separate thread to see if there is=20 > consensus for it. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > - Mark _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 22 11:27:51 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvzRH-0001Ua-P1; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:27:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvzRG-0001UU-Go for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:27:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25712 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cluster-d.mailcontrol.com ([217.69.20.190] helo=rly13d.srv.mailcontrol.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvzvS-0001oY-Cd for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:59:07 -0400 Received: from hhe500-02.hbg.de.pan.eu (gate.eu.panasonic.com [194.173.20.12]) by rly13d.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with SMTP id j6MFRWYC021218 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:27:32 +0100 Received: from eundadmi01.pan.eu(10.100.96.64) by hhe500-02.hbg.de.pan.eu via smtp id 1817_4d00fa30_fac5_11d9_93c6_0030482aac25; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:28:48 +0200 Received: from VPN-MRelay-01.PRDCG.Panasonic.de ([10.100.176.55]) by eundadmi01.pan.eu (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.2) with ESMTP id 2005072217272858-59630 ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:27:28 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by VPN-MRelay-01.PRDCG.Panasonic.de for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:29:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: Re-send: Simple estimate for Nr. of retransmissions (WAS:RE: [AVT] IESG comments on draft-ietf-avr-rtp-retransmission-11.txt- Issue 4: more parameters needed for RTX?) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:25:05 +0200 Message-ID: <4D2F935F08D41A4C8866693F4F0D7C4F31EA0E@lan-ex-01.panasonic.de> Thread-Topic: Re-send: Simple estimate for Nr. of retransmissions (WAS:RE: [AVT] IESG comments on draft-ietf-avr-rtp-retransmission-11.txt- Issue 4: more parameters needed for RTX?) Thread-Index: AcWOzRFIeSO/tta4QXiiRuvtfGDnXw== To: "IETF AVT WG" From: "Jose Rey" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Scanned-By: MailControl A-05-01-05 (www.mailcontrol.com) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bfe538a859d88717fa3c8a6377d62f90 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi again! the ML formatting messed up the tables so I send it again --- [warning: long email!] Hi all, Following Marks' suggestions (quoted email below) I will try to draft an algorithm for finding out a simple estimate of the default number of retransmissions (per packet) that a streaming client and server using RTX should attempt in order to minimise the packet loss, while considering the available RTCP bandwidth and the client buffering time (both values usually known to the client). The algorithm also requires knowledge of the RTT, which shall be known at the client at least (?). The absolute minimum number of retransmission attempts should of course be one, but the algorithm tries to extract the highest number possible. This email shall be thought as a first version; there many assumptions I made and some of them might be wrong. As a result of these simplifications, the estimate seems overly conservative but that might even be good. I would like to get feedback if people think this is reasonable, in the first place. I have not experimented with this since I don't have the resources to do so. Also, it would useful to know if this would help someone creating SDP sessions using RTX to get an idea of the factors to take into account. Here it goes: Scenario =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D * streaming scenario; two RTP entities:server and client * retransmission draft used * RTCP bandwidth for SRs and RRs =3D 5% (default), 2,5% for server and client. * RTP bandwidths of 64, 128, 256 and 512 kbps=20 * RTT =3D 200ms * RTCP RR compound packet size of 44 bytes containing: 1 RR, 1 SDES item with CNAME, no encryption header, no profile specific extensions. This ignores the other RR that could be present because of SSRC multiplexing since it is not useful for the calculation * AVPF Generic NACKs used for requesting retransmissions: this add 16 bytes of overhead to the RR for reporting a 16bit mask and 4 bytes more every multiple of 16: 20 for 32, 24 for 48, etc. * We assume 1 packet loss every RTCP * We assume that the additional retransmissions queued on sender don't add any delay to the first-time transmissions.=20 Observations: 1.- The RTCP_interval at which the client sends retransmission requests shall be greater than the RTT. This is logical otherwise the retransmissions don't have enough time to be received.=20 + this means for higher RTP bandwidths the default (5% RTP bw for RTCP) may yield two small RTCP_intervals which have to be adapted using bandwidth modifiers, so that the resulting RTCP intervals are >=3D RTT + For this it is required that the creator of the SDP session has an estimate of the RTT. 2.- We assume a worst-case scenario at which a new Generic NACK report block is added every to every new RTCP compound RR. This may be too conservative for some scenarios where the packet rate is low but it is realistic for others like video at 30fps (which may yield in more than 30 packets per second). =20 3.- We assume that each packet exhausts its corresponding number of available retransmissions, N. This means that if a packet is requested for retransmission a maximum of two times, the corresponding generic NACK report block requesting that particular packet is sent in two consecutive RTCP compounds; likewise, if it is requested for retransmission 10 times, then the RTCP compound contains that generic NACK 10 times. This assumption fixes the RTCP packet size (leaving out the averaging with SR packets) to the same value after N*RTCP_interval seconds, namely to 44 bytes + 12 bytes (fixed Generic NACK headers) + 4*N =3D 56 bytes + 4*N Solution =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D In the diagram below, the worst case situation for singleton losses is represented (first packet SN=3D0 is lost). There, the client buffering time required to allocate at least one retransmission is T=3D T1+T2+ (T3+T4+T1+T2). The first term accounts for the downlink one-way-delay and the lost packet detection time (due to reordering buffer). The second (in brackets) additionally includes the feedback transmission on the uplink channel and the processing and queueing delay. In detail: T1=3D physical delay DL + transmission delay DL = (=3Davg-packet-size/downlink bitrate) + interarrival delay jitter T2=3D packet-loss-detection-time + time-to-next-client-rtcp-report T3=3D physical delay UL + transmission delay UL + interarrival delay jitter T4=3D feedback processing time + queuing time Sender +-+---------------------------------^-----\----------------- \ \ / \ \ \ | | SN=3D0 \ \ SN=3D1 SN=3Dn / \ RTX(SN=3D0) \ \ / \ X \ / \ `. / \ \ / \ \ | | \ / \ ...... \ / \ -------------V-------------/-----------------------V-------- T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 ........ Receiver If there should more than one retransmission required, say N, just multiply the second term by N. This means that the client buffering time required assure N retransmissions is T1+T2 + N*(T3+T4+T1+T2) . Now we have to find out or simplify each term Ti. We start with T1+T2. We know that T1+T3 is ~=3DRTT, so T1 ~=3D T3 ~=3D RTT/2. On the other = hand, the worst case T2~=3Dinterarrival delay jitter + RTCP_interval ~=3D RTCP_interval (?). So T1+T2 < 2*RTCP_interval. T4 is probably very small so we ignore it (?). =20 If these approximations are acceptable (T3+T4+T1+T2)~=3D RTT+ RTCP_interval_client <=3D 2*RTCP_interval_client (as per observation 1 above). Summarising, the *very conservative* client buffering time required to guarantee N retransmissions is N* 2* RTCP_interval_client.=20 T =3D 2*RTCP_interval_client + 2*N*RTCP_interval_client =3D 2* (N+1)* RTCP_interval_client Numbers: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Some numerical examples for RTT~=3D200ms Table 1 RTCP_interval_client vs. N 1 2 5 7 10=09 RTP bps RTCP bps=09 64000 1600 0.3 0.32 0.38 0.42 0.48 128000 3200 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.24=09 256000 6400 0.08 0.08 0.095 0.105 0.12=09 512000 12800 0.04 0.04 0.048 0.053 0.06=09 Required Client Buffering Time vs. N [s] 1 2 5 7 10 RTP bps RTCP bps=09 64000 1600 1.2 1.92 4.56 6.72 10.56 128000 3200 0.6 0.96 2.28 3.36 5.28 256000 6400 0.3 0.48 1.14 1.68 2.64 512000 12800 0.15 0.24 0.57 0.84 1.32 Table 2 presents basically the same result as in Table 1 *only* that those RTCP_intervals < RTT have been replaced with RTT!! RTCP_interval_client vs. N=09 1 2 5 7 10=09 RTP bps RTCP bps=09 64000 1600 0.3 0.32 0.38 0.42 0.48=09 128000 3200 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.21 0.24=09 256000 6400 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.24=09 512000 12800 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.24=09 Required Client Buffering Time vs. N [s] 1 2 5 7 10 RTP bps RTCP bps=09 64000 1600 1.2 1.92 4.56 6.72 10.56 128000 3200 0.8 1.2 2.4 3.36 5.28 256000 6400 0.8 1.2 2.4 3.2 5.28 512000 12800 0.8 1.2 2.4 3.2 5.28 Summary =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The conservative estimate for the number of possible retransmissions as a function of the client buffering time and the RTCP_client_interval, under the assumptions given would be then: N=3D [Client-buffering-time / 2* RTCP_interval_client] -1=20 >From the Tables it can be seen that the estimate does not result in excessive buffer requirements. =20 Comments? --------------------------------------------- Jose Rey mailto:jose.rey@eu.panasonic.com P R D C G - Panasonic R&D Center Germany GmbH Phone/Fax: +49(0)6103766-134/166 ---------------------------------------------=20 --quote > >>This still sounds like a big dose of handwaving to me. Can=20 > you not at=20 > >>least include some min/max here so you are sure that=20 > packets don't get=20 > >>lost? A recommended default that would at least *work* and=20 > not cause=20 > >>lost packets? Sure, leave room for optimization based on bandwidth=20 > >>modifiers, specific configuration, etc. but I'm afraid that=20 > without a=20 > >>starting point or specific algorithm you could end up with widely=20 > >>variant choices here from future implementations (unless,=20 > as I said,=20 > >>people just go figure out what vendor x does and copy it, in which=20 > >>case it should have just been in the spec). > >> > >=20 > >=20 > > Of course, the minimum is one. For enabling at least one=20 > rtx per packet, the server is only required to save it for=20 > some period of time. This time has several components: > >=20 > > 1- the time that the client takes to notice the loss. For=20 > single tone losses this is when the next packet comes (taking=20 > out reordering buffer now), that is the intearrivel jitter plus > > 2- the time it has to wait until the next RTCP send time,=20 > which is ~1/2*RTCP interval if we assume uniform=20 > distribution,which is common plus > > 3- the time it takes for the server to process rtx request=20 > (ignore it?) > > 4- 1 RTT to account for the initial (failed) tx and the=20 > time it takes for the rtx packet to the client > >=20 > > For more than 1, just multiply. =20 > >=20 > > This is a rough & quick analysis using common sense but I=20 > haven't experimented with this. For bursty losses this is=20 > more complex, of course (term 2 is complex). Reordering is a=20 > fixed delay, more or less. > >=20 > > The maximum can be calculated in the same way by using up=20 > the available buffer. =20 > >=20 > > For the time being, one could make a table with link=20 > bandwidths, typical RTTs and what the buffer amount should be=20 > as f(RTT) for different RTCP bws, at least for the default=20 > 5%. As well as for the maximum rtxs that the buffer allows. > >=20 > > Does this make sense? >=20 > Yes, it is at least something for an implementation to go by.=20 > Since you mention=20 > that you haven't experimented with this, I assume there is not much=20 > implementation of such a method? I was hoping that there were some=20 > implementations to try and document here rather than=20 > designing on the fly based=20 > on my comments. If this is brand new, perhaps you could pass=20 > the table and=20 > algorithm by the WG in a separate thread to see if there is=20 > consensus for it. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > - Mark _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt From avt-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 22 12:04:00 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dw00G-0007iw-2U; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:04:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dw00D-0007ii-V2 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:03:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28289 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:03:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dw0UU-0003E4-8K for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:35:14 -0400 Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 59AE310E5; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:03:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.172]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:03:45 +0200 Received: from ericsson.com ([147.214.97.151]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:03:45 +0200 Message-ID: <42E118E1.9080007@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:03:45 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mats_N=E4slund?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guoqiang Lu Subject: Re: [AVT] SRTCP key derivation References: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB04C3304A@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com> In-Reply-To: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB04C3304A@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2005 16:03:45.0411 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0357D30:01C58ED6] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 22bbb45ef41b733eb2d03ee71ece8243 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Karl Norrman \(KI/EAB\)" , mcgrew@cisco.com, avt@ietf.org X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I think the RFC is quite clear on this issue. (Perhaps there isn't a "one-liner" that tells you this in one shot, but all information is there). First, notice that what really matters is the format/size of "index DIV key_derivation_rate", because that is what is input to the KDF. The RFC says: Let "a DIV t" denote integer division of a by t, rounded down, and with the convention that "a DIV 0 =3D 0" for all a. We also make the convention of treating "a DIV t" as a bit string of the same length as a, and thus "a DIV t" will in general have leading zeros. This means that when it later states: * Let r =3D index DIV key_derivation_rate (with DIV as defined above= ). * Let key_id =3D