> On Aug 24, 2016, at 6:35 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jonathan Lennox wrote: >> One thing I would like to see in the document (probably in the error >> resilience section, 3.2.5) is an explicit requirement to support >> independently-decodable subframes that can be MTU-targeted by an encoder. >> This is very important for error resilience for RTP-packetized streams. >> (See RFC 2736, to which an informative reference probably wouldn’t be out of >> order.) > > In general I support this idea, but I'm a little wary of writing this > requirement in a way that specifies a solution (independently-decodable > subframes) instead of the problem it solves. Any ideas for actual text we > could use?
I’m not sure how best to phrase it, maybe something like: The codec should support mechanisms such that individual packets sent in common network protocols can be decoded even when other packets are lost. But it’s not clear to me that a) it’s clear what this text means if you haven’t read this thread, or b) whether the text seems to imply that you have to be able to decode successfully even if you’re missing a reference frame, which clearly won’t be the case. Any wordsmithing suggestions? _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
