> On Aug 24, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Jonathan Lennox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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?
I am informed that the term I’m looking for (meaning when you can’t decode a packet if you’re missing a previous one) is “bitstream dependency”. So perhaps" “The codec should support mechanisms that allow individual packets to be sent in common network protocols without bitstream dependency between the packets.” Thoughts? _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
