Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework

Watson, Mark A.; Begen, Ali C.; Roca, Vincent

doi:10.17487/rfc6363

Cited by 45 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…RTP packets also contain a sequence number in bits 16-31 of the header but up to eight MPEG-2 packets are typically contained in an RTP packet, limiting its header's use in detecting erasures. Notice also that RFC 6363 [41] describes a framework for transporting systematic codes in two RTP streams, similarly to the arrangement already shown in Figure 3.…”

Section: Comparison Across Channel Codesmentioning

confidence: 91%

Video over DSL with LDGM Codes for Interactive Applications

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) network access is subject to error bursts, which, for interactive video, can introduce unacceptable latencies if video packets need to be re-sent. If the video packets are protected against errors with Forward Error Correction (FEC), calculation of the application-layer channel codes themselves may also introduce additional latency. This paper proposes Low-Density Generator Matrix (LDGM) codes rather than other popular codes because they are more suitable for interactive video streaming, not only for their computational simplicity but also for their licensing advantage. The paper demonstrates that a reduction of up to 4 dB in video distortion is achievable with LDGM Application Layer (AL) FEC. In addition, an extension to the LDGM scheme is demonstrated, which works by rearranging the columns of the parity check matrix so as to make it even more resilient to burst errors. Telemedicine and video conferencing are typical target applications.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Across Channel Codesmentioning

confidence: 91%

Video over DSL with LDGM Codes for Interactive Applications

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This document uses all the definitions and abbreviations from Section 2 of [RFC6363] minus the RFC 2119 requirements language.…”

Section: Definitions/abbreviationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the general security considerations related to the FEC Framework, refer to [RFC6363]. For the security considerations related to the SDP elements in the FEC Framework, refer to [RFC6364].…”

Section: Security Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. The Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework (described in [RFC6363]) and SDP Elements for FEC Framework (described in [RFC6364]) together define mechanisms sufficient enough to build an actual Content Delivery Protocol (CDP) with FEC protection. Methods to convey FEC Framework Configuration Information (described in [RFC6695]), on the other hand, provide the signaling protocols that may be used as part of CDP to communicate FEC-Scheme-Specific Information from FEC sender to a single as well as multiple FEC receivers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Methods to convey FEC Framework Configuration Information (described in [RFC6695]), on the other hand, provide the signaling protocols that may be used as part of CDP to communicate FEC-Scheme-Specific Information from FEC sender to a single as well as multiple FEC receivers. This document provides a guideline on how the mechanisms defined in [RFC6363] and [RFC6364] can be sufficiently used to design a CDP over a non-trivial scenario, namely, protection of multiple source flows with one or more repair flows.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (CDP) for Protecting Multiple Source Flows in the Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework

Kozat¹,

Begen²

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document provides a pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (CDP) to protect multiple source flows with one or more repair flows based on the Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework and the Session Description Protocol (SDP) elements defined for the framework. The purpose of the document is not to provide a full-fledged protocol but to show how the defined framework and SDP elements can be combined together to implement a CDP.

show abstract

Transport Protocols for 3D Video

Kordelas

Politis

Ekmekcioǧlu

2013

3D Future Internet Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The multi-view three-dimensional video streaming is emerging as an important technology for future multimedia services. During the last decade, an explosive growth of video applications over the Internet has occurred, resulting to the demand of better network performance. This includes the need to extend video coding and transport protocols as well as to discover new protocols that will guarantee the delivery of real-time high-quality 3D video to consumers. This chapter provides an extended overview of the most widely used media transport protocols MPEG2-TS and RTP on top of scalable video bitstreams. Nevertheless, these protocols have several limitations and are missing key functionalities. Hence, this chapter provides a description of the most recent developments in the MPEG media transport protocol, which is emerging as the next state-of-the-art application layer transport protocol.

show abstract

Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework

Cited by 45 publications

References 13 publications

Video over DSL with LDGM Codes for Interactive Applications

Video over DSL with LDGM Codes for Interactive Applications

Pseudo Content Delivery Protocol (CDP) for Protecting Multiple Source Flows in the Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework

Transport Protocols for 3D Video

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About