TSVWG | V. Roca |
Internet-Draft | INRIA |
Intended status: Standards Track | A. Begen |
Expires: August 28, 2017 | Networked Media |
February 24, 2017 |
Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework Extension to Convolutional Codes
draft-roca-tsvwg-fecframev2-03
RFC 6363 describes a framework for using Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes with applications in public and private IP networks to provide protection against packet loss. The framework supports applying FEC to arbitrary packet flows over unreliable transport and is primarily intended for real-time, or streaming, media. However FECFRAME as per RFC 6363 is restricted to block FEC codes. The present document extends FECFRAME to support convolutional FEC Codes, based on a sliding encoding window, in addition to Block FEC Codes. This is done in a backward compatible way. During multicast/broadcast real-time content delivery, these codes significantly improve robustness in harsh environments, with less repair traffic and lower FEC-related added latency.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Many applications need to transport a continuous stream of packetized data from a source (sender) to one or more destinations (receivers) over networks that do not provide guaranteed packet delivery. In particular packets may be lost, which is strictly the focus of this document: we assume that transmitted packets are either received without any corruption or totally lost (e.g., because of a congested router, of a poor signal-to-noise ratio in a wireless network, or because the number of bit errors exceeds the correction capabilities of a low-layer error correcting code).
For these use-cases, Forward Error Correction (FEC) applied within the transport or application layer, is an efficient technique to improve packet transmission robustness in presence of packet losses (or "erasures"), without going through packet retransmissions that create a delay often incompatible with real-time constraints. The FEC Building Block defined in [RFC5052] provides a framework for the definition of Content Delivery Protocols (CDPs) that make use of separately defined FEC schemes. Any CDP defined according to the requirements of the FEC Building Block can then easily be used with any FEC scheme that is also defined according to the requirements of the FEC Building Block.
Then FECFRAME [RFC6363] provides a framework to define Content Delivery Protocols (CDPs) that provide FEC protection for arbitrary packet flows over unreliable transports such as UDP. It is primarily intended for real-time or streaming media applications, using broadcast, multicast, or on-demand delivery.
However [RFC6363] only considers block FEC schemes defined in accordance with the FEC Building Block [RFC5052] (e.g., [RFC6681], [RFC6816] or [RFC6865]). These codes require the input flow(s) to be segmented into a sequence of blocks. Then FEC encoding (at a sender or an encoding middlebox) and decoding (at a receiver or a decoding middlebox) are both performed on a per-block basis. This approach has major impacts on FEC encoding and decoding delays. The data packets of continuous media flow(s) can be sent immediately, without delay. But the block creation time, that depends on the number k of source symbols in this block, impacts the FEC encoding delay since encoding requires that all source symbols be known. This block creation time also impacts the decoding delay a receiver will experience in case of erasures, since no repair symbol for the current block can be received before. Therefore a good value for the block size is necessarily a balance between the maximum decoding latency at the receivers (which decreases with the block size and must be in line with the most stringent real-time requirement of the protected flow(s)), and the desired robustness against long loss bursts (which increases with the block size).
This document extends [RFC6363] in order to also support convolutional FEC codes based on a sliding encoding window. This encoding window, either of fixed or variable size, slides over the set of source symbols. FEC encoding is launched whenever needed, from the set of source symbols present in the sliding encoding window at that time. This approach significantly reduces FEC-related latency, since repair symbols can be generated and sent on-the-fly, at any time, and can be regularly received by receivers to quickly recover packet losses. Using convolutional FEC codes is therefore highly beneficial to real-time flows, one of the primary targets of FECFRAME.
[RLC-ID] provides an example of such FEC Scheme for FECFRAME, built from the well-known Random Linear Codes (RLC) convolutional FEC codes.
This document is fully backward compatible with [RFC6363] that it extends but does not replace. Indeed: [RFC6363] and re-uses its structure. It proposes new sections specific to convolutional FEC codes whenever required.
This document leverages on
The following list of definitions and abbreviations is copied from [RFC6363], adding only the Block/Convolutional FEC Code and Encoding/Decoding Window definitions:
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 [RFC2119].
The architecture of [RFC6363], Section 3, equally applies to this FECFRAME extension and is not repeated here.
The general considerations of [RFC6363], Section 4.1, that are specific to block FEC codes are not repeated here.
With a Convolutional FEC Code, the FEC source packet MUST contain information to identify the position occupied by the ADU within the source flow, in terms specific to the FEC scheme. This information is known as the Source FEC Payload ID, and the FEC scheme is responsible for defining and interpreting it.
With a Convolutional FEC Code, the FEC repair packets MUST contain information that identifies the relationship between the contained repair payloads and the original source symbols used during encoding. This information is known as the Repair FEC Payload ID, and the FEC scheme is responsible for defining and interpreting it.
To the Sender Operation ([RFC6363], Section 4.2.) and Receiver Operation ([RFC6363], Section 4.3), both specific to block FEC codes and therefore omitted below, the following two sections detail similar operations for convolutional FEC codes.
With a convolutional FEC scheme, the following operations, illustrated in Figure 1 for the case of UDP repair flows, and in Figure 2 for the case of RTP repair flows, describe a possible way to generate compliant source and repair flows:
+----------------------+ | Application | +----------------------+ | | (1) New Application Data Unit (ADU) v +---------------------+ +----------------+ | FEC Framework | | FEC Scheme | | |-------------------------->| | | | (2) New ADU |(3) Update of | | | | encoding | | |<--------------------------| window | |(5) Construct FEC | (4) Explicit Source | | | source packet | FEC Payload ID(s) |(7) FEC | | |<--------------------------| encoding | |(9) Construct FEC | (8) Repair FEC Payload ID | | | repair packet(s) | + Repair symbol(s) +----------------+ +---------------------+ | | (6) FEC source packet | (10) FEC repair packets v +----------------------+ | Transport Layer | | (e.g., UDP) | +----------------------+
Figure 1: Sender Operation with Convolutional FEC Codes
+----------------------+ | Application | +----------------------+ | | (1) New Application Data Unit (ADU) v +---------------------+ +----------------+ | FEC Framework | | FEC Scheme | | |-------------------------->| | | | (2) New ADU |(3) Update of | | | | encoding | | |<--------------------------| window | |(5) Construct FEC | (4) Explicit Source | | | source packet | FEC Payload ID(s) |(7) FEC | | |<--------------------------| encoding | |(9) Construct FEC | (8) Repair FEC Payload ID | | | repair packet(s) | + Repair symbol(s) +----------------+ +---------------------+ | | |(6) Source |(10) Repair payloads | packets | | + -- -- -- -- -+ | | RTP | | +-- -- -- -- --+ v v +----------------------+ | Transport Layer | | (e.g., UDP) | +----------------------+
Figure 2: Sender Operation with RTP Repair Flows
With a convolutional FEC scheme, the following operations, illustrated in Figure 3 for the case of UDP repair flows, and in Figure 4 for the case of RTP repair flows. The only differences with respect to block FEC codes lie in steps (4) and (5). Therefore this section does not repeat the other steps of [RFC6363], Section 4.3, "Receiver Operation". The new steps (4) and (5) are:
+----------------------+ | Application | +----------------------+ ^ |(6) ADUs | +----------------------+ +----------------+ | FEC Framework | | FEC Scheme | | |<--------------------------| | |(2)Extract FEC Payload|(5) ADUs |(4) FEC Decoding | IDs and pass IDs & |-------------------------->| | | payloads to FEC |(3) Explicit Source FEC +----------------+ | scheme | Payload IDs +----------------------+ Repair FEC Payload IDs ^ Source payloads | Repair payloads |(1) FEC source | and repair packets +----------------------+ | Transport Layer | | (e.g., UDP) | +----------------------+
Figure 3: Receiver Operation with Convolutional FEC Codes
+----------------------+ | Application | +----------------------+ ^ |(6) ADUs | +----------------------+ +----------------+ | FEC Framework | | FEC Scheme | | |<--------------------------| | |(2)Extract FEC Payload|(5) ADUs |(4) FEC Decoding| | IDs and pass IDs & |-------------------------->| | | payloads to FEC |(3) Explicit Source FEC +----------------+ | scheme | Payload IDs +----------------------+ Repair FEC Payload IDs ^ ^ Source payloads | | Repair payloads |Source pkts |Repair payloads | | +-- |- -- -- -- -- -- -+ |RTP| | RTP Processing | | | +-- -- -- --|-- -+ | +-- -- -- -- -- |--+ | | | RTP Demux | | +-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ ^ |(1) FEC source and repair packets | +----------------------+ | Transport Layer | | (e.g., UDP) | +----------------------+
Figure 4: Receiver Operation with RTP Repair Flows
This section discusses the protocol elements for the FEC Framework specific to convolutional FEC schemes. The global formats of source data packets (i.e., [RFC6363], Figure 6) and repair data packets (i.e., [RFC6363], Figures 7 and 8) remain the same with convolutional FEC codes. They are not repeated here.
The FEC Framework Configuration Information considerations of [RFC6363], Section 5.5, equally applies to this FECFRAME extension and is not repeated here.
The FEC scheme requirements of [RFC6363], Section 5.6, mostly apply to this FECFRAME extension and are not repeated here. An exception though is the "full specification of the FEC code", item (4), that is specific to block FEC codes. The following item (4) applies instead:
Additionally, the FEC scheme associated to a Convolutional FEC Code:
The discussion of [RFC6363], Section 6, equally applies to this FECFRAME extension and is not repeated here.
The discussion of [RFC6363], Section 7, equally applies to this FECFRAME extension and is not repeated here.
The discussion of [RFC6363], Section 8, equally applies to this FECFRAME extension and is not repeated here.
Editor's notes: RFC Editor, please remove this section motivated by RFC 7942 before publishing the RFC. Thanks!
An implementation of FECFRAME extended to convolutional codes exists:
This FECFRAME extension does not add any new security consideration. All the considerations of [RFC6363], Section 9, apply to this document as well.
This FECFRAME extension does not add any new Operations and Management Consideration. All the considerations of [RFC6363], Section 10, apply to this document as well.
A FEC scheme for use with this FEC Framework is identified via its FEC Encoding ID. It is subject to IANA registration in the "FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC Encoding IDs" registry. All the rules of [RFC6363], Section 11, apply and are not repeated here.
TBD
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
[RFC6363] | Watson, M., Begen, A. and V. Roca, "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6363, DOI 10.17487/RFC6363, October 2011. |
The FEC Framework does not specify the management of the sliding encoding window which is the responsibility of the FEC Scheme. This annex provides a few hints with respect to the management of this encoding window.
Source symbols are added to the sliding encoding window each time a new ADU arrives, where the following information is provided for this ADU by the FEC Framework: a description of the source flow with which the ADU is associated, the ADU itself, and the length of the ADU. This information is sufficient for the FEC scheme to map the ADU with the corresponding source symbols.
Source symbols and the corresponding ADUs are removed from the sliding encoding window, for instance:
Several aspects exist that can impact the sliding encoding window management: