Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes
draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-06
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 5445.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Mark Watson | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 (Latest revision 2008-10-31) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 5445 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Magnus Westerlund | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-06
Reliable Multicast Transport M. Watson
Internet-Draft Digital Fountain
Obsoletes: rfc3695 October 31, 2008
(if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 4, 2009
Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes
draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-06
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 May 4, 2009.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
Abstract
This document provides Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme
specifications according to the RMT FEC Building Block for the
Compact No-Code FEC Scheme, the Small Block, Large Block and
Expandable FEC Scheme, the Small Block Systematic FEC Scheme and the
Compact FEC Scheme. This document obsoletes RFC3695 and assumes
responsibility for the FEC Schemes defined in RFC3452.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Compact No-Code FEC Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Formats and Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. FEC Payload ID(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. FEC Object Transmission Information . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. FEC code specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.1. Source Block Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.2. Sending and Receiving a Source Block . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC Scheme . . . . . . 12
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Formats and Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.1. FEC Payload ID(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.2. FEC Object Transmission Information . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. FEC Code Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Small Block Systematic FEC Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Formats and Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.1. FEC Payload ID(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.2. FEC Object Transmission Information . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. FEC Code Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Compact FEC Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Formats and Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.1. FEC Payload ID(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.2. FEC Object Transmission Information . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.4. FEC code specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Changes from schemes defined in RFC3452 and RFC3695 . . . . . 24
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 27
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
1. Introduction
The document specifies the following FEC Schemes according to the
specification requirements of the FEC Building Block [RFC5052]:
o Compact No-Code FEC Scheme
o Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC Scheme
o Small Block Systematic FEC Scheme
o Compact FEC Scheme
This document inherits the context, language, declarations and
restrictions of the FEC building block [RFC5052]. This document also
uses the terminology of the companion document [RFC3453] which
describes the use of FEC codes within the context of reliable IP
multicast transport and provides an introduction to some commonly
used FEC codes.
Building blocks are defined in [RFC3048]. This document follows the
general guidelines provided in [RFC3269].
[RFC3452] and [RFC3695] contained a previous versions of the FEC
Schemes defined in this specification. These RFCs were published in
the "Experimental" category. It was the stated intent of the RMT
working group to re-submit these specifications as an IETF Proposed
Standard in due course. This document obsoletes [RFC3695].
[RFC3452] has already been obsoleted by [RFC5052] and this document
assumes responsibility for aspects of [RFC3452] that were not
included in [RFC5052].
This Proposed Standard specification is thus based on and backwards
compatible with the FEC Schemes defined in [RFC3452] and [RFC3695]
updated according to accumulated experience and growing protocol
maturity since their original publication. Said experience applies
both to this specification itself and to congestion control
strategies related to the use of this specification.
The differences between the FEC Scheme specifications in [RFC3452]
and [RFC3695] and this document are listed in Section 10.
Integer fields specified in this document are all encoded in network
byte order.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
2. Requirements notation
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].
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
3. Compact No-Code FEC Scheme
3.1. Introduction
The Compact No-code FEC Scheme is a Fully-Specified FEC Scheme. The
scheme requires no FEC coding and is specified primarily to allow
simple interoperability testing between different implementations of
protocol instantiations that use the FEC building block.
3.2. Formats and Codes
3.2.1. FEC Payload ID(s)
The FEC Payload ID for the Compact No-Code FEC Scheme is composed of
a Source Block Number and an Encoding Symbol ID as shown in Figure 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Block Number | Encoding Symbol ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: FEC Payload ID format for Compact No-Code FEC Scheme
The Source Block Number (SBN) is a 16-bit unsigned interger that is
used to identify from which source block of the object the encoding
symbol in the payload of the packet is generated. There are two
possible modes: In the unique SBN mode each source block within the
object has a unique Source Block Number associated with it, and in
the non-unique SBN mode the same Source Block Number may be used for
more than one source block within the object. Which mode is being
used for an object is outside the scope of this document and MUST be
communicated, either explicitly or implicitly, out-of-band to
receivers.
If the unique SBN mode is used then successive Source Block Numbers
are associated with consecutive source blocks of the object starting
with Source Block Number 0 for the first source block of the object.
In this case, there are at most 2^^16 source blocks in the object.
If the non-unique SBN mode is used then the mapping from source
blocks to Source Block Numbers MUST be communicated out-of-band to
receivers, and how this is done is outside the scope of this
document. This mapping could be implicit, for example determined by
the transmission order of the source blocks. In non-unique SBN mode,
packets for two different source blocks mapped to the same Source
Block Number SHOULD NOT be sent within an interval of time that is
shorter than the transport time of a source block. The transport
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
time of a source block includes the amount of time needed to process
the source block at the sender transport layer, the network transit
time for packets, and the amount of time needed to process the source
block at the receiver transport. This allows the receiver to clearly
decide which packets belong to which source block.
The Encoding Symbol ID is a 16-bit unsigned integer that identifies
which specific encoding symbol generated from the source block is
carried in the packet payload. The exact details of the
correspondence between Encoding Symbol IDs and the encoding symbols
in the packet payload are specified in Section 3.4.
3.2.2. FEC Object Transmission Information
3.2.2.1. Mandatory
The mandatory FEC Object Transmission Information element for the
Compact No-Code FEC Scheme is:
o FEC Encoding ID: zero (0)
3.2.2.2. Common
The common FEC Object Transmission Information elements and their
value ranges for the Compact No-code FEC Scheme are:
Transfer-Length: a non-negative integer less than 2^^48.
Encoding-Symbol-Length: a non-negative integer less than 2^^16.
Maximum-Source-Block-Length: a non-negative integer less than 2^^32.
Note that the semantics for the above elements are defined in
[RFC5052] and are not duplicated here.
The encoded Common FEC Object Transmission information is defined in
Figure 2.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transfer Length |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Encoding Symbol Length | Max. Source Block Length (MSB)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max. Source Block Length (LSB)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Encoded Common FEC OTI for Compact No-Code FEC Scheme
The Transfer Length, Encoding Symbol Length and Maximum Source Block
length are encoded as unsigned integers, of length 48 bits, 16 bits
and 32 bits respectivly.
All Encoding Symbols of a transport object MUST have length equal to
the length specified in the Encoding Symbol Length element, with the
optional exception of the last source symbol of the last source block
(so that redundant padding is not mandatory in this last symbol).
This last source symbol MUST be logically padded out with zeroes when
another Encoding Symbol is computed based on this source symbol to
ensure the same interpretation of this Encoding Symbol value by the
sender and receiver. However, this padding does not actually need to
be sent with the data of the last source symbol.
The "Reserved" field in the Encoded FEC Object Transmission
Information MUST be set to zero by senders and its value MUST be
ignored by receivers.
Note: this FEC Scheme was first defined in [RFC3695] which did not
require that the Encoding Symbol Length should be the same for
every source block. This document introduces a general
requirement that the Encoding Symbol Length be the same across
source blocks. Since no protocols were defined which support
variation in the Encoding Symbol Length between source blocks this
can be done without introducing backwards compatibility issues.
3.2.2.3. Scheme-Specific
No Scheme-Specific FEC Object Transmission Information elements are
defined by this FEC Scheme.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
3.3. Procedures
The algorithm defined in Section 9.1. of [RFC5052] MUST be used to
partition the file into source blocks.
3.4. FEC code specification
The Compact No-Code FEC scheme does not require FEC encoding or
decoding. Instead, each encoding symbol consists of consecutive
bytes of a source block of the object.
The following two subsections describe the details of how the Compact
No-Code FEC scheme operates for each source block of an object.
3.4.1. Source Block Logistics
Let X > 0 be the length of a source block in bytes. Let L > 0 be the
length of the encoding symbol contained in the payload of each
packet. The value of X and L are part of the FEC Object Transmission
Information, and how this information is communicated to a receiver
is outside the scope of this document.
For a given source block X bytes in length with Source Block Number
I, let N = X/L rounded up to the nearest integer. The encoding
symbol carried in the payload of a packet consists of a consecutive
portion of the source block. The source block is logically
partitioned into N encoding symbols, each L bytes in length, and the
corresponding Encoding Symbol IDs range from 0 through N-1 starting
at the beginning of the source block and proceeding to the end.
Thus, the encoding symbol with Encoding Symbol ID Y consists of bytes
L*Y through L*(Y+1)-1 of the source block, where the bytes of the
source block are numbered from 0 through X-1. If X/L is not integral
then the last encoding symbol with Encoding Symbol ID = N-1 consists
of bytes L*(N-1) through the last byte X-1 of the source block, and
the remaining L*N - X bytes of the encoding symbol can by padded out
with zeroes.
As an example, suppose that the source block length X = 20,400 and
encoding symbol length L = 1,000. The encoding symbol with Encoding
Symbol ID = 10 contains bytes 10,000 through 10,999 of the source
block, and the encoding symbol with Encoding Symbol ID = 20 contains
bytes 20,000 through the last byte 20,399 of the source block and the
remaining 600 bytes of the encoding symbol can be padded with zeroes.
There are no restrictions beyond the rules stated above on how a
sender generates encoding symbols to send from a source block.
However, it is recommended that an implementor refer to the companion
document [RFC3452] for general advice.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
In the next subsection a procedure is recommended for sending and
receiving source blocks.
3.4.2. Sending and Receiving a Source Block
The following carousel procedure is RECOMMENDED for a sender to
generate packets containing FEC Payload IDs and corresponding
encoding symbols for a source block with Source Block Number I. Set
the length in bytes of an encoding symbol to a fixed value L which is
reasonable for a packet payload (e.g., ensure that the total packet
size does not exceed the MTU) and that is smaller than the source
block length X, e.g., L = 1,000 for X >= 1,000. Initialize Y to a
value randomly chosen in the interval [0..N-1]. Repeat the following
for each packet of the source block to be sent.
o If Y <= N-1 then generate the encoding symbol Y.
o Within the FEC Payload ID, set the Source Block Length to X, set
the Source Block Number = I, set the Encoding Symbol ID = Y, place
the FEC Payload ID and the encoding symbol into the packet to
send.
o In preparation for the generation of the next packet: if Y < N-1
then increment Y by one else if Y = N-1 then reset Y to zero.
The following procedure is RECOMMENDED for a receiver to recover the
source block based on receiving packets for the source block from a
sender that is using the carousel procedure described above. The
receiver can determine from which source block a received packet was
generated by the Source Block Number carried in the FEC Payload ID.
Upon receipt of the first FEC Payload ID for a source block, the
receiver uses the Source Block Length and Encoding Symbol Length
received out-of-band as part of the FEC Object Transmission
Information to determine the length X in bytes of the source block
and length L in bytes of each encoding symbol. The reciever
allocates space for the X bytes that the source block requires. The
receiver also computes the length of the encoding symbol in the
payload of the packet by subtracting the packet header length from
the total length of the received packet. The receiver checks that
this symbol length is equal to L, except in the case that this is the
last symbol of the source block in which case the symbol length in
the packet may be less than L. After calculating N = X/L rounded up
to the nearest integer, the receiver allocates a boolean array
RECEIVED[0..N-1] with all N entries initialized to false to track
received encoding symbols. The receiver keeps receiving packets for
the source block as long as there is at least one entry in RECEIVED
still set to false or until the application decides to give up on
this source block and move on to other source blocks. For each
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
received packet for the source block (including the first packet) the
steps to be taken to help recover the source block are as follows.
Let Y be the value of the Encoding Symbol ID within the FEC Payload
ID of the packet. If Y <= N-1 then the receiver copies the encoding
symbol into the appropriate place within the space reserved for the
source block and sets RECEIVED[Y] = true. If all N entries of
RECEIVED are true then the receiver has recovered the entire source
block.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
4. Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC Scheme
4.1. Introduction
This section defines an Under-Specified FEC Scheme for Small Block
FEC codes, Large Block FEC codes and Expandable FEC codes as
described in [RFC3453].
4.2. Formats and Codes
4.2.1. FEC Payload ID(s)
The FEC Payload ID is composed of a Source Block Number and an
Encoding Symbol ID structured as shown in Figure 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Block Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Encoding Symbol ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: FEC Payload ID format for Small Block, Large Block and
Expandable FEC Codes
The Source Block Number is a 32-bit unsigned integer that identifies
from which source block of the object the encoding symbol(s) in the
payload are generated. These blocks are numbered consecutively from
0 to N-1, where N is the number of source blocks in the object.
The Encoding Symbol ID is a 32-bit unsigned integer that identifies
which specific encoding symbol(s) generated from the source block are
carried in the packet payload. The exact details of the
correspondence between Encoding Symbol IDs and the encoding symbol(s)
in the packet payload are dependent on the particular FEC Scheme
instance used as identified by the FEC Encoding ID and by the FEC
Instance ID, and these details may be proprietary.
4.2.2. FEC Object Transmission Information
4.2.2.1. Mandatory
The mandatory FEC Object Transmission Information element for the
Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC Scheme are:
o FEC Encoding ID: 128
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
4.2.2.2. Common
The common FEC Object Transmission Information elements and their
value ranges for the Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC
Scheme are:
FEC Instance ID: a non-negative integer less than 2^^16.
Transfer-Length: a non-negative integer less than 2^^48.
Encoding-Symbol-Length: a non-negative integer less than 2^^16.
Maximum-Source-Block-Length: a non-negative integer less than 2^^32.
Note that the semantics for the above elements are defined in
[RFC5052] and are not duplicated here.
The encoded Common FEC Object Transmission information is defined in
Figure 4.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transfer Length |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | FEC Instance ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Encoding Symbol Length | Max. Source Block Length (MSB)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max. Source Block Length (LSB)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Encoded Common FEC OTI for Small Block, Large Block and
Expandable FEC Scheme
The Transfer Length (48 bits), FEC Instance ID (16 bits), Encoding
Symbol Length (16 bits) and Maximum Source Block Length (32 bits) are
encoded as unsigned integers.
4.2.2.3. Scheme-Specific
The Scheme-specific FEC Object Transmission Information field for the
Small block, Large Block and Expandable FEC Scheme provides for the
possibility of Instance-specific FEC Object Transmission Information.
The format of the Scheme-Specific FEC Object Transmission information
for this FEC Scheme is defined in Figure 5
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Instance-specific FEC OTI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Instance-specific FEC OTI contd. |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Encoded Scheme-specific FEC OTI for Small Block, Large
Block and Expandable FEC Scheme
The Scheme-specific FEC Object Transmission Information field
contains the following sub-fields:
Length (1 octet) an unsigned integer that specifies the length of
the Scheme-specific FEC OTI in four-octet words (including this
length field), except that the value zero indicates that no
Instance-specific FEC OTI information is provided. When the
Length is zero, three padding bytes containing value zero SHALL
follow the Length field to maintain 4-octet alignment.
Instance-specific FEC OTI Information the contents of this field
are FEC Scheme Instance-specific
Note that in the case of a Content Delivery protocol which supports
external signalling of the total FEC Object Transmission Information
length, then the Scheme-Specific FEC OTI field defined here is
optional. Otherwise, this field MUST be included.
4.3. Procedures
The algorithm defined in Section 9.1. of [RFC5052] MUST be used to
partition the file into source blocks.
4.4. FEC Code Specification
The FEC code specification and the correspondance of Encoding Symbols
IDs to encoding symbols are defined by specific instances of this
scheme and so are out of scope of this document.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
5. Small Block Systematic FEC Scheme
5.1. Introduction
This section defines an Under-Specified FEC Scheme for Small Block
Systematic FEC codes as described in [RFC3453]. For Small Block
Systematic FEC codes, each source block is of length at most 65535
source symbols.
Although these codes can generally be accommodated by the FEC
Encoding ID described in Section 4, a specific FEC Encoding ID is
defined for Small Block Systematic FEC codes to allow more
flexibility and to retain header compactness. The small source block
length and small expansion factor that often characterize systematic
codes may require the data source to frequently change the source
block length. To allow the dynamic variation of the source block
length and to communicate it to the receivers with low overhead, the
block length is included in the FEC Payload ID.
5.2. Formats and Codes
5.2.1. FEC Payload ID(s)
The FEC Payload ID is composed of the Source Block Number, Source
Block Length and the Encoding Symbol ID structured as shown in
Figure 6.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Block Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Block Length | Encoding Symbol ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: FEC Payload ID format for Small Block Systematic FEC scheme
The Source Block Number is a 32-bit unsigned integer that identifies
from which source block of the object the encoding symbol(s) in the
payload are generated. These blocks are numbered consecutively from
0 to N-1, where N is the number of source blocks in the object.
The Source Block Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer that specifies
the length in units of source symbols of the source block identified
by the Source Block Number.
The Encoding Symbol ID is a 16-bit unsigned integer that identifies
which specific encoding symbol(s) generated from the source block are
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
carried in the packet payload. Each encoding symbol is either an
original source symbol or a redundant symbol generated by the
encoder. The exact details of the correspondence between Encoding
Symbol IDs and the encoding symbol(s) in the packet payload are
dependent on the particular FEC scheme instance used as identified by
the FEC Instance ID, and these details may be proprietary.
5.2.2. FEC Object Transmission Information
5.2.2.1. Mandatory
The mandatory FEC Object Transmission Information element for the
Small Block Systematic FEC Scheme is:
o FEC Encoding ID: 129
5.2.2.2. Common
The common FEC Object Transmission Information elements and their
value ranges for the Small Block Systematic FEC Scheme are:
FEC Instance ID: a non-negative integer less than 2^^16.
Transfer-Length: a non-negative integer less than 2^^48.
Encoding-Symbol-Length: a non-negative integer less than 2^^16.
Maximum-Source-Block-Length: a non-negative integer less than 2^^16.
Max-Number-of-Encoding-Symbols: a non-negative integer less than
2^^16
Note that the semantics for the above elements are defined in
[RFC5052] and are not duplicated here.
The encoded Common FEC Object Transmission information is defined in
Figure 7.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transfer Length |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | FEC Instance ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Encoding Symbol Length | Maximum Source Block Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max. Num. of Encoding Symbols |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: FEC OTI format for Small Block Systematic FEC Scheme
The Transfer Length (48 bits), FEC Instance ID (16 bits), Encoding
Symbol Length (16 bits), Maximum Source Block Length (16 bits) and
Maximum Number of Encoding Symbols (16 bits) are encoded as unsigned
integers.
All Encoding Symbols of a transport object MUST have length equal to
the length specified in the Encoding Symbol Length field, with the
optional exception of the last source symbol of the last source block
(so that redundant padding is not mandatory in this last symbol).
This last source symbol MUST be logically padded out with zeroes when
another Encoding Symbol is computed based on this source symbol to
ensure the same interpretation of this Encoding Symbol value by the
sender and receiver. However, this padding need not be actually sent
with the data of the last source symbol.
Note: this FEC Scheme was first defined in [RFC3452] which did not
require that the Encoding Symbol Length should be the same for
every source block. However, no protocols have been defined which
support variation in the Encoding Symbol Length between source
blocks and thus introduction of a general requirement that the
Encoding Symbol Length be the same across source blocks (as
defined here) should not cause backwards compatibility issues and
will aid interoperability.
5.2.2.3. Scheme-Specific
The Scheme-Specific FEC Object Transmission Information format
defined in Section 4.2.2.3 SHALL be used.
5.3. Procedures
The algorithm defined in Section 9.1. of [RFC5052] MAY be used to
partition the file into source blocks. Otherwise the FEC Scheme
instance MUST specify the algorithm that is used.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
5.4. FEC Code Specification
The FEC code specification and the correspondance of Encoding Symbols
IDs to encoding symbols are defined by specific instances of this
scheme and so are out of scope of this document.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
6. Compact FEC Scheme
6.1. Introduction
The Compact FEC Scheme is an Under-Specified FEC scheme. This FEC
scheme is similar in spirit to the Compact No-Code FEC scheme, except
that a non-trivial FEC encoding (that is Under-Specified) may be used
to generate encoding symbol(s) placed in the payload of each packet
and a corresponding FEC decoder may be used to produce the source
block from received packets.
6.2. Formats and Codes
6.2.1. FEC Payload ID(s)
The FEC Payload ID format defined in Section 3.2.1 SHALL be used.
6.2.2. FEC Object Transmission Information
6.2.2.1. Mandatory
The mandatory FEC Object Transmission Information element for the
Compact No-Code FEC Scheme is:
o FEC Encoding ID: 130
6.2.2.2. Common
The common FEC Object Transmission Information elements and their
encoding are the same as defined for the Small Block, Large Block and
Expandable FEC Scheme in Figure 4.
6.2.2.3. Scheme-Specific
The Scheme-Specific FEC Object Transmission Information format
defined in Section 4.2.2.3 SHALL be used.
6.3. Procedures
The algorithm defined in Section 9.1. of [RFC5052] MUST be used to
partition the file into source blocks.
6.4. FEC code specification
The FEC code specification and the correspondance of Encoding Symbols
IDs to encoding symbols are defined by specific instances of this
scheme and so are out of scope of this document.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
7. Security Considerations
This specification does not introduce any further security
considerations beyond those described in [RFC5052].
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
8. Acknowledgments
This document is substantially based on [RFC3695] by Michael Luby and
Lorenzo Vicisano and [RFC3452] by Michael Luby, Lorenzo Vicisano, Jim
Gemmell, Luigi Rizzo, Mark Handley and Jon Crowcroft.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
9. IANA Considerations
FEC Encoding IDs 0 and 130 were first defined and registered in the
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding namespace by [RFC3695]. This document updates
and obsoletes the definitions from that specification. References to
that specification should be replaced with references to this
document.
FEC Encoding IDs 128 and 129 were first defined and registered in the
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding namespace by [RFC3452]. This document updates
and obsoletes the definitions from that specification. ces to that
specification should be replaced with references to this document.
Values of FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs are subject to IANA
registration. For general guidelines on IANA considerations as they
apply to this document, see [RFC5052].
This document assigns the Fully-Specified FEC Encoding ID 0 under the
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding name-space (which was previously assigned by
[RFC3695] which is obsoleted by this document) to "Compact No-Code"
as specified in Section 3 above.
This document assigns the Under-Specified FEC Encoding ID 128 under
the ietf:rmt:fec:encoding name-space (which was previously assigned
by [RFC3452]) to "Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC Codes"
as specified in Section 4 above.
This document assigns the Under-Specified FEC Encoding ID 129 under
the ietf:rmt:fec:encoding name-space (which was previously assigned
by [RFC3452]) to "Small Block, Systematic FEC Codes" as specified in
Section 5 above.
This document assigns the Under-Specified FEC Encoding ID 130 under
the ietf:rmt:fec:encoding name-space (which was previously assigned
by [RFC3695] which is obsoleted by this document) to "Compact FEC" as
specified in Section 6 above.
As FEC Encoding IDs 128, 129 and 130 are Under-Specified, "FEC
Instance ID" sub-name-spaces must be established, in accordance to
[RFC5052]. Hence this document also assumes responsibility for the
"FEC Instance ID" registriesnamed
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance:128, scoped by ietf:rmt:fec:
encoding = 128
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance:129, scoped by ietf:rmt:fec:
encoding = 129
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance:130, scoped by ietf:rmt:fec:
encoding = 130
The values that can be assigned within these namespaces are non-
negative numeric indices. Assignment requests are granted on a
"First Come First Served" basis. [RFC5052] specifies additional
criteria that MUST be met for the assignment within the generic ietf:
rmt:fec:encoding:instance name-space. These criteria also apply to
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance:128, ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance:
129 and ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance:130.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
10. Changes from schemes defined in RFC3452 and RFC3695
This section describes the changes between the Exprimental versions
of these FEC Scheme specifictions contained in RFC3452 [RFC3452] and
RFC3695 [RFC3695] and those defined in this specification:
o Scheme definitions have been updated to meet the requirements of
[RFC5052].
o Complete encoding formats for the FEC Object Trasmission
Information for each scheme are defined here, instead of within
content delivery protocol specifications, since the exact format
depends on the FEC Scheme.
o The previous specifications for the Compact No-Code and Small
Block Systematic FEC Schemes did not require that all encoding
symbols of the object should have the same length. This
requirement is introduced in this specification. Since no
protocols have been defined which support variation of the
encoding symbol length within an object this should not cause
backwards compatibility issues.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5052] Watson, M., Luby, M., and L. Vicisano, "Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Building Block", RFC 5052, August 2007.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC3452] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L., Handley,
M., and J. Crowcroft, "Forward Error Correction (FEC)
Building Block", RFC 3452, December 2002.
[RFC3453] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L., Handley,
M., and J. Crowcroft, "The Use of Forward Error Correction
(FEC) in Reliable Multicast", RFC 3453, December 2002.
[RFC3269] Kermode, R. and L. Vicisano, "Author Guidelines for
Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Building Blocks and
Protocol Instantiation documents", RFC 3269, April 2002.
[RFC3048] Whetten, B., Vicisano, L., Kermode, R., Handley, M.,
Floyd, S., and M. Luby, "Reliable Multicast Transport
Building Blocks for One-to-Many Bulk-Data Transfer",
RFC 3048, January 2001.
[RFC3695] Luby, M. and L. Vicisano, "Compact Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Schemes", RFC 3695, February 2004.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
Author's Address
Mark Watson
Digital Fountain
39141 Civic Center Drive
Suite 300
Fremont, CA 94538
U.S.A.
Email: mark@digitalfountain.com
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Basic FEC Schemes October 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Intellectual Property
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.
Watson Expires May 4, 2009 [Page 27]