1 / 10

Strawman proposal for expressing encoding limits in CLUE

This proposal suggests a simple syntax for expressing encoding limits in CLUE (Controllable Lossless Unified Encoding) to allow receivers to make informed decisions about resource allocation. It defines supported codecs and allows different limits for different codecs.

rinam
Download Presentation

Strawman proposal for expressing encoding limits in CLUE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Strawman proposal for expressing encoding limits in CLUE Robert Hansen IETF88

  2. Offer SDP and Advertisment Offer SDP CLUE ADVERTISEMENT m=video ... ... H264@720p30 a=label:A a=sendrecv m=video ... ... H264@720p30 a=label:B a=sendrecv m=video ... ... H264@720p30 a=label:C a=sendrecv Capture Scene 1: Capture 1: Left (Encoding Group 1) Capture 2: Center (Encoding Group 1) Capture 3: Right (Encoding Group 1) Capture 4: Switched Capture Scene Entry 1: 1,2,3 Capture Scene Entry 2: 4 Simultaneous Sets: 1,2,3,4 Encoding Group 1: Encoding Limits

  3. Aim • Encoding limits are only guides to allow the receiver to make a sensible decision about subdivision of resources • Uses simple, codec-independent values • Defines supported codecs, allows different limits for different codecs

  4. Proposal Video encoding: 1 of encodingId (string) 1 of encodingLabel (string) 1+ of encodingLimits: 1+ of codecType (string) 0-1 of maxBandwidth (integer) 0-1 of maxWidth (integer) 0-1 of maxHeight (integer) 0-1 of maxFramerate (integer)

  5. Example #1 <encoding id=“1“ type=“video”> <label>ENC1</label> <limits> <codec>H264/90000</codec> <codec>VP8/90000</codec> <maxBandwidth>4000000</maxBandwidth> <maxWidth>1920</maxWidth> <maxHeight>1088</maxHeight> <maxFramerate>30.00</maxFrameRate> </limits> </encoding>

  6. Example #1 <encoding id=“1“ type=“video”> <label>ENC1</label> <limits> <codec>H264/90000</codec> <codec>VP8/90000</codec> <maxBandwidth>4000000</maxBandwidth> <maxWidth>1920</maxWidth> <maxHeight>1088</maxHeight> <maxFramerate>30.00</maxFrameRate> </limits> </encoding> m=video ... … a=label:ENC1 a=sendrecv

  7. Example #1 <encoding id=“1“ type=“video”> <label>ENC1</label> <limits> <codec>H264/90000</codec> <codec>VP8/90000</codec> <maxBandwidth>4000000</maxBandwidth> <maxWidth>1920</maxWidth> <maxHeight>1088</maxHeight> <maxFramerate>30.00</maxFrameRate> </limits> </encoding> m=video ... … a=label:ENC1 a=sendrecv

  8. Example #1 <encoding id=“1“ type=“video”> <label>ENC1</label> <limits> <codec>H264/90000</codec> <codec>VP8/90000</codec> <maxBandwidth>4000000</maxBandwidth> <maxWidth>1920</maxWidth> <maxHeight>1088</maxHeight> <maxFramerate>30.00</maxFrameRate> </limits> </encoding> m=video ... … a=label:ENC1 a=sendrecv

  9. Example #2 <encoding id=“1“ type=“video”> <label>ENC1</label> <limits> <codec>H264/90000</codec> <codec>VP8/90000</codec> <maxWidth>1920</maxWidth> <maxHeight>1088</maxHeight> <maxFramerate>30.00</maxFrameRate> </limits> <limits> <codec>H265/90000</codec> <maxWidth>1280</maxWidth> <maxHeight>720</maxHeight> <maxFramerate>30.00</maxFrameRate> </limist> </encoding>

  10. Determination • Do we believe that this simple syntax (or something like it) is sufficient to allow the media consumer to sensibly allocate its decode resources? • Do we believe the benefits of this method (fewer m-lines, fewer O/As, less need to precommit resources) justify doing this in CLUE rather than SDP?

More Related