Re: [AVTCORE] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-05
Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 21 December 2016 17:06 UTC
Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6A3129476 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:06:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IM9nh7GWxS7F for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2D43129438 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.209.157.46] (port=4517 helo=glaroam2-178-158.wireless.gla.ac.uk) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1cJkLq-0006xR-6N; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:06:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <1413c1e1-ce44-def9-ee7b-1d07d63a9c87@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:06:47 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7527A28C-77C5-4F35-8BB8-A57782FD1410@csperkins.org>
References: <1413c1e1-ce44-def9-ee7b-1d07d63a9c87@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: State = no_sa; Score =
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/7BNbamEKL9HNdZmO_GMYUIoBp88>
Cc: IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-05
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:06:54 -0000
> On 9 Dec 2016, at 10:49, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote: > > This starts the 2 week WG last call (ending on the 23rd of December) on A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions to proposed standard. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis/ > > This document is intended to obsolete RFC 5285 and has currently no IPR declarations on it. I’ve reviewed this document. In general, I think it's in reasonable shape, although it could perhaps be better proof-read. However, I think Section 4.1 needs more work before this is ready for publication. This section of the draft says: This specification updates the requirement from the RTP specification that the header extension "is designed so that the header extension MAY be ignored". To be specific, header extensions using this specification SHOULD be used for data that can safely be ignored by the recipient without affecting interoperability, there can be essential header extensions for interoperability and intermediaries SHOULD NOT remove such header extensions. Note that the support of header extension as specified in this recommendation is negotiated. RTP Header extensions MUST NOT be used when the presence of the extension has changed the form or nature of the rest of the packet in a way that is not compatible with the way the stream is signaled (e.g., as defined by the payload type). Valid examples might include metadata that is additional to the usual RTP information, e.g. Audio level from Client to mixer [RFC6464]. Note that some header extensions, for example MID [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] might, if removed, disrupt the behaviour of the higher-level application that builds on RTP, but are acceptable since they do not affect interoperability of the RTP stack itself. This mis-quotes RFC 3550, and is hard to follow since it’s not clear what types of extension can be ignored, and what it means to affect interoperability if they are. I find the second sentence, in particular, to be confusing. My suggested rewording is as follows: The RTP specification [RFC3550] states that RTP “is designed so that the header extension may be ignored by other interoperating implementations that have not been extended”. The intent of this restriction is that RTP header extensions MUST NOT be used to extend RTP itself in a manner that is backwards incompatible with non-extended implementations. For example, a header extension is not allowed to change the meaning or interpretation of the standard RTP header fields, or of the RTCP Control Protocol (RTCP). Header extensions MAY carry metadata in addition to the usual RTP header information, provided the RTP layer can function if that metadata is missing. For example, RTP header extensions can be used to carry data that's also sent in RTCP, as an optimisation to lower latency, since they'll fall back to the original, non-optimised, behaviour if the header extension is not present. The use of header extensions to convey information that will, if missing, disrupt the behaviour of a higher layer application that builds on top of RTP is only acceptable if this doesn't affect interoperability at the RTP layer. For example, applications that use the SDP BUNDLE extension with the MID RTP header extension [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] to correlate RTP streams with SDP m= lines likely won’t work with full functionality if the MID is missing, but the operation of the RTP layer of those applications will be unaffected. Note that I removed the text “intermediaries SHOULD NOT remove such header extensions” because certain types of intermediaries, such as RTP mixers, have no choice but to remove RTP header extensions. It might make sense to say instead that some types of intermediary can’t be used if the higher layer protocol relies on header extensions to carry metadata, since those intermediaries are incompatible with header extensions. Cheers, Colin -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/
- [AVTCORE] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore… Colin Perkins
- Re: [AVTCORE] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore… Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore… Colin Perkins