Return-Path: 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 250E712010D; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:53:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 FJjpQWpGN-DJ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:53:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99B9F1200A1; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:53:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 393B337ED6F3FDA74540; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:53:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lhreml722-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.73) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:53:02 +0000 Received: from lhreml722-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.73) by lhreml722-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:53:01 +0000 Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) by lhreml722-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:53:01 +0000 Received: from DGGEMM526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.101]) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:52:52 +0800 From: "Roni Even (A)" To: "Roni Even (A)" , "avt@ietf.org" CC: "rmcat@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05 Thread-Index: AdWrParOQoDqW2unTp6vJCt9sZdx9AEGe1dw Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:52:52 +0000 Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D348A6@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D24D49@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D24D49@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.67] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D348A6dggemm526mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05 X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:53:07 -0000 --_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D348A6dggemm526mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Some comments as individual 1. in section 10 the registration of the SDP ccfb attribute need also to in= clude mux category 2. In section 4 it is says "It has been shown [I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feed= back] that in most cases a per frame feedbac= k is a reasonable assumption on how frequent the RTCP feedback messages can= be transmitted." later in the section it talks about 50-200msec and say th= at a value in this range need to be negotiated. Looking at rmcat-rtp-cc-fe= edback I got the impression that a report per frame is recommended. 3. A nit - please expand RTS at first occurrence, it is expanded a bit late= r Roni Even From: avt [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even (A) Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 9:30 AM To: avt@ietf.org Cc: rmcat@ietf.org Subject: [AVTCORE] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05 Hello, all! As we discussed in Singapore, this is to announce a Working Group Last Call= for draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-05. Please review this document and send comments to the AVT mailing list by Th= ursday, December 19, 2019. If you review the document and have nothing to add, please let the list kno= w that as well. Thank you! Roni Even AVTCore co-chair --_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D348A6dggemm526mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,<= /p>

 

Some comments as indiv= idual

 

1. in section 10 the r= egistration of the SDP ccfb attribute need also to include mux category

 

2. In section 4 it is says=
  “It has been shown  [I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback] that in most cases a per frame =
feedback is a reasonable assumption on how frequent the RTCP feedback messa=
ges can be transmitted.“ later in t=
he section it talks about 50-200msec and say that a value in this range nee=
d to be negotiated.  Looking at rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback I got the impres=
sion that a report per frame is recommended. 
 
3. A nit – please expand RTS at first=
 occurrence, it is expanded a bit later
 
Roni Even

 

 

From: avt [mai= lto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even (A)
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 9:30 AM
To: avt@ietf.org
Cc: rmcat@ietf.org
Subject: [AVTCORE] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05=

 

Hello, all!

 

As we discussed in Singapore, this is to announce= a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-05.

 

Please review this document and send comments to = the AVT mailing list by Thursday, December 19, 2019.

 

 

If you review the document and have nothing to ad= d, please let the list know that as well.

 

Thank you!

 

Roni Even

AVTCore co-chair

 

 

 

--_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D348A6dggemm526mbxchi_--