Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft
"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Thu, 17 June 2010 21:54 UTC
Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102B33A6936 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.926
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.673, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PrrXgr2mHCLN for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85B83A67A2 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAM42GkyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACefHGncpozhRoEg1I
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,434,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="146239201"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2010 21:54:54 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5HLssfR022535; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:54:54 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:54:54 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:54:00 -0700
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540C6A4392@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9766AD971258254AAB3F85B19DD0595617D1DAB6@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft
thread-index: AcsNdWo0kzTQmVdkRGOiUIkt8aNDfQAzelrAAAJNw4AAA+3QMAAA9L7AAAFZfmA=
References: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540C5EEA4A@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540C6A4214@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><EE933D92D054D14089A336CC71A5CCA6018E893F@XMB-RCD-213.cisco.com> <02ec01cb0e5c$aa334d20$fe99e760$%roni@huawei.com> <9766AD971258254AAB3F85B19DD0595617D1DAB6@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: Zeev Vax <zeevvax@microsoft.com>, Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>, "Bill Ver Steeg (versteb)" <versteb@cisco.com>, IETF AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jun 2010 21:54:54.0333 (UTC) FILETIME=[B81A1AD0:01CB0E67]
Subject: Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:54:58 -0000
Is the following text acceptable? <new text> * Accept Responses: BRS MUST send at least one separate RAMS-I message with the appropriate response code for each primary multicast stream that has been requested by RTP_Rx and will be served by BRS. Such RAMS-I messages comprise fields that can be used to describe the individual unicast burst streams. When there is a RAMS-R request for multiple primary multicast streams, BRS MUST include all the individual RAMS-I messages corresponding to that RAMS-R request in the same compound RTCP packet if these messages fit in the same packet. The RAMS-I message carries the RTP sequence number of the first packet transmitted in the respective RTP stream to allow RTP_Rx to detect any missing initial packet(s). When BRS accepts a request for a primary multicast stream, this field MUST always be populated in the RAMS-I message(s) sent for this particular primary multicast stream. It is RECOMMENDED that BRS sends a RAMS-I message at the start of the burst so that RTP_Rx can quickly detect any missing initial packet(s). It is possible that the RAMS-I message for a primary multicast stream can get delayed or lost, and RTP_Rx can start receiving RTP packets before receiving a RAMS-I message. RTP_Rx MUST NOT make protocol dependencies on quickly receiving the initial RAMS-I message. For redundancy purposes, it is RECOMMENDED that BRS repeats the RAMS-I messages multiple times as long as it follows the RTCP timer rules defined in [RFC4585]. </new text> Keith, could you confirm whether this text is OK in terms of 2119 language? If so, let's wrap it up and we will submit -11. -acbegen > -----Original Message----- > From: Zeev Vax [mailto:zeevvax@microsoft.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:03 PM > To: Roni Even; Bill Ver Steeg (versteb); Ali C. Begen (abegen); 'IETF AVT WG' > Subject: RE: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft > > I agree with Roni, we should change it to recommended as he suggested or to MAY. > > Zeev > > -----Original Message----- > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:36 PM > To: 'Bill Ver Steeg (versteb)'; 'Ali C. Begen (abegen)'; 'IETF AVT WG' > Subject: Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft > > Hi Bill, > The discussion was if the server MUST send a RAMS-I in the start of the > burst and I tried in my email to explain why it is not a MUST. It may be > helpful but nothing will break if the server will not send it. This is based > on section 5 that says that nothing should break since you can always go to > the multicast. > Roni > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Bill Ver Steeg (versteb) > > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:47 PM > > To: Ali C. Begen (abegen); IETF AVT WG > > Subject: Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft > > > > Agreed on the first point. The (primary) intent of the multiple RAMS-I > > messages is for message integrity, so the required fields should appear > > in each RAMS-I. I realize that some RAMS-I messages convey "new" > > information, but including all non-stale information in the new RAMS-I > > is good practice from a message resiliency standpoint. > > > > On the second point, perhaps we can craft language that says > > 1-the server MUST send a RAMS-I at the start of the burst, and the > > initial RAMS-I MUST contain [an enumerated list of required fields] and > > MAY contain the other fields. > > 2- the server MUST send at least one RAMS-I that contains the join > > time. > > 3- the server MAY send additional RAMS-I messages, and these messages > > MUST contain [an enumerated list of required fields] and May have > > updated values for any of the fields. > > > > bvs > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ali C. Begen (abegen) > > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:54 PM > > To: IETF AVT WG > > Cc: Bill Ver Steeg (versteb); Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom); > > zeevvax@microsoft.com > > Subject: RE: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft > > > > To start a discussion: > > > > I think the TLV for the seqnum of the first burst packet must be > > included in every RAMS-I sent by the server (The overhead is small and > > it serves for an important goal). I am fine with the current "MUST" but > > we should make the sentence clear that it is a must for every RAMS-I > > message not only for the first one. > > > > Regarding the timing of the first/initial RAMS-I message. It is correct > > that this message may get lost. So, even if we say the server must send > > it right before the burst, it may get dropped or re-ordered. The client > > MUST NOT break in such cases. However, we need to consider that RAMS > > may > > itself fail or may become even useless. E.g., if the client is missing > > one or more packets at the start of the burst and does not realize this > > for some time, by the time it asks for those missing packets and gets > > them, the resulting acquisition delay might be close to (or even longer > > than) the acquisition delay that would be achieved w/o RAMS. And the > > client will have wasted valuable resources of the server and network > > for > > no visible gain. > > > > Our options here are: > > - MUST: This makes the text clear and defines the server behavior > > normatively. However, what is the difference between the cases where > > the > > initial RAMS-I is dropped and where the server does not send it at the > > start of the burst? From client's viewpoint, these cases are equal. > > - SHOULD: Since we initially followed the logic above, we agreed on > > "SHOULD" (rather than a MUST) but now we are supposed to come up with a > > reason why the server will not need to follow this requirement. If you > > have suggestions, please speak up. > > - MAY or any other non-normative language: IMO, it will be too soft to > > use "MAY" here as I think trying to get the burst description > > information to the client as quickly as possible is important for > > better > > performance. It increases the chances for RAMS success. > > > > My personal choice is to stick with SHOULD. Or go for a MUST. > > > > Please comment so that we can close this final issue. > > > > -acbegen > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Ali C. Begen (abegen) > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 1:00 PM > > > To: IETF AVT WG > > > Cc: Bill Ver Steeg (versteb) > > > Subject: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > There will be a new revision to the RAMS draft to address the final > > remaining comments (mostly > > > regarding the 2119 keyword usage in the draft). We currently agreed > > on > > all the earlier clarifications > > > requested by Keith but one. Here is the remaining one and we would > > like to get input from the WG. > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for- > > rt > > p/ > > > > > > page 19, sub-bullet starting with "Accept Responses:" > > > > > > Here is the current text: > > > > > > * Accept Responses: BRS MUST send a separate RAMS-I message > > > with the appropriate response code for each primary > > multicast > > > stream that has been requested by RTP_Rx and will be > > served > > > by BRS. Such RAMS-I messages comprise fields that can be > > > used to describe the individual unicast burst streams. > > > > > > -> So far, there are no issues. > > > > > > A particularly important field in the RAMS-I message > > carries > > > the RTP sequence number of the first packet transmitted in > > > the respective RTP stream to allow RTP_Rx to detect any > > > missing initial packet(s). When BRS accepts the request, > > > > > > -> No issues until this point, either. > > > > > > this field MUST be populated in the RAMS-I message and the > > > ^^^^ > > > initial RAMS-I message SHOULD precede the unicast burst or > > be > > > ^^^^^^ > > > sent at the start of the burst so that RTP_Rx can quickly > > > detect any missing initial packet(s). > > > > > > -> The discussion is about the MUST and SHOULD above. BTW, we will > > remove the part "precede the > > > unicast burst" and keep only the "be sent at the start of the burst" > > part. > > > > > > Where possible, it is RECOMMENDED to include all RAMS-I > > messages > > > in the same compound RTCP packet. However, it is possible > > that > > > the RAMS-I message for a primary multicast stream can get > > > delayed or lost, and RTP_Rx can start receiving RTP packets > > > before receiving a RAMS-I message. RTP_Rx MUST NOT make > > > protocol dependencies on quickly receiving the initial RAMS-I > > > message. For redundancy purposes, it is RECOMMENDED that BRS > > > repeats the RAMS-I messages multiple times as long as it > > follows > > > the RTCP timer rules defined in [RFC4585]. > > > > > > -> The paragraph above is also agreed. So, the client (RTP_Rx) MUST > > NOT make any assumptions about the > > > order of the burst packets or the RAMS-I messages. In other words, > > the > > client implementation MUST NOT > > > break when the arrival order is different than what it was expected. > > This is because even if the > > > server sends them in the correct order (if we agree on one), packets > > may get re-ordered or lost. > > > > > > On the other hand, everybody agrees that sending the seqnum of the > > first burst packet at an earlier > > > stage is very useful to allow the client to detect whether it is > > missing any burst packets or not. > > > Note that there is no other way that the client can detect this in > > the > > RTP plane. > > > > > > But, the question is when this info should be sent. In particular: > > > > > > 1- MUST the server include the TLV for the seqnum of the 1st burst > > packet in each RAMS-I message? > > > Remember that RAMS-I messages can be repeated for redundancy. And if > > the server cannot tell the client > > > when to join in the first RAMS-I message, a second RAMS-I message > > with > > the join-time information is > > > required. The overhead of sending this particular TLV is not critical > > in practice. > > > > > > 2- When should the server send the first (or initial) RAMS-I message? > > Right before (or at the start > > > of) the burst or any time during the burst? And should we use "MUST, > > SHOULD, MAY" or something else > > > here? If we wanna keep "SHOULD", we need to explain the circumstances > > when the server does not need to > > > send a RAMS-I message at the start of the burst. > > > > > > Note that this text explains the behavior of the server. No matter > > what the server does, the arrival > > > order may still change at the client but the last paragraph above > > makes sure that the client > > > implementation does not break in such cases. > > > > > > Bill, Tom, Zeev, please add your comments if I missed something. > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > > > avt@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > > _______________________________________________ > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > > avt@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft Roni Even
- Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft Bill Ver Steeg (versteb)
- Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft Roni Even
- Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft Zeev Vax
- Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] Open issue in the RAMS draft Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom)