IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVT] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-11: Part 7 Persistent Errors

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Fri, 14 January 2011 18:33 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 7C8413A6C7E for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:33:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.446
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.153, 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 hfOu-glgapmC for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:33:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6158B3A6BCD for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:33:20 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAN4mME2rR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACkWXOiLZkMAoVNBIRriVM
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jan 2011 18:35:38 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0EIZcdZ002264; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:35:38 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:35:38 -0800
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: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:34:55 -0800
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540E16DA3F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D30844F.8020508@ericsson.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-11: Part 7 Persistent Errors
Thread-Index: Acu0DnFSIV2GuMLrTA6dCkcrHzTPnwACT/tQ
References: <4D30844F.8020508@ericsson.com>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, IETF AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp@tools.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2011 18:35:38.0486 (UTC) FILETIME=[D705E160:01CBB419]
Subject: Re: [AVT] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-11: Part 7 Persistent Errors
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: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:33:21 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 6:14 PM
> To: IETF AVT WG; draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-11: Part 7 Persistent Errors
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is a continuation of the issue 15A from the 08 review.
> 
> The issue is when a client should consider an error to be persistent, or
> at least not short time temporarily or resolvable. If a client continues
> to get Mapping responses with errors after having tried several times.
> Maybe it should do exponential back-off. Maybe it should update its
> session description. Similar for Verification Requests.
> 
> Some recommendation about such behavior I think has clear benefit and
> reduced uncertainty in behavior by clients.

This sounds like a good suggestion. How about adding the following to the end of section 6:

If a client receives a Port Mapping Response message with an invalid Token (i.e., the relative expiration time is set to zero) two or more times for a particular Port Mapping Request message, or the client receives a Token Verification Failure message two or more times for the same Token Verification Request message, the client SHOULD do the following:
1- Check whether the session description has been updated or not. If it was updated, act according to the new session description.
2- Exponentially back-off for the third and subsequent attempts.

Exponential back-off does not apply when the client sends a Port Mapping Request or Token Verification Request message to a new address and/or port.

Let me know if this text is good or you wanna modify it.

-acbegen
 
> This was my last issue I have found in this review. A clear improvement
> from the previous review of the document.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email