[AVT] Re: Errors in draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-bw-05.txt

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@era.ericsson.se> Mon, 28 April 2003 06:59 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22467 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 02:59:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3S73Zg12879 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 03:03:35 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3S71s812810; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 03:01:54 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3S70N812578 for <avt@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 03:00:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22447 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 02:55:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19A2a4-0000v7-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 02:57:40 -0400
Received: from albatross-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.49] helo=albatross.wise.edt.ericsson.se) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19A2a4-0000v3-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 02:57:40 -0400
Received: from esealnt613.al.sw.ericsson.se (alteon-nat8.sw.ericsson.se [153.88.254.125]) by albatross.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.12.9/8.12.9/WIREfire-1.5.1) with ESMTP id h3S6wCRs021015; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:58:12 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from era.ericsson.se (research-nnng7k.ki.sw.ericsson.se [147.214.34.132]) by esealnt613.al.sw.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2655.55) id JZBTCBAN; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:58:12 +0200
Message-ID: <3EACD0C1.1050803@era.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:57:05 +0200
X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@era.ericsson.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>
CC: IETF AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>
References: <20030425110714.C77830-100000@ash.packetdesign.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [AVT] Re: Errors in draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-bw-05.txt
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Steve,

Stephen Casner wrote:

>>2. This does also concern the text below the example. In my
>>interpretation there is difference between including both RR and RS and
>>leaving them out while you have the bit-rates equal to the default 3.75
>>and 1.25 %. When you have the RR and RS in place the 1/4 active sender
>>rule is not in place. While when you don't have them it will be in
>>place. Therefore there will be a significant difference in how you
>>assign the bit-rate. Also I think that one could clarify this difference.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not sure what point you are making.  Is it that the 1/4 active
>sender rule says that the active senders get _at least_ 1/4 of the
>RTCP bandwidth but that if RS is specified the active senders would
>never get more than that?
>
>It was my intention that the behavior be the same when RS and RR are
>specified, or even if just one is specified.  These bw specifiers just
>set the two input values to the algorithm.  However, I see that the
>document does not make this clear.
>
>Do you think there is a reason that the behavior I inteded will not
>work?
>  
>

The interpretation of your draft that I and other in 3GPP SA4 have made, 
is that when you use both RR and RS you don't use the 1/4 active sender 
rule. If both the values are specified one simple plugs them in as the 
values for each group. I think there are a good reason for doing this 
interpretation.

1. Unless one disables the 1/4 rule it is impossible to turn off RTCP 
receiver reports in cases where there are more then one 1/4 senders, 
which include the so important 1 to 1 case.
2. It becomes impossible to set unsymmetric RTCP bit-rates in 1-1 cases. 
This would be a problem in for example streaming cases where one might 
desire to control the bit-rate in each direction. This can be especially 
important in use cases over wireless links that need rather good control 
over bit-rate.

So based on these arguments I would suggest that you actually clarify 
the draft in this direction.

Best Regards


Magnus Westerlund 

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research ERA/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@era.ericsson.se



_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt