IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] MMTP vs RTP

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Tue, 28 July 2015 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D78B1ACD61; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 3bRkdcY34gfp; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBD301ACD60; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3092; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438099553; x=1439309153; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=7A5EwXLL/3JLZpqb5Iz0HKWExsXYze7t15BReZZmGnc=; b=XEqdxp/81OlgtphRwtsSTIvBv7FIdBYWpYuQCeKFKuKHxJuUBIBPM33e 8jUTBRUD5UnpF2b/6KMLfSvQM2dWbv2EAXNVoN7evOdtvrIkV3JRyy7bE 1CpFjyX630voIjldAFJQJ9c8jBcpgBUK4lZSZSDrSJGeS8oIUK9IbmKWH Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CeBQD6p7dV/4wNJK1bgxVUaQaDHbkXggGFeQIcgTs5EwEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBAgIjETMSDAYBCBEDAQIDAiYCBDAVCAoEAQ0FiC4NuheWFQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEgSKKLIQuDhgzDYJjL4EUBYUlj0MBhHiFHIItmSsmZIMZbwGBBEOBBAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,564,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="15716393"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2015 16:05:52 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6SG5q1k005563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:05:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.2.64]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:05:51 -0500
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>, "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [AVTCORE] MMTP vs RTP
Thread-Index: AQHQyU9GXYqL7Vm+vEeV8Vc2qNUD2w==
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:05:51 +0000
Message-ID: <A1471738-4634-4F44-B3C7-827FA26A327E@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.150701
x-originating-ip: [10.98.108.83]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <302C49B37B609E4A8F3F3F5AB2A4621C@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/YqWwRoqsNKblF4Jy4djJ3lSAkp8>
Cc: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] MMTP vs RTP
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:05:54 -0000

Is not this thread supposed to cc the transport area, too?




-----Original Message-----
From: avt on behalf of "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)"
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:02 PM
To: "avt@ietf.org", "payload@ietf.org"
Cc: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk"
Subject: [AVTCORE] MMTP vs RTP

>MMTP (MPEG Media Transport Protocol) aims to replace RTP and MPEG-2 TS for media streaming applications, both real-time and non-real-time. It integrates FEC, buffering, congestion control and other functions. It was presented in TSVAREA in IETF 93. See
> below for the slides and draft.
>https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-tsvarea-1.pdf
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bouazizi-tsvwg-mmtp
>
>
>I found slides 5 and 15 particularly relevant for AVT folks, so inlining them.
>
>
>Why not RTP? (slide 5)
>- Lack of  Multiplexing
>  - One media session per component and without RTP multiplexing, 2 ports per session 
>- Server Maintenance
>  - RTP Payload Format for every new media codec 
>  - Support needs to be added to the media server 
>?- Coupling of  Presentation and Delivery
>  - RTP carries presentation and synchronization information at the transport level
>- Limited support for Non-Real Time Media
>  - Presentations consist of  timed and non-timed media
>  - Need other protocol or countless number of  payload formats to support NRT 
>
>
>
>Why are we here? (slide 15)
>- We want to develop MMTP further in the IETF
>- We want to address the Internet (unicast and Multicast)
>- We want to reuse existing components such as congestion control and security
>- A protocol is needed by many SDOs: MPEG, ATSC, 3GPP, DVB, ...
>?- Can we revive rmt?
>?- Can we start a BoF or a new ad-hoc group? 
>?- Or can we do an informational RFC?
>
>
>
>I think there should be some dialogue on RTP evolution with the MMTP folks. Some interesting points are raised in this work, such as generic packetization vs. specific RTP payload formats. Perhaps a generic payload draft can address this generic packetization
> (i.e. fragmentation and perhaps aggregation) in the absence of a specific RTP payload format for the elementary media stream.
>
>
>Thanks to Gorry for bringing this to my attention.
>
>
>Mo
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email