IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] [Dart] Treatment of RTCP (was Re: Colin Perkins comments - WGLC: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-02)

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Thu, 28 August 2014 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 E07571A87AC; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001] 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 iXD5UBkMLUxP; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B2171A0137; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [213.205.233.181] (port=47836 helo=[10.174.172.224]) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1XN3XR-0007DG-7Q; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:31:11 +0100
References: <embac59e09-6dad-42df-94b2-7daa46d31d5d@sydney> <704DAEE2-C26F-48C8-8C75-548FE115B91F@csperkins.org> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BB42E1F@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <22E25F9C-E9B1-4C3C-989E-570BAAF58018@csperkins.org> <A4501649-B293-4B6F-A4EB-A08B30EF922C@ifi.uio.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <A4501649-B293-4B6F-A4EB-A08B30EF922C@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C976F604-C51C-45A8-A207-A8416765CB83@csperkins.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257)
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:31:01 +0100
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Z2DSQJ-4og-tQsSHBJu9667m3sA
Cc: "draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "dart@ietf.org" <dart@ietf.org>, "avt@ietf.org WG" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [Dart] Treatment of RTCP (was Re: Colin Perkins comments - WGLC: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-02)
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: <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, 28 Aug 2014 17:31:15 -0000

> On 27 Aug 2014, at 19:39, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 27. aug. 2014, at 18:00, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 26 Aug 2014, at 17:38, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
>>>> The more difficult case is when an SSRC is sending video using different
>>>> markings for RTP packets carrying the I- and P-frames. Should that SSRC then
>>>> mark its RTCP packets like the RTP packets carrying I-frames, like the RTP
>>>> packets carrying P-frames, or what?
>>> 
>>> Answering a question w/a question :-), how are those reports likely to be used?
>>> 
>>> For example, if the primary use of these reports is to adjust a variable rate
>>> codec's sending rate, the P-frame info is probably more useful as indicative
>>> of what's happening to the traffic that the network drops first when the going
>>> gets rough (or whose delivery w/o loss indicates that a sending rate increase
>>> may be reasonable), which suggests P-frame-like RTCP report marking.
>> 
>> I doubt the RTT estimate derived from RTCP is used for congestion control, since it’s too infrequent to get insight into the dynamics. It’s for user experience reporting, maybe rough clustering of receivers, that sort of thing.
> 
> I'd agree if I didn't have the impression, in RMCAT, that nothing but RTP / RTCP is allowed?!  So can we send extra packets to probe for the RTT?

Yes, as I replied a couple of days ago. 

Colin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email