Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 24 February 2020 05:34 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FF13A0853; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:34:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.602
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_SUMOF=5, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 q83dqme-zUa0; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:34:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-f175.google.com (mail-il1-f175.google.com [209.85.166.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B15A3A0851; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:33:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-f175.google.com with SMTP id g12so6710486ild.2; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:33:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7kQzvjvhCIP8+wJHp8u/GcGurGtgNg3L3QgDn40b7aA=; b=U/PEubEzF27Veokte+QodWZ4NVxYBED8zEVQINzWB2n2y9NHFaDmb1PjSFETgz2FE5 tn02OhxqtqPHSu6rPbvJ8Psw8R0VkvriS9RdinOnSIlE6Aof1BveThGcH9sdwqfc2OIe 8zerc+Ju4uKGOEM3CBxwNoOyXVmvoTlqQhdRfSSaxAU69/WBTCqcQcVlOLVpV1qG2Brf y0wEQES9jkRVcADyU+PtRB8XCdH7EgCO+rBeXEkgAlaOq4TNQVLXHvbWt51c0b5QTJxR OJ1EpvZv3GBc0rmG9Z9+j9qJQqOoFq6fSVrzZByGTE3WjeJOpAXe55BHqQT1FRwAD/XL ncFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVg10FYuZ3rURL3IcH6mFY9os/4ckcyrQVUhJGOa9orBtETIGt+ A6ei7Ac6wILN3X7Z2F2PNeFTW0XYYM8OsLzVqww=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqymbNtc4xi5cLvQxwxhjteedt9EI5c9TtvZmjDzZ5PhQGPMjZEL9HS3tsSx3e/tCTap30c4TgPLDzZciFSGvms=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:d3cc:: with SMTP id c12mr56712107ilh.266.1582522436178; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:33:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <001601d57af9$405efcf0$c11cf6d0$@vocal.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD23D79BC0@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <034a01d58a73$f4d3a1c0$de7ae540$@vocal.com> <037e01d58a92$72287510$56795f30$@vocal.com> <CALaySJLSkZnC_jsQtk+Ybq03RWYJeujdeft+zGsv9uZ5wjcwCg@mail.gmail.com> <20191101001153.GQ88302@kduck.mit.edu> <06e101d59f15$ee937b30$cbba7190$@vocal.com> <20191125064606.GL32847@mit.edu> <CALaySJJNovsSWuCB_R3Dc7ci7did2Zu20haU5o7b6pSpRYP5nw@mail.gmail.com> <00c601d5e339$965ebd90$c31c38b0$@vocal.com> <20200214194321.GF43385@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20200214194321.GF43385@kduck.mit.edu>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:33:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+_ObgqS=idw2qyVaO2bmvaKWR4ba72wr9Bv372tvu7AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Ali Begen <ali.begen@networked.media>, Catherine Meadows <catherine.meadows@nrl.navy.mil>, "Dave Satterlee (Vocal)" <Dave.Satterlee@vocal.com>, IETF SecDir <secdir@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, avt@ietf.org, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis@ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis.all@ietf.org, victor.demjanenko@vocal.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a85af0059f4bb74a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/boHhlev4Y1q0aJhndgw4oQilFaE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:21:37 -0800
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 05:34:10 -0000
Hi, Victor... your turn now... Barry On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:43 AM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: > Hi Barry, > > As Victor notes, this one was/is waiting on me; he did reply (offlist) on > 15 January but I seem to have missed it amid a deluge of other mail that > arrived at that time. Thanks for the reminder, and thanks Victor for > re-sending the comments. > (inline) > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:20:54AM -0500, victor.demjanenko@vocal.com > wrote: > > HI Barry, > > > > Thanks for recalling this was still outstanding. I had emailed Ben just > after the holidays and did not realize we had no response. The below is > what we suggested to Ben to address concerns he raised. > > > > -------------------- > > Hi Ben, > > > > Hope your holidays were good. Our were both good and busy. Deliveries > for two NASA projects and the holidays kept us from responding sooner. But > we do want to get this draft completed. > > > > With your permission, I’d like to address your comments directly, > resolve what changes we should make and then publish a new version with a > summary of our out-of-band discussions. We don’t have a lot of experience > with drafting such documents and would like to know exactly what is needed > to make this draft acceptable. > > > > I believe there are two comments/issues to address: > > > > 1) CODA, CODB > > > > Your comment ends by stating: “(Or, of course, the use of CODB as an > alternating 1/0 bit as the framing usage could be documented instead.)” We > can do this as follows: > > > > (original) > > It should be noted that CODB for MELPe 600 bps mode MAY deviate from > > the value in Table 1 when bit 55 is used as an end-to-end framing > > bit. Frame decoding would remain distinct as CODA being zero on its > > own would indicate a 7-byte frame for either 2400 or 600 bps rate and > > the use of 600 bps speech coding could be deduced from the RTP > > timestamp (and anticipated by the SDP negotiations). > > > > (adding “alternating 1/0”) > > It should be noted that CODB for MELPe 600 bps mode MAY deviate from > > the value in Table 1 when bit 55 is used as an alternating 1/0 > end-to-end framing > > bit. Frame decoding would remain distinct as CODA being zero on its > > own would indicate a 7-byte frame for either 2400 or 600 bps rate and > > the use of 600 bps speech coding could be deduced from the RTP > > timestamp (and anticipated by the SDP negotiations). > > > > I think this change would be sufficient to address your concern about > what to expect for CODB. > > This looks like the minimal sufficient change, yes. (I use "minimal" > because I would say more if I was writing it, but I don't think I can > insist that you write it the way I would -- it's your document after all!) > > > 2. Packing and unpacking > > > > You are correct that I am trying to vaguely describe a middle layer shim > that is neither RTP nor speech coder. So it definitely does need to be > clear. The vagueness comes from the speech coder description being a FOUO > document. Its now unclassified so I can potentially say more (and I did > make some enhancements of the parameter description already). > > > > So I am trying to understand exactly what you think is vague in our > current description: > > > > TSVCIS augmented speech data is derived from the signal processing > > and data already performed by the MELPe speech coder. For the > > purposes of this specification, only the general parameter nature of > > TSVCIS will be characterized. Depending on the bandwidth available > > (and FEC requirements), a varying number of TSVCIS-specific speech > > coder parameters need to be transported. These are first byte-packed > > and then conveyed from encoder to decoder. > > > > Byte packing of TSVCIS speech data into packed parameters is > > processed as per the following example: > > > > Three-bit field: bits A, B, and C (A is MSB, C is LSB) > > Five-bit field: bits D, E, F, G, and H (D is MSB, H is LSB) > > > > MSB LSB > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > > +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ > > | H | G | F | E | D | C | B | A | > > +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ > > > > This packing method places the three-bit field "first" in the lowest > > bits followed by the next five-bit field. Parameters may be split > > between octets with the most significant bits in the earlier octet. > > Any unfilled bits in the last octet MUST be filled with zero. > > [not actually relevant to the Discuss part, but if there is always exactly > one 3-bit parameter and one 5-bit parameter, then this text allowing > splitting across octets will never be used and is potentially confusing to > mention.] > > > In order to accommodate a varying amount of TSVCIS augmented speech > > data, it is only necessary to specify the number of octets containing > > the packed TSVCIS parameters. The encoding to do so is presented in > > I think the "only necessary to specify the number of octets" is the key > stumbling point, for me -- I need to know the number of octets as well as > the order of the parameters within the list, which is more information than > just the number of octets. > > > Section 3.2. TSVCIS specifically uses the NRL VDR in two > > configurations using 15 and 35 packed octet parameters [TSVCIS]. > > I think I failed to internalize the "two configurations using 15 and 35 > packed octet parameters" the first time I read the document, as this does > help give the reader a clue that [TSVCIS] gives a good picture of what > parameters go where. So it seems like we could easily append to that, for > "using a fixed set of 15 and 35 packed octet parameters in a fixed order > [TSVCIS]" and that would resolve my concerns. > > > The speech coder description of the parameters is the following: > > > > > > > > So the three bit pitch is first (bits 56 to 58), followed by a five bit > amplitude (bits 59 to 63) and then an array of spectral components, each > 8-bit wide (starting at bit 64). > > [And maybe TSVCIS specifes that the spectral components are derived from > some fundamental harmonic decomposition that naturally quantizes to a > number-of-parameters/accuracy tradeoff with a natural order. If so, we > could also rely on that instead of my proposed change above; let me know if > you want to explore that path further.] > > > Based on this information, I’m not sure what we should add to our draft > to make the description of packing/unpacking clearer. Can you make any > suggestions or does this table help you with what you did not know? (I > don’t think I should put this table into the draft RFC however.) > > Hopefully the above helps to clarify. > > Thanks, and sorry for the delay. > > -Ben > > > Thanks for your attention and comments. > > > > Victor & Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> > > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 7:38 AM > > To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> > > Cc: victor.demjanenko@vocal.com; Roni Even (A) <roni.even@huawei.com>; > The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; Catherine Meadows < > catherine.meadows@nrl.navy.mil>; IETF SecDir <secdir@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis@ietf.org; Ali Begen <ali.begen@networked.media>; > avtcore-chairs@ietf.org; avt@ietf.org; Dave Satterlee (Vocal) < > Dave.Satterlee@vocal.com>; IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis.all@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > This is still outstanding, since November. Victor, where are we on this > one? > > > > Barry > > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:46 AM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Victor, > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 03:14:21PM -0500, victor.demjanenko@vocal.com > wrote: > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > > > > Sorry I overlooked sending you a response. I would like to address > > > > the two concerns you have by explaining what the speech coders are > doing. > > > > > > Thanks for the extra clarifications. To supply one of my own: I'm not > > > concerned that the protocol doesn't work as implemented, but just want > > > to make sure that the document includes enough information to admit > > > new implementations without guesswork. That is to say, "either tell > > > me how to do it or tell me where to look that tells me how to do it". > > > > > > > WRT to 600 bps MELP, there is one TSVCIS mode that uses one bit > > > > beyond the 54-bit frame for MELP 600 as a frame sync which > alternates between frames. > > > > With two or more MELP 600bps frames in one RTP packet, if any frame > > > > indicates 600 bps by CODA being 0 and CODB being 1, then we know the > > > > stream is 600bps. If there is a single frame in an RTP packet, you > > > > can still deduce this by looking at every other RTP packet (every > > > > other MELP 600bps > > > > frame) and by the timestamp advance. Most likely the two ends would > > > > negotiate 600 bps in SDP anyways so there really should not be a > > > > problem. I know it's not pretty but its workable. I hope this > > > > explanation helps you with the concerns for this issue. > > > > > > In this case, the use as an "end-to-end framing bit" (i.e., the > > > alternating behavior you describe above) is not explicitly stated; one > > > might imagine a scheme where the framing usage is to have the bit > > > cycle through 1, 1, 0, and 0, or some other scheme. I'd suggest to > > > note in the document that if any instance of (CODA, CODB) == (0, 1) is > > > observed, then the 600bps mode is in use. It might also be helpful to > > > include the observation that two successive MELPe payloads with CODA > > > == CODB == 0 indicates the 2400bps mode (and that seeing them in a > > > single RTP packet is decisive, whereas additional information about > > > packet non-loss would be needed in the one-MELPe-frame-per-RTP-packet > > > case), but that would be a fair bit of additional text and might be > > > diminishing returns. (Or, of course, the use of CODB as an > > > alternating 1/0 bit as the framing usage could be documented > > > instead.) > > > > > > > As for the TSVCIS parameter packing/unpacking, this is really > > > > simple. There is exactly on three bit parameter, exactly one five > > > > bit parameter and a variable number of eight bit parameters. In our > > > > view, the speech coder itself (or a wrapper for it) is responsible > > > > for preparing the block of octets. RTP then just transports it. On > > > > receive, the complementary wrapper reverses the packing operation. > > > > I hope this clarifies and explains the simplicity. > > > > > > That's exactly what I expected to happen; however, it's not what I > > > believe the current text of the document is describing. Specifically, > > > I think that the current text implies that the "preparing the block of > > > octets" and "complementary wrapper reverses the packing operation" are > > > supposed to be part of the RTP payload format that this document > > > describes, but this document does not have enough information to > > > actually perform those operations reversibly. If the packing is to be > > > done in the speech coder, then this document doesn't need to talk > > > about the packing at all (e.g., at the end of Section 2); if we need > > > to keep the packing/wrapper in this document then we need to indicate > > > that there's a defined priority order for the (8-octet) TSVCIS > > > parameters in the TSVCIS references, to allow the packing/unpacking to > be deterministic. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 8:12 PM > > > > To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> > > > > Cc: victor.demjanenko@vocal.com; Roni Even (A) > > > > <roni.even@huawei.com>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; Catherine Meadows > > > > <catherine.meadows@nrl.navy.mil>; IETF SecDir <secdir@ietf.org>; > > > > draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis@ietf.org; Ali Begen > > > > <ali.begen@networked.media>; avtcore-chairs@ietf.org; avt@ietf.org; > > > > Dave Satterlee (Vocal) <Dave.Satterlee@vocal.com>; IETF discussion > > > > list <ietf@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis.all@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on > > > > draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > > > I don't think so, unfortunately. > > > > > > > > I do see the clarification about CODB's potential for deviation from > > > > Table 1, that only the 600 bps MELPe is allowed to deviate, and that > > > > CODA gets us to "it's one of 2400 or 600 bps" and the RTP timestamp > > > > disambiguates that > > > > 600 bps is in use. But, it seems that this means that the recipient > > > > in general should not rely on CODB to differentiate 600 from 2400 > > > > bps, and instead is more robustly implemented by *always* using the > > > > RTP timestamp to detect 600 bps, since that will always work and > > > > CODB will sometimes not work under conditions not fully specified > > > > here. So, if we are unwilling or unable to clarify what those > > > > conditions are (e.g., whether at a minimum mutual agreement is > > > > required), then I think we need to describe this procedure of > > > > consulting the RTP timestamp as the default behavior and avoid > giving the impression that CODB should be used to do so. > > > > > > > > Additionally, I don't see anything to address my concern about > > > > TSVCIS parameter decoding. To be clear, the procedure I see this > > > > document describing is that: > > > > - TSVCIS gives parameters (and their lengths in bits) to the codec > > > > described in this document > > > > - this document specifies how to densely encode those parameters > into a > > > > byetstream > > > > - RTP transmits that encoded bytestream to the peer > > > > - the codec specified by this is responsible for turning that encoded > > > > bystream back into a list of TSVCIS parameters (and their length > > > > in bits) > > > > > > > > I don't see how that last step is attainable with only the > > > > information provided by this document. I *assume* that one of the > > > > TSVCIS specifications has a canonical (ordered) listing of > > > > parameters, and that the list of parmeters given to this codec in > > > > the first step will always be an initial prefix of that list, but > > > > that's just me guessing at how to make sense of the stated procedure > > > > given insufficient information. I don't think it's appropriate to > > > > make the reader of an RFC guess at what to do; we need to either say > > > > how to do it or give a pointer to an external reference that does. > > > > > > > > -Ben > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 02:26:09PM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote: > > > > > Ben, does the -04 version address everything? > > > > > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 1:42 PM <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I forgot to address security comments in one email. The changes > are: > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 8, second paragraph - Suggested edit by reviewer > > > > > > > > > > > > (was) > > > > > > This RTP payload format and the TSVCIS decoder do not exhibit > any > > > > > > significant non-uniformity in the receiver-side computational > > > > > > complexity for packet processing and thus are unlikely to > pose a > > > > > > denial-of-service threat due to the receipt of pathological > data. > > > > > > Additionally, the RTP payload format does not contain any > active > > > > > > content. > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > This RTP payload format and the TSVCIS decoder, to the best > of our > > > > > > knowledge, do not exhibit any significant non-uniformity in > the > > > > > > receiver-side computational complexity for packet processing > and thus > > > > > > are unlikely to pose a denial-of-service threat due to the > receipt of > > > > > > pathological data. Additionally, the RTP payload format does > not > > > > > > contain any active content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 8, third paragraph - Suggested edit by reviewer > > > > > > > > > > > > (was) > > > > > > Please see the security considerations discussed in [RFC6562] > > > > > > regarding VAD and its effect on bitrates. > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > Please see the security considerations discussed in [RFC6562] > > > > > > regarding Voice Activity Detect (VAD) and its effect on > bitrates. > > > > > > > > > > > > Victor > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: victor.demjanenko@vocal.com <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 10:05 AM > > > > > > To: 'Roni Even (A)' <roni.even@huawei.com>; 'Benjamin Kaduk' > > > > > > <kaduk@mit.edu>; 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org> > > > > > > Cc: draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis@ietf.org; 'Ali Begen' > > > > > > <ali.begen@networked.media>; avtcore-chairs@ietf.org; > > > > > > avt@ietf.org; 'Dave Satterlee (Vocal)' > > > > > > <Dave.Satterlee@vocal.com> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on > > > > > > draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > First we want to thank everyone for their review and comments > > > > > > for this > > > > draft RFC. We believe we reviewed all the comments and suggestions > > > > and incorporated them adequately in the next draft (04). We'd like > > > > to send out this list of exact changes in case anyone has additional > > > > comments or thinks the clarifications are inadequate. We would be > > > > most happy to address concerns before publishing draft 04 tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > With so many emails from a half dozen or more reviewers, we > > > > > > apologize > > > > that we cannot address each sender individually. We hope this > > > > detail is sufficient for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, many thanks to all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Victor & Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 1.1 - Suggested reference to RFC 8088 added. > > > > > > > > > > > > (was) > > > > > > Best current practices for writing an RTP payload format > > > > > > specification were followed [RFC2736]. > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > Best current practices for writing an RTP payload format > > > > > > specification were followed [RFC2736] [RFC8088]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 2, paragraphs 3 and 4 - Suggested edits by reviewers > > > > > > > > > > > > (was) > > > > > > In addition to the augmented speech data, the TSVCIS > specification > > > > > > identifies which speech coder and framing bits are to be > encrypted, > > > > > > and how they are protected by forward error correction (FEC) > > > > > > techniques (using block codes). At the RTP transport layer, > only the > > > > > > speech coder related bits need to be considered and are > conveyed in > > > > > > unencrypted form. In most IP-based network deployments, > standard > > > > > > link encryption methods (SRTP, VPNs, FIPS 140 link encryptors > or Type > > > > > > 1 Ethernet encryptors) would be used to secure the RTP speech > > > > > > contents. Further, it is desirable to support the highest > voice > > > > > > quality between endpoints which is only possible without the > overhead > > > > > > of FEC. > > > > > > > > > > > > TSVCIS augmented speech data is derived from the signal > processing > > > > > > and data already performed by the MELPe speech coder. For the > > > > > > purposes of this specification, only the general parameter > nature of > > > > > > TSVCIS will be characterized. Depending on the bandwidth > available > > > > > > (and FEC requirements), a varying number of TSVCIS specific > speech > > > > > > coder parameters need to be transported. These are first > byte-packed > > > > > > and then conveyed from encoder to decoder. > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > In addition to the augmented speech data, the TSVCIS > specification > > > > > > identifies which speech coder and framing bits are to be > encrypted, > > > > > > and how they are protected by forward error correction (FEC) > > > > > > techniques (using block codes). At the RTP transport layer, > only the > > > > > > speech-coder-related bits need to be considered and are > conveyed in > > > > > > unencrypted form. In most IP-based network deployments, > standard > > > > > > link encryption methods (SRTP, VPNs, FIPS 140 link encryptors > or Type > > > > > > 1 Ethernet encryptors) would be used to secure the RTP speech > > > > > > contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > TSVCIS augmented speech data is derived from the signal > processing > > > > > > and data already performed by the MELPe speech coder. For the > > > > > > purposes of this specification, only the general parameter > nature of > > > > > > TSVCIS will be characterized. Depending on the bandwidth > available > > > > > > (and FEC requirements), a varying number of TSVCIS-specific > speech > > > > > > coder parameters need to be transported. These are first > byte-packed > > > > > > and then conveyed from encoder to decoder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 3, last sentence paragraph 3 - Suggested edit by > > > > > > reviewer > > > > > > > > > > > > (was) > > > > > > When more than one codec data frame is > > > > > > present in a single RTP packet, the timestamp is, as always, > that of > > > > > > the oldest data frame represented in the RTP packet. > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > When more than one codec data frame is > > > > > > present in a single RTP packet, the timestamp specified is > that of > > > > > > the oldest data frame represented in the RTP packet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 3.1, last paragraph - Clarified permission for MELP 600 > > > > > > end-to-end framing bit > > > > > > > > > > > > (was) > > > > > > It should be noted that CODB for both the 2400 and 600 bps > modes MAY > > > > > > deviate from the values in Table 1 when bit 55 is used as an > end-to- > > > > > > end framing bit. Frame decoding would remain distinct as > CODA being > > > > > > zero on its own would indicate a 7-byte frame for either rate > and the > > > > > > use of 600 bps speech coding could be deduced from the RTP > timestamp > > > > > > (and anticipated by the SDP negotiations). > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > It should be noted that CODB for MELPe 600 bps mode MAY > deviate from > > > > > > the value in Table 1 when bit 55 is used as an end-to-end > framing > > > > > > bit. Frame decoding would remain distinct as CODA being zero > on its > > > > > > own would indicate a 7-byte frame for either 2400 or 600 bps > rate and > > > > > > the use of 600 bps speech coding could be deduced from the RTP > > > > > > timestamp (and anticipated by the SDP negotiations). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 3.2, first paragraph - Clarifications requested by > > > > > > reviewers > > > > > > > > > > > > (was) > > > > > > The TSVCIS augmented speech data as packed parameters MUST be > placed > > > > > > immediately after a corresponding MELPe 2400 bps payload in > the same > > > > > > RTP packet. The packed parameters are counted in octets > (TC). In > > > > > > the preferred placement, shown in Figure 6, a single trailing > octet > > > > > > SHALL be appended to include a two-bit rate code, CODA and > CODB, > > > > > > (both bits set to one) and a six-bit modified count (MTC). > The > > > > > > special modified count value of all ones (representing a MTC > value of > > > > > > 63) SHALL NOT be used for this format as it is used as the > indicator > > > > > > for the alternate packing format shown next. In a standard > > > > > > implementation, the TSVCIS speech coder uses a minimum of 15 > octets > > > > > > for parameters in octet packed form. The modified count > (MTC) MUST > > > > > > be reduced by 15 from the full octet count (TC). Computed > MTC = TC- > > > > > > 15. This accommodates a maximum of 77 parameter octets > (maximum > > > > > > value of MTC is 62, 77 is the sum of 62+15). > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > The TSVCIS augmented speech data as packed parameters MUST be > placed > > > > > > immediately after a corresponding MELPe 2400 bps payload in > the same > > > > > > RTP packet. The packed parameters are counted in octets > (TC). The > > > > > > preferred placement SHOULD be used for TSVCIS payloads with > TC less > > > > > > than or equal to 77 octets, is shown in Figure 6. In the > preferred > > > > > > placement, a single trailing octet SHALL be appended to > include a > > > > > > two-bit rate code, CODA and CODB, (both bits set to one) and > a six- > > > > > > bit modified count (MTC). The special modified count value > of all > > > > > > ones (representing a MTC value of 63) SHALL NOT be used for > this > > > > > > format as it is used as the indicator for the alternate > packing > > > > > > format shown next. In a standard implementation, the TSVCIS > speech > > > > > > coder uses a minimum of 15 octets for parameters in octet > packed > > > > > > form. The modified count (MTC) MUST be reduced by 15 from > the full > > > > > > octet count (TC). Computed MTC = TC-15. This accommodates a > maximum > > > > > > of 77 parameter octets (maximum value of MTC is 62, 77 is the > sum of > > > > > > 62+15). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 3.3, first paragraph - Suggested edit by reviewer > > > > > > > > > > > > (was) > > > > > > A TSVCIS RTP packet consists of zero or more TSVCIS coder > frames > > > > > > (each consisting of MELPe and TSVCIS coder data) followed by > zero or > > > > > > one MELPe comfort noise frame. The presence of a comfort > noise frame > > > > > > can be determined by its rate code bits in its last octet. > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > A TSVCIS RTP packet payload consists of zero or more > consecutive > > > > > > TSVCIS coder frames (each consisting of MELPe 2400 and TSVCIS > coder > > > > > > data), with the oldest frame first, followed by zero or one > MELPe > > > > > > comfort noise frame. The presence of a comfort noise frame > can be > > > > > > determined by its rate code bits in its last octet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 3.3, fourth paragraph - Clarification requested by > > > > > > reviewers > > > > > > > > > > > > (was) > > > > > > TSVCIS coder frames in a single RTP packet MAY be of > different coder > > > > > > bitrates. With the exception for the variable length TSVCIS > > > > > > parameter frames, the coder rate bits in the trailing byte > identify > > > > > > the contents and length as per Table 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > TSVCIS coder frames in a single RTP packet MAY have varying > TSVCIS > > > > > > parameter octet counts. Its packed parameter octet count > (length) is > > > > > > indicated in the trailing byte(s). All MELPe frames in a > single RTP > > > > > > packet MUST be of the same coder bitrate. For all MELPe coder > > > > > > frames, the coder rate bits in the trailing byte identify the > > > > > > contents and length as per Table 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 4.1 - Editor note removed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 4.1 - Change controller is now > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > Change controller: IETF, contact <avt@ietf.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 5, first paragraph - Suggested edits by reviewers > > > > > > > > > > > > (was) > > > > > > A primary application of TSVCIS is for radio communications > of voice > > > > > > conversations, and discontinuous transmissions are normal. > When > > > > > > TSVCIS is used in an IP network, TSVCIS RTP packet > transmissions may > > > > > > cease and resume frequently. RTP synchronization source > (SSRC) > > > > > > sequence number gaps indicate lost packets to be filled by > PLC, while > > > > > > abrupt loss of RTP packets indicates intended discontinuous > > > > > > transmissions. > > > > > > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > A primary application of TSVCIS is for radio communications > of voice > > > > > > conversations, and discontinuous transmissions are normal. > When > > > > > > TSVCIS is used in an IP network, TSVCIS RTP packet > transmissions may > > > > > > cease and resume frequently. RTP synchronization source > (SSRC) > > > > > > sequence number gaps indicate lost packets to be filled by > Packet > > > > > > Loss Concealment (PLC), while abrupt loss of RTP packets > indicates > > > > > > intended discontinuous transmissions. Resumption of voice > > > > > > transmission SHOULD be indicated by the RTP marker bit (M) > set to 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 10 - Added reference > > > > > > > > > > > > (added) > > > > > > [RFC8088] Westerlund, M., "How to Write an RTP Payload > Format", > > > > > > RFC 8088, DOI 10.17487/RFC8088, May 2017, > > > > > > <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8088>. > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Roni Even (A) <roni.even@huawei.com> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2019 2:09 AM > > > > > > To: victor.demjanenko@vocal.com; 'Benjamin Kaduk' > > > > > > <kaduk@mit.edu>; 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org> > > > > > > Cc: draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis@ietf.org; 'Ali Begen' > > > > > > <ali.begen@networked.media>; avtcore-chairs@ietf.org; > > > > > > avt@ietf.org; 'Dave Satterlee (Vocal)' > > > > > > <Dave.Satterlee@vocal.com> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on > > > > > > draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > About the reference to TSVCIS. > > > > > > The RTP payload is about how to encapsulate the payload in an > > > > > > RTP > > > > packet. The objective is to define how an RTP stack can insert the > > > > tsvcis frames and extract the tsvcis frames from the RTP packet. > > > > Typically it is not required to understand the payload structure in > > > > order to be able to perform the encapsulation. > > > > > > This is why the reference to the payload is Informational and we > > > > > > did not require to have it publically available. If there is a > > > > > > need to understand the payload itself for the encapsulating than > > > > > > we need more information in the RTP payload specification and a > > > > > > publically available normative reference. I think this is not > > > > > > the case here > > > > > > > > > > > > Roni Even > > > > > > > > > > > > AVTCore co-chair (ex Payload) > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: victor.demjanenko@vocal.com > > > > > > [mailto:victor.demjanenko@vocal.com] > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2019 12:18 AM > > > > > > To: 'Benjamin Kaduk'; 'The IESG' > > > > > > Cc: draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis@ietf.org; 'Ali Begen'; > > > > avtcore-chairs@ietf.org; avt@ietf.org; 'Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.'; > > > > 'Dave Satterlee (Vocal)' > > > > > > Subject: RE: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on > > > > > > draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > > > > > > > Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. I think I mis-understood the ambiguity > > > > > > with > > > > respect to to changing rates within a RTP packet. That was not > > > > plan. An RTP packet must have MELP speech frames of the same rate. > > > > What is possible is that the amount of augmented TSVCIS speech data > > > > may vary from one speech frame to the next. This allows for a > > > > dynamic VDR as suggested by the NRL paper. So an RTP packet may > > > > have varying TSVCIS data but must always have MELPe 2400 data. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again backwards parsing is necessary but the timestamp uniformly > > > > increments 22.5msec per combined MELP/TSVCIS speech frame. > > > > > > > > > > > > The NRL is a good public reference on the VDR aspects. The > > > > > > actual > > > > TSVCIS spec we had was FOUO so we could not replicate its detail. > > > > (I believe a later spec is public or at least partially public. I > > > > am trying to get this.) The opaque data is pretty obvious with the > TSVCIS spec in hand. > > > > > > > > > > > > We will address the issues/concerns raised next week. Other > > > > > > business > > > > had priority. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you and enjoy the weekend. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Victor & Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 10:40 PM > > > > > > To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> > > > > > > Cc: draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis@ietf.org; Ali Begen > > > > > > <ali.begen@networked.media>; avtcore-chairs@ietf.org; > > > > > > ali.begen@networked.media; avt@ietf.org > > > > > > Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on > draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: > > > > > > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > > > > > > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > > > > > > draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: Discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply > > > > > > to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel > > > > > > free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please refer to > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found > here: > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > -- > > > > > > DISCUSS: > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > I support Magnus' point about the time-ordering of adjacent > > > > > > frames in a > > > > packet. > > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, I am not sure that there's quite enough here to be > > > > interoperably implementable. Specifically, we seem to be lacking a > > > > description of how an encoder or decoder knows which TSVCIS > > > > parameters, and in what order, to byte-pack or unpack, > respectively. > > > > One might surmise that there is a canonical listing in [TSVCIS], but > > > > this document does not say that, and furthermore [TSVCIS] is only > listed as an informative reference. > > > > (I couldn't get my hands on my copy, at least on short notice.) If > > > > we limited ourselves to treating the TSVCIS parameters as an > > > > entirely opaque blob (codec, convey these N octets to the peer with > > > > the appropriate one- or two-byte trailer for payload type > > > > identification and framing), that would be interoperably > > > > implementable, since the black-box bits are up to some other codec > to interpret. > > > > > > > > > > > > In a similar vein, we mention but do not completely specify the > > > > potential for using CODB as an end-to-end framing bit, in Section > > > > 3.1 (see Comment), which is not interoperably implementable without > further details. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > -- > > > > > > COMMENT: > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is [TSVCIS] available? > > > > > > > > > > > > Is [NRLVDR] the same as > > > > > > https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a588068.pdf ? A URL > > > > > > in the > > > > references would be helpful. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is additional TSVCIS data only present after 2400bps MELPe and > > > > > > the first > > > > thing to get dropped under bandwidth pressure? The abstract and > > > > introduction imply this by calling out MELPe 2400 bps speech > > > > parameters explicitly, but Section 3 says that TSVCIS augments > > > > standard 600, 1200, and > > > > 2400 bps MELP frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's helpful that Section 3.3 gives some general guidance for > > > > > > decoding > > > > this payload type ("[t]he way to determine the number of > > > > TSVCIS/MELPe frames is to identify each frame type and length"), but > > > > I think some generic considerations would be very helpful to the > > > > reader much earlier, along the lines of "MELPe and TSVCIS data > > > > payloads are decoded from the end, using the CODA and CODB (and, if > > > > necessary, CODC and others) bits to determine the type of payload. > > > > For MELPe payloads the type also indicates the payload length, > > > > whereas for TSVCIS data an additional length field is present, in > > > > one of two possible formats. A TSVCIS coder frame consists of a > > > > MELPe data payload followed by zero or one TSVCIS data payload; > > > > after the TSVCIS payload's presence/length is determined, then the > > > > preceding MELPe payload can be determined and decoded. Per Section > > > > 3.3, multiple TSVCIS frames can be present in a single RTP packet." > > > > This (or something like it) would also serve to clarify the role of > the COD* bits, which is otherwise only implicitly introduced. > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 1.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC 2736 is BCP 36 (but it's updated by RFC 8088 which is for > > > > > > some > > > > reason an Informational document and not part of BCP 36?!). > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to the augmented speech data, the TSVCIS > specification > > > > > > identifies which speech coder and framing bits are to be > encrypted, > > > > > > and how they are protected by forward error correction (FEC) > > > > > > techniques (using block codes). At the RTP transport layer, > only the > > > > > > speech coder related bits need to be considered and are > conveyed in > > > > > > unencrypted form. In most IP-based network deployments, > > > > > > standard > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I reading this correctly that this text is just summarizing > > > > > > what's in > > > > the TSVCIS spec in terms of what needs to be in unencrypted form, so > > > > the "only the speech coder related bits[...]" is not new information > > > > from this document? I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion, > > > > regardless -- won't the > > > > (MELPe) speech coder bits be enough to convey the semantic content > > > > of the audio stream, something that one might desire to keep > confidential? > > > > > > > > > > > > link encryption methods (SRTP, VPNs, FIPS 140 link encryptors > or Type > > > > > > 1 Ethernet encryptors) would be used to secure the RTP speech > > > > > > contents. Further, it is desirable to support the highest > voice > > > > > > quality between endpoints which is only possible without the > overhead > > > > > > of FEC. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I'm missing a step in how this conclusion was reached. > > > > > > > > > > > > TSVCIS will be characterized. Depending on the bandwidth > available > > > > > > (and FEC requirements), a varying number of TSVCIS specific > speech > > > > > > coder parameters need to be transported. These are first > byte-packed > > > > > > and then conveyed from encoder to decoder. > > > > > > > > > > > > Per the Discuss point, how do I know which parameters need to be > > > > transported, and in what order? > > > > > > > > > > > > Byte packing of TSVCIS speech data into packed parameters is > > > > > > processed as per the following example: > > > > > > > > > > > > Three-bit field: bits A, B, and C (A is MSB, C is LSB) > > > > > > Five-bit field: bits D, E, F, G, and H (D is MSB, H is > > > > > > LSB) > > > > > > > > > > > > MSB LSB > > > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > > > > > > +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ > > > > > > | H | G | F | E | D | C | B | A | > > > > > > > > > > > > +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ > > > > > > > > > > > > This packing method places the three-bit field "first" in the > lowest > > > > > > bits followed by the next five-bit field. Parameters may be > split > > > > > > between octets with the most significant bits in the earlier > octet. > > > > > > Any unfilled bits in the last octet MUST be filled with zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Adam that this is very unclear. A is the MSB of > > > > > > the > > > > three-bit field but the LSB of the octet overall? > > > > > > We probably need an example of splitting a parameter across > > > > > > octets as > > > > well, to get the bit ordering right. > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 3.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > It should be noted that CODB for both the 2400 and 600 bps > modes MAY > > > > > > deviate from the values in Table 1 when bit 55 is used as an > end-to- > > > > > > end framing bit. Frame decoding would remain distinct as > > > > > > CODA being > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the use of CODB as an end-to-end framing bit defined? > > > > > > If we're > > > > going to provide neither a complete description of how to do it nor > > > > a reference to a better description, we probably shouldn't mention > it at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 3.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > RTP packet. The packed parameters are counted in octets > (TC). In > > > > > > the preferred placement, shown in Figure 6, a single trailing > octet > > > > > > SHALL be appended to include a two-bit rate code, CODA and > > > > > > CODB, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd consider saying something about this being the preferred > > > > > > format > > > > > > ("placement") due to its shorter length than the alternative, > > > > > > and say > > > > that it "SHOULD be used for TSVCIS payloads with TC less than or > > > > equal to 77 octetes". > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 3.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > When a longer packetization interval is used, is that indicated > > > > > > by > > > > signaling or RTP timestamps or otherwise? > > > > > > > > > > > > TSVCIS coder frames in a single RTP packet MAY be of > different coder > > > > > > bitrates. With the exception for the variable length TSVCIS > > > > > > parameter frames, the coder rate bits in the trailing byte > identify > > > > > > the contents and length as per Table 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe also note that the penultimate octet gives the length > there? > > > > > > > > > > > > Information describing the number of frames contained in an > RTP > > > > > > packet is not transmitted as part of the RTP payload. The > way to > > > > > > determine the number of TSVCIS/MELPe frames is to identify > each frame > > > > > > type and length thereby counting the total number of octets > within > > > > > > the RTP packet. > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology nit: if a frame is the combination of MELPe and > > > > > > TSVCIS > > > > payload data units then there are two layres of decoding to get a > > > > length for the frame, since we have to get the TSVCIS length and > then the MELPe length. > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 4.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > Parameter "ptime" cannot be used for the purpose of > > > > > > specifying the > > > > > > > > > > > > nit: missing article ("The parameter") > > > > > > > > > > > > will be impossible to distinguish which mode is about to be > used > > > > > > (e.g., when ptime=68, it would be impossible to distinguish > if the > > > > > > packet is carrying one frame of 67.5 ms or three frames of > 22.5 ms). > > > > > > > > > > > > So how is the operating mode determined, then? > > > > > > (I think this is the same question I asked above) > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 4.4 > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, if offerer bitrates are "2400,600" and answer > bitrates > > > > > > are "600,2400", the initial bitrate is 600. If other > bitrates are > > > > > > provided by the answerer, any common bitrate between the > offer and > > > > > > answer MAY be used at any time in the future. Activation of > these > > > > > > other common bitrates is beyond the scope of this document. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems important to specify whether this requires a new O/A > > > > > > exchange > > > > or can be done "spontaneously" by just encoding different frame > types. > > > > > > (It seems like the latter is possible, on first glance, and this > > > > > > is implied by Section 3.3's discussion of mixing them in a > > > > > > single > > > > > > packet.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 5 > > > > > > > > > > > > Please expand PLC at first use (not second). > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 6 > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand the PLC usage. Is the idea that a receiver, > > > > > > on > > > > seeing an SSRC gap, constructs fictitious PLC frames to "fill the > gap" > > > > > > and passes the resulting stream to the decoder? > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 8 > > > > > > > > > > > > and important considerations in [RFC7201]. Applications > SHOULD use > > > > > > one or more appropriate strong security mechanisms. The rest > of this > > > > > > section discusses the security-impacting properties of the > payload > > > > > > format itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought we described TSVCIS itself (much earlier in the > > > > > > document) as > > > > requiring encryption for some data; wouldn't that translate to a > "MUST" > > > > > > here and not a "SHOULD"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… victor.demjanenko
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Roni Even (A)
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… victor.demjanenko
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… victor.demjanenko
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… victor.demjanenko
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… victor.demjanenko
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… victor.demjanenko
- Re: [AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk