IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive

Xavier Marjou <xavier.marjou@gmail.com> Fri, 24 September 2010 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <xavier.marjou@gmail.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 453513A6B42 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 ctuYGWUI0a8R for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157B63A6B85 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxl31 with SMTP id 31so1161652yxl.31 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0hA6Vs74NRBo5MO/E7OogTWALZblQNNuj0L+ULKa8Kg=; b=P0Uw63+t5u4zv0S9UwK9lnZmYRK8X9BCOxDp03orCU7DF1004SnmOLSXxMTDcbZwca TWsjY/bFm+s8Paq+m9YxnkCmRnHTXZza6hOPhfOqNaLzTccUxoB7WgzT5GdNh+lR8dV5 0/WXiEJOKeBVQzSHS/Ofl/O17LAfDXBQHFhdY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=VAwLn73mFfEigM4vX8NCy3/CjwE5DcNeiugFO5Cc9oCGIkFZUpBL2tHI5/r1u719qv /t4OAS1GN6TRMaYkTT5SrwjnKARJO2jDO29QyGdiWHhISrmqUkwUt74aXgtYx3ErWTFJ tAZSO+CmX3p5+lS/+E2ImjmSz/ZAM69sny5do=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.12.9 with SMTP id 9mr4688091ybl.213.1285332636399; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.203.134 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTineARJ-jZTwCSJk=xV+G69mP+Y7KMtHfhTAw3zb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D091CEDE-8109-48BB-914B-35BF7C774507@cisco.com> <30547_1266831534_4B8250AE_30547_739_12_51D96D3F30495C4BAF8D190702F9B933B7DD9A@ftrdmel1> <23AD963C-0128-45BD-8C71-D1D5C6197FD2@cisco.com> <AANLkTineARJ-jZTwCSJk=xV+G69mP+Y7KMtHfhTAw3zb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:50:36 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimnmmxExjeTk5jvmvuZ4c-7iYU21-uJpvza=TTY@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xavier Marjou <xavier.marjou@gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd6b288361ce9049100d308"
Cc: IETF AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive
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, 24 Sep 2010 12:50:07 -0000

So I meant:
"The discussion during the next IETF (IETF-77) resulted in recommending only
RFC5761 and "only" documenting other mechanisms."

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Xavier Marjou <
xavier.marjou@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:

> I have just posted an updated version of the draft with a TCP timeout of
> 7200 seconds and no indication about DCCP timeout.
> This is inline with you first two comment below, as well as with the
> feedback from the BEHAVE WG.
>
> For RTCP, the original idea was indeed to make recommendations when RTCP is
> not used. This raised a lot of concerns during the IESG review. The
> discussion during the newt IETF (IETF-77) resulted in recommending only
> RFC5761 and "only" recommending other mechanisms. This was reflected in
> version -08 and was not changed in today's -09 version.
>
> Cheers,
> Xavier
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> With regrades to the a few of the discuss on the 08 version of this draft
>>
>> For the TCP timeout, I recommend 7200 seconds. This matches the TCP keep
>> alive used by default by many OS and will work well with the case I am aware
>> of.
>>
>> For the DCCP timeout, I would suggest we have pretty much zero experience
>> with firewalls and NATs with DCCP support so it would be premature to
>> recommend anything here and we should make no recommendation for DCCP.
>>
>> For the topic or RTCP being out of scope. I would point out RTCP has
>> existing ways of regularly sending packets covered by the RTCP spec and this
>> specification makes no changes to theses.  I'm not disagreeing with Magnus,
>> just saying that the RTCP is not a problem, it's the RTP we have problems
>> with.
>>
>> I note that the WG had recommendation for what to do when the RTCP could
>> not be used but the IESG has removed theses. This seems critical given the
>> fact that a larger percentage of the deployed equipment does support RTCP. I
>> think the specification needs to add back in what to do when there is not
>> RTCP support or it needs to be brought back to the WG for discussion.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
>> avt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email