[AVT] Comment on draft-ietf-avt-smpte292-video-08.txt
Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org> Thu, 09 January 2003 04:13 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 XAA18949 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:13:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h094Omw14312 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:24:48 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h094OEJ14302; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:24:14 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h094NSJ14282 for <avt@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:23:28 -0500
Received: from mailman.packetdesign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18930 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:11:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ash.packetdesign.com (ash.packetdesign.com [192.168.0.243]) by mailman.packetdesign.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h094EUkB080051; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:14:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from casner@acm.org)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 20:14:30 -0800
From: Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>
To: AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20030108200144.K76233-100000@ash.packetdesign.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [AVT] Comment on draft-ietf-avt-smpte292-video-08.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>
This comment was triggered by an email from Chuck Harrison, which was
intern triggerd by one of my questions in the RTP spec/profile series.
Please take these comments as arriving under the IESG Last Call.
draft-ietf-avt-smpte292-video-08.txt includes the following paragraph
in its Section 6:
RFC1889 recommends transmission of RTCP packets every 5 seconds or at a
reduced minimum in seconds of 360 divided by the session bandwidth in
kilobits/second. At 1.485 Gbps the reduced minimum interval computes to
0.2ms or 4028 packets per second.
I have three comments on this:
- I'm not sure why I did not trip on this before, but RFC 1889 does
_not_ recommend transmission of RTCP packets every 5 seconds. It
recommends RTCP transmission based on a scalable timer with 50%
randomization and a minimum _average_ interval of 5 seconds. It
is way too tempting already for implementers to put in a fixed
5-second timer. Let's not reinforce that error.
- RFC 1889 does _not_ include the scaling of the minimum interval.
That was added in draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new. If smpte292-video gets
to RFC first, well...
- Maybe it would appropriate to add another sentence saying that
4028 is likely to be excessive for most applications and perhaps
suggesting another value. The rate only needs to be fast enough
to track clock skew and to provide enough packets during the
23-second octet-count wrap interval to reliably track the wraps.
-- Steve
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] Comment on draft-ietf-avt-smpte292-video-08… Stephen Casner