Re: [AVTCORE] Multi-party real-time text requiring new RTP payload type

worley@ariadne.com Thu, 23 April 2020 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
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 6F0143A1134 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.net
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 Vhvj96jniWRV for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4422B3A0E65 for <avtcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.98]) by resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id RRPIjhkpwLoTbRRa4jA1Cd; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 02:27:12 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; s=20180828_2048; t=1587608832; bh=3sFtLjOVCYdjZl4Ph8gkrusNWyo8FwFMUbqpLqdklmg=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=gtgGM57IvVqu/+Sy6naYdRlKP8wlCUkak/svX1VP2OHTXmEKcFOFTKFzlSHewEEDt izYEdc9KHbMrH9Lk2UX2AHh2qI3u1HkReKzirF7i/jXZma6SPMpd97LesVJzlSAIcr 6qAFgRRn5B6usrUTHl02wfET7L+OqNeWobqkj2CrF+9pbZbp0juVZrvvU0tG5iBmJC DkGrN0y1x2oUj0jjotM337ytk0IwxQdxDoiyMW384phlzr9LXWKLYLdZp066kFfzYS do9+QH+u2YlX/zk+Mef5Pw9uC0VbnZPBSM0Rcepx53u6jpbNdqtHaOLxTdxEIHHMd3 WWukiUb/uoAnQ==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4a00:430:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id RRa2jJry8TY9rRRa2jCq4Q; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 02:27:11 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 03N2R9JS005334; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:27:09 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 03N2R8pI005312; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:27:08 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Gunnar =?utf-8?Q?Hellstr=C3=B6m?= <gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se>
Cc: avtcore@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <e2d44956-2cd7-b43a-e847-fbeed5b0ef62@ghaccess.se> (gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:27:07 -0400
Message-ID: <87h7xbuebo.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/jtfKIm8fz6S8APO4uwKcpAbSjpM>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Multi-party real-time text requiring new RTP payload type
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: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 02:27:18 -0000

I assume that there's a good reason why the case of redundant
transmission of multi-party text isn't done by suitably interleaving the
redundant packets of the serveral text sources (which can be separated
by their SSRC values).  I can't remember if this is a violation of the
RTP rules, or perhaps it's just inefficient.  But a quick read of the
draft didn't mention why this approach doesn't work, and it seems like
it would be a useful note to the reader.

Dale