Re: [AVTCORE] [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05
"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Sun, 15 December 2019 07:59 UTC
Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.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 D87FD120071; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 5uX-Wuyhr8Ai; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 DBD49120005; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 872101C26A9EE6234C8B; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 07:59:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.211) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 07:59:54 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.101]) by DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.211]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:59:49 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
CC: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>, "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05
Thread-Index: AdWrParOQoDqW2unTp6vJCt9sZdx9AEGe1dwAGF+cQAAj+rQwA==
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 07:59:49 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D35758@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D24D49@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D348A6@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4D144D64-1855-48DF-94CC-204D27AC2073@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D144D64-1855-48DF-94CC-204D27AC2073@csperkins.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.210.165.210]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D35758dggemm526mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/kYubfOBDZdUc5lj5e59-eX5J20M>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05
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: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 07:59:59 -0000
Hi Colin, The proposed text for section 4 looks OK Roni Even as individual As for submitting an updated draft please wait for the end of the WGLC (end of this week) Roni Even as co-chair of AVTCore WG From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:16 PM To: Roni Even (A) Cc: avt@ietf.org; rmcat@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05 On 10 Dec 2019, at 12:52, Roni Even (A) <roni.even@huawei.com<mailto:roni.even@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi, Some comments as individual 1. in section 10 the registration of the SDP ccfb attribute need also to include mux category That attribute is registered by draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes, which include the mux category. This draft is registering a parameter within that attribute. 2. In section 4 it is says “It has been shown [I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05#ref-I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback>] that in most cases a per frame feedback is a reasonable assumption on how frequent the RTCP feedback messages can be transmitted.“ later in the section it talks about 50-200msec and say that a value in this range need to be negotiated. Looking at rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback I got the impression that a report per frame is recommended. I rephrased the section to: There is a trade-off between speed and accuracy of reporting, and the overhead of the reports. [I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback] discusses this trade-off, suggests desirable RTCP feedback rates, and provides guidance on how to configure the RTCP bandwidth fraction, etc., to make appropriate use of the reporting block described in this memo. Specifications for RTP congestion control algorithms can also provide guidance. It is generally understood that congestion control algorithms work better with more frequent feedback. However, RTCP bandwidth and transmission rules put some upper limits on how frequently the RTCP feedback messages can be sent from an RTP receiver to the RTP sender. It has been shown [I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback] that in most cases sending feedback one per frame is an upper bound before the reporting overhead becomes excessive. Analysis [feedback-requirements] has also shown that candidate congestion control algorithms can operate with less frequent feedback, using a feedback interval range of 50-200ms. Applications need to negotiate an appropriate feedback interval at session setup. The draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback is trying to show that per-frame feedback is possible, with acceptable overhead, but unless the codec can adapt on a per frame basis, it’s not clear that such frequent feedback is necessary. This version is intended to give bounds, and encourage people to draft draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback, which will be expanded to give more discussion over time. Does this clarify? 3. A nit – please expand RTS at first occurrence, it is expanded a bit late Fixed. Let us know when you want us to submit the revised draft. Colin Roni Even From: avt [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even (A) Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 9:30 AM To: avt@ietf.org<mailto:avt@ietf.org> Cc: rmcat@ietf.org<mailto:rmcat@ietf.org> Subject: [AVTCORE] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05 Hello, all! As we discussed in Singapore, this is to announce a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-05. Please review this document and send comments to the AVT mailing list by Thursday, December 19, 2019. If you review the document and have nothing to add, please let the list know that as well. Thank you! Roni Even AVTCore co-chair -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/
- [AVTCORE] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-… Roni Even (A)
- Re: [AVTCORE] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedb… Roni Even (A)
- Re: [AVTCORE] [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-… Colin Perkins
- Re: [AVTCORE] [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-… Roni Even (A)
- Re: [AVTCORE] [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [AVTCORE] [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-… Colin Perkins