Re: [AVTCORE] Additions to RFC5285bis? was Re: [avtext] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 15 June 2016 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 C072712D616; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 UFehBFrj8f3u; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.131.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F66312D648; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.209.157.40] (port=2156 helo=glaroam2-152-55.wireless.gla.ac.uk) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1bDAXw-0001A8-C5; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:07:53 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <a9cc4845-3eeb-23eb-0076-ca9008dc85c1@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:07:38 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0BA323FF-C204-43FC-9535-7F3918AEFA53@csperkins.org>
References: <20160613125529.12490.86798.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <65EAADDF-EE7F-414B-AF3F-45BA4B729500@csperkins.org> <57601B7E.3070208@kuehlewind.net> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86ED634A@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <a9cc4845-3eeb-23eb-0076-ca9008dc85c1@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/sHiQdoRz9aCd84rm_zckxWO5_WA>
Cc: "jonathan@vidyo.com" <jonathan@vidyo.com>, "avtext@ietf.org" <avtext@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis@ietf.org, IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>, "avtext-chairs@ietf.org" <avtext-chairs@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] =?utf-8?q?Additions_to_RFC5285bis=3F_was_Re=3A_=5Bavtex?= =?utf-8?q?t=5D_Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-avtext-spli?= =?utf-8?q?cing-notification-07=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:08:02 -0000

Hi Magnus,

I agree that this makes sense, and is probably better than having more general discussion in the splicing notification draft.

Colin



> On 15 Jun 2016, at 08:54, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> (As individual)
> 
> I think we stumbled on one thing that maybe should be included in the update of RFC5285.
> 
> Namely the discussion and reasoning why a sender may need to repeat a RTP header extension. See below excerpt from the discussion:
> 
> Den 2016-06-15 kl. 09:22, skrev Huangyihong (Rachel):
>> Hi Mirja,
>> 
>> As one of the authors, please see my replies inline.
>> 
>> BR, Rachel
>> 
>> -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net] 发送时
> 
>> 
>>>> - Why is just having the RTCP message not sufficient? Why are the
>>>> RTP extensions needed as well?
>>> 
>>> RTP and RTCP are unreliable. The usual practice for these types of
>>> extension is to send data both in RTCP, and in some number of RTP
>>> packets, to increase the chances of it arriving in a timely manner.
>>> The draft is following standard practice here.
>> 
>> Thanks for clarification. That could be clarified in the text.
>> Because the text says that RTCP is used because the RTP information
>> might get lost. So I was wondering why you are not only using RTCP
>> and make sure you send it sufficiently often. Saying that this is
>> common practice would be helpful from my point of view. Is there a
>> reference for this?
>> 
>> [Rachel]: It's more like conventional method to increase robustness.
>> As far as I know, there's no formal document to record this. Maybe we
>> can address this like this
>> 
>> OLD "
>> 
>> To increase robustness against such case, the document also defines
>> a complementary RTCP packet type to carry the same Splicing Interval
>> to the splicer.
>> 
>> "
>> 
>> NEW " To increase robustness against such case, the document also
>> defines a new RTCP packet type to carry the same Splicing Interval
>> to the splicer. Since RTCP is also unreliable and may not so
>> immediate as the in-band way, it's only considered as a complement to
>> RTP header extension. "
>> 
>> 
>>>> - And is the RTCP message send only once or multiple time? This
>>>> is not specified.
>>> 
>>> That’s implementation dependent, and based on the expected packet
>>> loss rate, the importance of the data, and the frequency with which
>>> updates need to be sent.
>> 
>> A recommendation or discussion should be provided here.
>> 
>> [Rachel]: I think in Section 2, we have already provided some
>> guidance on how often the Splicing Interval to be sent, which is not
>> just limited to RTP header extension, also includes RTCP message.
>> 
> 
> This topic is also discussed in  	
> draft-ietf-avtext-sdes-hdr-ext-07 Section 4.2.3.
> 
> From my perspective I think the general transmission issues that needs to be considered with RTP header extension should be included in the update of RFC5285. That way each extension don't have to repeat it, only discuss additions or specific considerations for their formats.
> 
> To note I think that from SDES header Extension there should be included the topics of;
> 
> - MTU handling
> - How many transmissions and if one can know it has reached the receiver
> - Update handling, especially for extensions with data that can be sent using both RTCP and RTP header extension.
> 
> Note, this is my suggestion as an individual. Please discuss and comment.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 



-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/