Re: [AVTCORE] [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02.txt

Colin Perkins <> Tue, 14 June 2011 10:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C3B11E808E; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.441
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zSlH7YqIgxFW; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DEA11E8071; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1QWQpr-0003fU-gb; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:27:03 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Colin Perkins <>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <029f01cc274c$b8fe19c0$>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:27:02 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <01c501cc1c16$ebad8ea0$> <> <029f01cc274c$b8fe19c0$>
To: Qin Wu <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:27:04 -0000

On 10 Jun 2011, at 09:59, Qin Wu wrote:
> Hi,
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Colin Perkins" <>
>> To: "Qin Wu" <>
>> Cc: <>; <>; <>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 9:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02.txt
>> On 27 May 2011, at 03:36, Qin Wu wrote:
>>> This version addresses the open issues regarding identity information repetition and acknowledge section.
>>> The diff is:
>>> Comments are welcome!
>> This helps, but to my mind doesn't go far enough. We have the SSRC to identify participants. I don't see much benefit from having a separate identity tag in XR blocks.
> [Qin]:  I think that we are talking about how to define future RTCP XR Block. It seems to me the rule we are following  to define the new RTCP XR BLock in the avtcore-monarch is a little different from the rule of we are doing to the existing RTCP XR described in RFC3611.
> As for the existing XR Block defined in RFC3611, each of the existing XR Block has allocated  a field for SSRC of source. However such identity information can be repeated several times if several metric blocks reporting one stream from one source  is carried in the same RTCP Packet.
> In order to reduce overhead to carry duplicated SSRC of source in each metric block,  in the new XR Block, we separate such SSRC of source out from each metric block.
> One way is to  allocate identity tag field in each metric block which can be used to tell which metric block report on stream from which source. 
> Another way is to follow the existing rules defined in RFC3611. put back the SSRC of source field into each metric block which also can be used to tell which metric block report on stream from which source. 
> However this rule seems to contradict to the rule of reducing identity information repetition discussed in avtcore-monarch.
> Which way we should follow?

I think you should follow RFC 3611. 

The savings from using the new identity tag don't seem worth the added complexity.

Colin Perkins