Re: [AVTCORE] RFC5285bis open issues

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 20 February 2017 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 78086128B38 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:46:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 LjQ9O7VzwBO2 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:46:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (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 B4449129432 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:46:55 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-b9bff700000021e0-99-58aabb0b4ae0
Received: from ESESSHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.21]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 72.A2.08672.B0BBAA85; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:46:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:46:51 +0100
To: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
References: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD77527B@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <32ce8d94-303f-aa7e-545e-498b99cab0e5@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:46:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD77527B@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7qC7v7lURBp+/y1u87FnJbvHp2HkW ByaPliNvWT2WLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJUxryO8oFG4om3tXKYGxlb+LkZODgkBE4nz y7azdjFycQgJrGOUWPmkgwXCWc4osW/nayaQKmEBXYkdS94zdzFycIgIOEtcWR0BEhYSCJaY fn0DI4jNJmAhcfNHIxuIzStgL/FsaSM7iM0ioCpxbU0P2BhRgRiJvf33mSBqBCVOznzCAmJz CoRIXNp9gBVkPDNQ74OtZSBhZgF5ieats5khVmlLNDR1sE5g5J+FpHsWQscsJB0LGJlXMYoW pxYX56YbGemlFmUmFxfn5+nlpZZsYgQG3sEtv612MB587niIUYCDUYmH98OmlRFCrIllxZW5 hxglOJiVRHg/L18VIcSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZzXbOX9cCGB9MSS1OzU1ILUIpgs EwenVAPj6rZd91dlrNQOfJn9Z4vumxRFkdSdy73WMT60jpuwvjKEWzKMX/XeiXnaM1L3BE/+ fOHf9A3COzXfPRSxm782Km9vlb1Q6EYJn8K+g0vL7F8t1F6nevSJdFTxMaGJ7neusJqL3om3 fLQo4IHIfNNypcvuV0KOuPP7zGaw8zA69VbiXKjnC11VJZbijERDLeai4kQAL7DEvDgCAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/tpsE4mUHnfaF5e-8p2ys6ljE2bs>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] RFC5285bis open issues
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: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:46:57 -0000

Hi,

Personal opinions, not responding as WG chair and doc shepherd.

Den 2017-02-19 kl. 16:06, skrev Roni Even:
> Hi,
>
> Based on the email discussion I see some issues that need conclusion
>
>
>
> 1.       For the one-byte RTP header extension if id=0 and len>0 what
> action to take since there is no current text
>
> a.       This is also padding
>
> b.      This is an error so stop interpreting following header
> extensions – similar to id=15
>

 From my perspective, RFC 5285 is very clear that padding is a byte with 
value 0, i.e. all 8  bits are zero. Also, sending for example 0x04 is 
very undefined and a sender could expect b) option response from the 
receiver. Without agreed interpretation I rather send a clear message, 
don't use this. Thus, I would favour option b).


> 2.       Can we conclude from RFC5285 that if only IDs between 1-14 are
> offered it means that only one-byte RTP header extension are supported?
>

I think I have been involved in discussion about this previously. The 
conclusion I remember is that it is not possible. It is allowed to 
negotiate IDs below 16 and still use the two-byte header format for a 
particular RTP stream. So, it is not a conclusion we can draw.

However, the reality was that until we created the SDES header extension 
we didn't have any header extension that had the possibility to be more 
than 16 bytes.

At least if I remember correctly how the definition of the various 
registered header extensions.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#rtp-parameters-10

But, there could exist proprietary header extensions that are longer.

So, not guaranteed, but a fairly safe bet assuming no header extensions 
that are known to allow longer than 16 bytes. But, I think one has to 
make it clear that there are no guarantees, but one could write a 
guideline for a case that is likely to work.

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------