[AVTCORE] review of draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-00
"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Fri, 27 July 2012 22:42 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.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 A21CA11E80C5 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NmnovdB8CtBq for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121B411E8098 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so5790689pbc.31 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; bh=v9zdeKjrvF2pW0/Vw6FVemAv32aCN2gsAhEMBKKrbqk=; b=acZfhJ0E1uiEpreO92Id8oYfM/d6V9bDl2A2xLfOi0oZmv4rrvaajqNYluqTk6Uivv c+oGS0XXUEpfM9UF5xsEAkdyN6qSAeaNLY17aMttxo2l4jpx2WGXx3gYoSS2JHEKBCup snlgMkva7+p3lw6S0zAE46vJEw7zuAqxLbni6hFqHDkc+1EQu7KHgg/4MkODh2IXA63v Mol4VNQ5qFdG+20psb2NyRq1bLY0oyt4pXknlVj4rkmus6PNzighj/t/sxQZBj3k6maB 6oDsdCxfhW/ZnKy5vbCEHT3fx+PAXAwX8T7z2EqwZWE/gr0UCH4CXx0Ii1okFegCz41F Gddw==
Received: by 10.68.130.9 with SMTP id oa9mr17180152pbb.95.1343428969747; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE ([206.191.100.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oy8sm2694778pbc.52.2012.07.27.15.42.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: avt@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:41:45 +0200
Message-ID: <002e01cd6c51$628c8720$27a59560$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01CD6C62.2615A540"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac1sUAheh6F9qJcoTPaMUiM1G2rHMA==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: [AVTCORE] review of draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-00
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:42:50 -0000
Hi guys, I read the draft and I think that it does not discuss the difference in RTCP handling between RTCP terminating mixer and source projecting mixers or translators. It looks to me that the text addresses only the second topologies. If the mixer uses its own SSRCs it does not show all the behaviors described in section 5.1. My understanding of RFC3550 is that for this case the mixer does not forward the sender and receiver reports, only the SDES in order to identify SSRC collision and the BYE messages so there will be less messages than in the case of translators or source projecting mixers. Another comment is that for source projecting mixers in my view, the document provides motivation to use multi sessions over single transport to reduce the number of RTC messages. Roni Even