Re: [AVT] New milestones approved - retransmission supression
David R Oran <oran@cisco.com> Thu, 09 December 2010 17:32 UTC
Return-Path: <oran@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3064328C0FB for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:32:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.697, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yO27V+rPiIPn for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E0328C0F3 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-Files: PGP.sig : 193
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEANehAE2rRN+J/2dsb2JhbACje3ilHZsjgwWCRQSEZIYVgxQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.59,320,1288569600"; d="sig'?scan'208"; a="296837355"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2010 17:33:52 +0000
Received: from OranMBP.local (stealth-10-32-245-155.cisco.com [10.32.245.155]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB9HXKi8003768 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:33:52 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by OranMBP.local (PGP Universal service); Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:33:52 -0500
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by OranMBP.local on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:33:52 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: David R Oran <oran@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <025801cb976f$f3f588f0$dbe09ad0$%roni@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:33:11 -0500
Message-Id: <9303AB8B-9FCB-489F-B2EF-1F1EF43FF975@cisco.com>
References: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E3D652F@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <010501cb9740$cde9e4f0$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <025801cb976f$f3f588f0$dbe09ad0$%roni@huawei.com>
To: Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-PGP-Encoding-Format: MIME
X-PGP-Encoding-Version: 2.0.2
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="PGP_Universal_8C8EC2AB_EB15C560_A38D9954_730A0E75"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Cc: "'DRAGE, Keith (Keith)'" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] New milestones approved - retransmission supression
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:32:24 -0000
+1 Roni's analysis makes sense to me. On Dec 9, 2010, at 2:08 AM, Roni Even wrote: > Hi Qin, > I can agree that the NACK in RFC 4585 is a general negative acknowledge > (feedback) message that reports that the receiver did not get the reported > packet and let the sender decide how to address the loss. On the other hand > RFC 4588 adds a semantic to the NACK message saying "The NACK feedback > message format defined in the AVPF profile SHOULD be used by receivers to > send retransmission requests." Which allows the receiver to prefer a > specific behavior from the sender. When you look at the NACK message in the > RTCP layer you cannot know what was meant by the message. > > > I think that what the milestone is trying to address is both usages of NACK > which are loss reporting and retransmission requests. For the NACK loss > reporting use case there is text in section 3.5.2 of RFC 4585 which hints > about suppression but does not provide enough information for all use cases > discussed in the topology RFC 5117 for both usages. > > In this case the milestone should discuss both cases and recommend when to > send NACK or a new message, so maybe we can leave the milestone as is, > define the name of the new message to be third party loss report and explain > the different use cases when NACK or the Third party loss report are used. > > Roni Even > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Qin Wu >> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:31 AM >> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); avt@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [AVT] New milestones approved >> >> Hi, Chairs: >> Taking into account recent discussions on the list, we have been >> working on the revision of draft-wu-avt-retranmission-suppression-rtp, >> going through document reviews and will finalize soon probably in this >> week. >> As for approved milestones, after some offline discussion with one >> reviewer Colin, we think it is better or more appropriate to change the >> second milestone text listed below from >> " >> May 2011 RTCP indication for retransmission suppression as proposed >> standard >> " >> to >> " >> May 2011 RTCP Extension for Third-Party Loss Report as proposed >> standard >> " >> >> Regards! >> -Qin >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> >> To: <avt@ietf.org> >> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:09 AM >> Subject: [AVT] New milestones approved >> >> >>> (As WG cochair) >>> >>> AVT now has some new approved milestones as follows. >>> >>> Feb 2011 Guidelines for the use of Variable Bit Rate Audio with >> Secure RTP as informational (or possibly BCP) >>> May 2011 RTCP indication for retransmission suppression as proposed >> standard >>> Oct 2011 RTP Header extension for client to mixer audio level >> indication as proposed standard >>> Oct 2011 RTP Header extension for mixer to client audio level >> indication as proposed standard >>> >>> Over the next few weeks we will progressively make calls for the >> adoption of text to fulful these milestones, starting at the end of >> next week (and taking account of the Christmas period). >>> >>> This message therefore requests two things. >>> >>> 1) Can the authors of the following drafts ensure that your text is >> at the best status to make such a call. Please take into account recent >> discussions and review your documents, and update them if necessary. >>> >>> If you are planning a revision, then please do send a message to the >> WG chairs, identifying potential timescales for that revision. (It is >> so embarassing to make a call to adopt a particular version of the >> document, and find it revised 3 hours later) >>> >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-perkins-avt-srtp-vbr-audio/ >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-avt-retransmission- >> supression-rtp/ >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ivov-avt-slic/ >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lennox-avt-rtp-audio-level- >> exthdr/ >>> >>> 2) If anybody has alternative ideas they wish to write up to fulfil >> these work areas, then this is the time to do it. >>> >>> If you are planning this, then a message to the WG chairs of your >> intention is also appropriate (along with your envisaged timescales for >> submission). >>> >>> >>> regards >>> >>> Keith >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Audio/Video Transport Working Group >>> avt@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt >> _______________________________________________ >> Audio/Video Transport Working Group >> avt@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] New milestones approved DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [AVT] New milestones approved Qin Wu
- Re: [AVT] New milestones approved Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] New milestones approved DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [AVT] New milestones approved - retransmissio… Roni Even
- Re: [AVT] New milestones approved - retransmissio… Qin Wu
- Re: [AVT] New milestones approved - retransmissio… David R Oran