Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones
"Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom)" <tom.van_caenegem@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 18 November 2010 14:32 UTC
Return-Path: <tom.van_caenegem@alcatel-lucent.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 E549F3A6808 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:32:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 O3n7ArjqPXwP for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:32:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4789628C0CE for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:32:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id oAIEX4Wc008481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:33:04 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.43]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:33:04 +0100
From: "Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom)" <tom.van_caenegem@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:33:03 +0100
Thread-Topic: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones
Thread-Index: AcuGHrCyG6nHHaNRSfa6fOUEAX1uDABCK6GA
Message-ID: <EC3FD58E75D43A4F8807FDE07491754616801889@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E03AD3E@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <EC3FD58E75D43A4F8807FDE07491754616614468@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <027d01cb861e$ad2b7b80$30298a0a@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <027d01cb861e$ad2b7b80$30298a0a@china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.80
Subject: Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones
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, 18 Nov 2010 14:32:24 -0000
Hi Qin, A server/sender that by itself detects packet loss (on its uplink), functions as an RTP receiver and hence can itself send a NACK, to which the other RTP receivers then react according to RFC 4585. This is the major point of divergence with the views expressed in your draft. E.g. RFC 5760 states (p13) : "From an RTP perspective, the Distribution Source is an RTP receiver, generating its own Receiver Reports and sending them to the receiver group and to the Media Senders." Also in RFC 5117 there is language that indicates a transport translator can act as a receiver (section 3.3): "A Translator normally does not use an SSRC of its own, and is not visible as an active participant in the session. One exception can be conceived when a Translator acts as a quality monitor that sends RTCP reports and therefore is required to have an SSRC. Another example is the case when a Translator is prepared to use RTCP feedback messages. This may, for example, occur when it suffers packet loss of important video packets and wants to trigger repair by the media sender, by sending feedback messages. To be able to do this it needs to have a unique SSRC." So I do not agree when you say there is a "dedicated" receiver required and when you say there is additional RTT involved, when using NACKs as suppression indication. I do not exactly get your point when you say " RFC4585 only solves how to reduce the RTCP traffic storm within the same group by using reciever suppression algorithm, however how to reduce upstream RTCP traffic beyond the group of recievers when large number of feedbacks for lost packet are addressed to the same media source and middlebox is not covered." Can you elaborate on that, please? Regards Tom -----Original Message----- From: Qin Wu [mailto:sunseawq@huawei.com] Sent: woensdag 17 november 2010 7:14 To: Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom); DRAGE, Keith (Keith); avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Hi, Feedback Suppression algorithm specified in RFC4585 is just *receiver algorithm* about how the receiver tunes the timing of sending Feedback message to the sender to avoid currenncy of large number of feedback *in the same group*. the media source or middlebox can be in the different group as receivers. This alogorithm applies for all the existing feedback message and new feedback message. draft-wu-avt-retransmission-suppression-rtp focuses on specifying *mechanism* on how the sender or server(e.g., media source or middlebox) informs the receiver that packet loss is detected and sending feedback for packet loss should be held on right now in case of packet loss occuring close to the media sender or at the upstream of middlebox. The mechanism needs *RTCP extension* and can be used to avoid large number of feedback addressed to *the same media source or middlebox at the upstream*. The suppression indication mechanism specified in draft-wu-avt-retransmission-suppression-rtp does not need to rely on any other reciever reporting packet loss event. the media souce or middlebox can detect pakcet loss by themselves and create new suppression messsages to the receivers. Therefore RFC4585 and draft-wu-avt-retransmission-suppression-rtp address the different aspects or use cases of the problem. Also Feedback Suppression Indication mechanism can be used with Feedback Suppression algorithm specified in RFC4585. As regarding why the new RTCP message needs to be defined, there are many direct or indirect reasons based on my understanding and many discussion in the previous two IETF meeting: 1. RFC4585 only solves how to reduce the RTCP traffic storm within the same group by using reciever suppression algorithm, however how to reduce upstream RTCP traffic beyond the group of recievers when large number of feedbacks for lost packet are addressed to the same media source and middlebox is not covered. 2. The mechanism specified in draft-wu-avt-retransmission-suppression does not need to rely on any NACK from any other reciever to detect the packet loss, the middlebox or media source can detect packet loss by themselves and inform the receiver the lost event as early as possible by sending the RTCP message to downstream. 3. Relying on NACK from any dedicated reciever to report loss packet may slow down suppression operation by introducing extra roundtrip between dedicated reciever and middlebox comparing with using middlebox to inform the receiver about suppression indication. Also NACK lack scemantics for supppression indication to the receiver. 4. NACK is sent from AVPF receiver to the upstream AVPF sender, e.g., in RAMS case, the RTP_Rx can issue retransmission requests via RTCP NACK messages sent as unicast feedback in the primary multicast RTP session to BRS for lost packet. in such case, RTP_Rx is reciever and BRS is Sender. however in many use cases of draft-wu-retransmission-suppression-rtp or RTP topologies defined in RFC5117, we also need one message sent from upstream sender to the downstream reciever which can not be satisfied using NACK. Therefore rough consesus shows that it is better to define the new suppression messsage which is created by media source or middlebox itself and sent to the downstream receiver. 5. RFC4585 allows receiver receive and process different Feedback message including any new feedback message like the new suppression message defined in draft-wu-avt-retransmission-suppression-rtp. Hope this clarifies. Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom)" <tom.van_caenegem@alcatel-lucent.com> To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>; <avt@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones > Hi, > > On the item: "RTCP indication for retransmission suppression as proposed standard" > > As expressed in various emails I am not convinced there is need for such a new draft/mile stone, as RFC 4585 has addressed the problem IMO. The authors should first clarify what use cases are addressed that are not covered by RFC 4585, and linked to that, why a new RTCP message needs to be defined. > > (Note that the name is wrong: it is actually about feedback suppression, not retransmission suppression!!) > Tom > > > -----Original Message----- > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Sent: vrijdag 12 november 2010 0:48 > To: avt@ietf.org > Subject: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones > > (As AVT WG cochair) > > We are looking to see if we should adopt a number of new milestones in AVT. This is the adoption of the milestone, not the selection and adoption of an particular draft to fulfil that milestone (that comes later). > > There are four potential new milestones: > > - RTP Header extension for mixer to client audio level indication as proposed standard > - RTP Header extension for client to mixer audio level indication as proposed standard > - RTCP indication for retransmission suppression as proposed standard > - Guidelines for the use of Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP as informational (or possibly BCP) > > We took a brief show of hands in the meeting room in Beijing to see that there was a community that would support the work, and to see if others thought that these either should not be performed or interfered with the existing workload. So if you wish to add your opinion to these please: > > For each of the above proposals indicate to the chairs at avt-chairs@tools.ietf.org (or to the list if you wish) if: > > A) you are prepared to support the work in AVT by reviews, comments proposed text or other appropriate means. > > B) you believe creation of this milestone is either inappropriate or will have a detrimental impact on resources available to other work in AVT. > > If you already represented your view in the meeting room in Beijing (or by Jabber), or do not wish to indicate eother A) or B), you do not need to respond. > > There are candidate author drafts for all of these milestones if you wish to review the potential work. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ivov-avt-slic/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lennox-avt-rtp-audio-level-exthdr/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-avt-retransmission-supression-rtp/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-perkins-avt-srtp-vbr-audio/ > > 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
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- [AVT] Adoption of new milestones DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom)
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Glen Zorn
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Qin Wu
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Qin Wu
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Colin Perkins
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom)
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Qin Wu
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Qin Wu
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom)
- Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones DRAGE, Keith (Keith)