[AVTCORE] RTP Topologies and Taxonomy

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2BF11E810F; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:30:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.749, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9kS6ioQLA5xa; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:30:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8943A21E8127; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:30:28 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7eff8e000000eda-17-527a6093a712
Received: from ESESSHC018.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 85.57.03802.3906A725; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 16:30:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by smtp.internal.ericsson.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 16:30:26 +0100
Message-ID: <527A60F1.20604@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:32:01 -0800
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>, "avtext@ietf.org" <avtext@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrIJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7khKogg9YL4hYve1ayW3y8d4PV gcljyZKfTAGMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZe//eZSzYKFDxfI95A+Ma3i5GTg4JAROJifs2MEPY YhIX7q1n62Lk4hASOMQosWT6SkaQhJDAMkaJ3l1gDbwCmhIrVq1gArFZBFQkvk89DNbMJmAh cfNHIxtEva7E+fkXWUFsUYFgifOvFrND9ApKnJz5hAXEFhFwl/jwbR9YvTDQnBV9TUA2B9AR 4hI9jUEgYWYBPYkpV1sYIWx5ieats5khxmtLNDR1sE5gFJiFZOosJC2zkLQsYGRexciem5iZ k15utIkRGGwHt/xW3cF455zIIUZpDhYlcd4Pb52DhATSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBK NTCWWFqr6j10NlfgiFHgv30j4w+fipbUmfKnvi+Fb028+ClwXZrrrENzD2d+35nntL8jeULq 6jdL1572NZ9a0B+wurLw89TH2Qr3Dx5Z5LLupd/2T0pGmnf53IpfPS/a/kR1afbOOUFOPauZ F3UE8bmzZxg/Kk3ZwTtD+NFRBgfrvGKVq4whlmZKLMUZiYZazEXFiQBfVZHbBAIAAA==
Subject: [AVTCORE] RTP Topologies and Taxonomy
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "avtext@ietf.org" <avtext@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:30:35 -0000

(Please respond to AVTEXT only)

In yesterdays WG session in AVTEXT it was brought up a question
regarding Section 4 of draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-00. This
was the question if this belongs in this draft or should be part of the
RTP Topologies.

My understanding it was put into the taxonomy draft to provide some
examples of how the entities definitions actually relate in some cases.
However, they can also be seen to duplicate quite a lot of the RTP
topologies drafts. And that draft needs an update that uses the
taxonomy, as editor I have that on my todo list. Thus we get to the
question of what should be done in the taxonomy document.

I think there are three alternatives here:

1. Remove all the topologies related discussion and at most make an
explicit reference to topologies as showing how taxonomy can be used to
describe the RTP Topologies.

2. Select a very small number (1 or 2) enlightening examples just to
show what can be done.

3. Include all the main topologies and focus on the bigger picture and
point to how RTP and signalling relate using communication and
multi-media sessions etc.

I personally are not certain between alternative 1 and 2. RTP Topologies
do have some signaling discussion, but may get more to function as good
examples for the entities concepts. Thus, I might lean slightly more
towards 2, with the purpose of focusing on how the communication and
multi-media session interacts with participants, end points and RTP

Please provide your opinion or if you think there are additional


Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com