[codec] #17: Feedback and control loop?
"codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Wed, 21 April 2010 09:49 UTC
Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842553A6890 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 U0RBsi5+dD+3 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0D13A6A7A for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1O4WY5-0001Ue-GX; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:48:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: codec issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.6
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.6, by Edgewall Software
To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de
X-Trac-Project: codec
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:48:49 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/codec/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/17
Message-ID: <062.4d06e5df10a25734771c5c65c2b40c5c@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 17
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de, codec@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: [codec] #17: Feedback and control loop?
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Reply-To: trac@localhost.amsl.com
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:49:01 -0000
#17: Feedback and control loop? ------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- Reporter: hoene@… | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: requirements | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: ------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- On 04/13/2010 11:35 AM, Christian Hoene wrote: > > The other thing that will get difficult is to support rate control and > feedback loops. Especially, the feedback mechanism of RTCP are not > very good. It has every high overhead and it is allowed only every 5s. That is be fine with multicast, but in case of interactive scenarios (and potential feedback loops within a bidirectional codec) a bit of overkill and too imprecise. No, with unicast RTP, the minimum is 360 divided by the session bandwidth in kilobits/second (RFC 3550 section 6.2), with the first RTCP packet sent immediately. Even for multicast the value can be reduced for active senders. RTP/(S)AVPF can use immediate feedback which seems to be what you need here. COLIN: RTCP provides relatively low-rate feedback suitable for rate adaptation, to avoid persistent congestion, and to provide codec control functions. RTCP can't, in general, provide a fast (per-RTT) feedback loop. If you need such rapid adaptation, you should run RTP over a congestion controlled transport protocol, such as TCP or DCCP, and adjust the sending rate based on the transport layer feedback. BOTZKO: (b) Feedback - messages related to QOS, packet loss, etc are what I mean by this. This should be done in RTCP, though given the lack of VOIP support perhaps there should be a SIP INFO backup path. Feedback should not be done with RTP. (c) Control - Per RFC 3551, RTCP can be used for "loosely controlled" sessions, but "may be fully or partially subsumed by a separate session control protocol". Given the statements on RTCP support in the VOIP infrastructure, we should be careful about putting unique controls in RTCP. However, it should not be done in RTP. Since most other audio codecs don't require this stuff, I suspect we won't either. Though we will see... SHPOUNT: RTCP is almost universally not implemented. The biggest VoIP gateway on the market does not generate RTCP. If we will rely on any RTCP functionality for bandwidth control it will probably be ignored. -- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/17> codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>
- [codec] #17: Feedback and control loop? codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] #17: Feedback and control loop? Colin Perkins
- Re: [codec] #17: Feedback and control loop? Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] #17: Feedback and control loop? codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] #17: Feedback and control loop? codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] #17: Feedback and control loop? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #17: Feedback and control loop? codec issue tracker