Re: [codec] #16: Multicast?

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 21 April 2010 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.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 959413A69FF for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.274
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 NbsSTYneyfaa for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anchor-msapost-1.mail.demon.net (anchor-msapost-1.mail.demon.net [195.173.77.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839D33A694C for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.247.112]) by anchor-post-1.mail.demon.net with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1O4XTk-0001sf-j4; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:48:25 +0000
Message-Id: <3E1D8AD1-B28F-41C5-81C6-478A15432224@csperkins.org>
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
To: codec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <062.7439ee5d5fd36480e73548f37cb10207@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="WINDOWS-1252"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:48:24 +0100
References: <062.7439ee5d5fd36480e73548f37cb10207@tools.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: trac@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] #16: Multicast?
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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 10:48:35 -0000

On 21 Apr 2010, at 10:42, codec issue tracker wrote:
> #16: Multicast?
> ------------------------------------ 
> +----------------------------------
> Reporter:  hoene@…                 |       Owner:
>    Type:  enhancement             |      Status:  new
> Priority:  trivial                 |   Milestone:
> Component:  requirements            |     Version:
> Severity:  Active WG Document      |    Keywords:
> ------------------------------------ 
> +----------------------------------
> The question arrose whether the interactive CODEC MUST support  
> multicast in addition to teleconferencing.
>
> On 04/13/2010 11:35 AM, Christian Hoene wrote:
>>>> P.S. On the same note, does anybody here cares about using this  
>>>> CODEC with multicast? Is there a single commercial multicast  
>>>> voice deployment? From what I've seen all multicast does is  
>>>> making IETF voice standards harder to understand or implement.
>>>
>>> I think that would be a mistake to ignore multicast - not because  
>>> of multicast itself, but because of Xcast (RFC 5058) which is a  
>>> promising technology to replace centralized conference bridges.
>>
>> Regarding multicast:
>>
>> I think we shall start at user requirements and scenarios.  
>> Teleconference (including mono or spatial audio) might be good  
>> starting point. Virtual environments like second live would require  
>> multicast communication, too. If the requirements of these  
>> scenarios are well understand, we can start to talk about potential  
>> solutions like IP multicast, Xcast or conference bridges.


RTP is inherently a group communication protocol, and any codec  
designed for use with RTP should consider operation in various  
different types of group communication scenario (not just multicast).  
RFC 5117 is a good place to start when considering the different types  
of topology in which RTP is used, and the possible placement of mixing  
and switching functions which the codec will need to work with.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/