Re: [Dart] Open Issue: Guidance for RTCP

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Mon, 25 August 2014 07:57 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E917C1A8AE3 for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.969
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wx0waMmCe1sm for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FCF51A8AE2 for <dart@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.35]) by mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s7P7vk15017302 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:57:46 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com s7P7vk15017302
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1408953466; bh=NdvMhCF8GPO3epMmw7TjCwqdswo=; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=d0Az4SV7x5aiepISNo9DQrmICYhUw0gqKtrqagfAi/CHGe0RAQv8Yi65NKkCJLta5 tjz+tmR8+Y8bBYvZIRpbsw51Rcz9rCJ8xK7t7rZbSdfAvCGZX71iBPA2DGdFqXjV4u DiItoBWkX2/BafaD35x/FwgqcXwRXsm1vpVOR2qk=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com s7P7vk15017302
Received: from mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.19]) by maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:57:22 -0400
Received: from mxhub16.corp.emc.com (mxhub16.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.237]) by mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s7P7vQGD023692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:57:27 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.175]) by mxhub16.corp.emc.com ([128.222.70.237]) with mapi; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:57:26 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "dart@ietf.org" <dart@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:57:24 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Dart] Open Issue: Guidance for RTCP
Thread-Index: Ac/AIYDACC+DFcQzTqCt3r0ARyMWEgAF21rQ
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BB42B3A@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
References: <442BA084-2172-4251-BBD6-EF8280055854@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <442BA084-2172-4251-BBD6-EF8280055854@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: DLM_1, public, GIS Solicitation
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/9YxCa5DbjauyxODzIYsqdHox7i8
Subject: Re: [Dart] Open Issue: Guidance for RTCP
X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" <dart.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dart>, <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dart/>
List-Post: <mailto:dart@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart>, <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:57:50 -0000

(as editor)

I believe the core of this issue is the role of RTCP in providing RTT
estimates.  This is the core of open issue [B] and resolving it is
likely to resolve much of open issue [F].

I believe the key question is:

	Is the role of RTCP in providing RTCP estimates important enough
	to serve as the primary basis for providing guidance on DSCP usage
	w/RTCP?

Here's a summary of the "yes it is" viewpoint (from Colin Perkins):

	Using a single
	PHB and DSCP for all RTCP packets within an RTP session might make
	sense, but it's important to note that one role of RTCP is to provide
	an estimate of the round-trip time seen by the media, so the PHB/DSCP
	will have to be chosen with care to avoid biasing that estimate too
	much.

And a summary of the "no it isn't" viewpoint (from Paul Jones):

	it was proposed that RTCP
	should be marked the same as for RTP.  The argument was that this
	is used for RTT calculations.  If that is what was said, I'd like
	to state my disagreement. :-)

	The forward and reverse paths are not necessarily the same and there is
	nothing one should assume about the reverse path to provide guidance about
	the forward path (or vice versa).  As perhaps a gross example, I have the
	ability to download far faster on my home Internet connection than I can
	upload.  Other important traffic characteristics differ in each direction.

Thanks,
--David (as editor)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dart [mailto:dart-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:00 AM
> To: dart@ietf.org
> Subject: [Dart] Open Issue: Guidance for RTCP
> 
> (as chair)
> 
> We have an open issue (Designated issue [B] by David) about what guidance to
> give about RTCP in draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp. We need to close this in order to
> progress the draft--meaning we need to do so ASAP.
> 
> Please look at the the following quoted text for background, and offer an
> opinion:
> 
> 
> > (2) PHBs and DSCPs for RTCP.
> >
> > I'm not sure what to say about this, as it looks like I need to set
> > off a discussion (debate?) between you and my co-author, Paul Jones.
> >
> > Colin (from WGLC comments):
> >
> > > Rather, within a single RTP session there are RTCP packets sent
> > > that give information about the RTP streams that are being sent, and that
> > > report on the reception quality of RTP streams being received. Using a
> single
> > > PHB and DSCP for all RTCP packets within an RTP session might make sense,
> but
> > > it's important to note that one role of RTCP is to provide an estimate of
> the
> > > round-trip time seen by the media, so the PHB/DSCP will have to be chosen
> with
> > > care to avoid biasing that estimate too much.
> >
> > Paul (from shortly after the Toronto meeting:
> >
> > > During the meeting, there was discussion of marking RTCP packets.  Some
> > > notes I received on this topic suggested that it was proposed that RTCP
> > > should be marked the same as for RTP.  The argument was that this is used
> > > for RTT calculations.  If that is what was said, I'd like to state my
> > > disagreement. :-)
> > >
> > > The forward and reverse paths are not necessarily the same and there is
> > > nothing one should assume about the reverse path to provide guidance about
> > > the forward path (or vice versa).  As perhaps a gross example, I have the
> > > ability to download far faster on my home Internet connection than I can
> > > upload.  Other important traffic characteristics differ in each direction.
> > >
> > > Further, an RTCP packet might provide information related to several
> different
> > > RTP packets.  I certainly would not want to see one RTCP packet per RTP
> packet.
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dart mailing list
> Dart@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart