Re: [Dart] Treatment of RTCP (was Re: Colin Perkins comments - WGLC: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-02)

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 26 August 2014 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 7EB081A003A; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 qCd8S_fr7Vzs; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03BD21A0019; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.209.247.112] (port=58039 helo=mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1XMJSd-0005xS-KR; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:19:09 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <embac59e09-6dad-42df-94b2-7daa46d31d5d@sydney>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:19:02 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <704DAEE2-C26F-48C8-8C75-548FE115B91F@csperkins.org>
References: <embac59e09-6dad-42df-94b2-7daa46d31d5d@sydney>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/G098GmycIPnDbmUa2noa_GPwa0g
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "dart@ietf.org" <dart@ietf.org>, "avt@ietf.org WG" <avt@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dart] Treatment of RTCP (was Re: Colin Perkins comments - WGLC: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-02)
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: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:19:15 -0000

On 26 Aug 2014, at 16:52, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
> Ben,
>>>>>> Getting feedback to the sender is important, though. In an ideal world, I would argue that RTCP packets should be marked with whatever DSCP value will deliver RTCP packets in the most expedient way. Since we don't have an ideal world, I don't know which DSCP value that would be.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would the starting positions of "getting feedback is important, even of not for RTT estimates" and "we need RTCP for RTT estimates" likely land on the same guidance for DSCP values?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The argument to send RTCP packets in the most expedient way sounds reasonable. I don't know if we need to recommend a particular DSCP, since we already have quite a bit of text on how DSCPs might (or might not) map into some predictable PHB treatment.
>>>> 
>>>> Good question and valid point. Nowhere in the document do we recommend the use of a particular DSCP value for any particular thing, and we should not recommend a particular value for RTCP in this document. I'm just not sure what statements should be made.
>>>> 
>>>> I suspect we can all agree that RTCP information is important. It's just the DSCP-related guidance that goes with that that is challenging.
>>> 
>>> I don’t agree that RTCP information should be sent as higher priority than the media. Ideally, it should be sent with the same priority as the media, so it can be used to sample the RTT. This RTT sample is independent of RMCAT. It’s in base RTP specification, and so is something we need to support to the extent possible.
>>> 
>>> Since not all the media sent by a single SSRC has the same marking, my suggestion would be that each SSRC mark the RTCP packets it sends with one of the same code points as it uses to mark the media. Since RTCP is somewhat important, it would make sense for each SSRC to mark the RTCP packets it sends using the highest priority code point it uses to mark the RTP media packets it sends.
>> 
>> That makes sense to me. Paul, and others, do you agree with that last paragraph?
> 
> I agree that the value should be one of the values used for media, but the challenge is specifying which DSCP value to use.  If audio is sent using EF, video as AF41, app sharing video as AF31, etc., which of these does the endpoint choose to use for RTCP?

Such an endpoint will have three SSRC values, and will mark the RTCP packets sent by each SSRC in the same way as the media packets sent by that SSRC. That is, the RTCP relating to the audio will be marked EF, the RTCP relating to the video will be marked AF41, and the RTCP relating to the application sharing video will be marked AF31. The RTCP packets for each stream are sent separately, so this case seems straight-forward.

The more difficult case is when an SSRC is sending video using different markings for RTP packets carrying the I- and P-frames. Should that SSRC then mark its RTCP packets like the RTP packets carrying I-frames, like the RTP packets carrying P-frames, or what?

Colin


 

> Since DSCP values cannot be assumed to any particular PHB behavior in the network, that makes answering that question challenging.
> 
> My personal preference in a voice/video conference would be to use the same marking as is used for those flows -- and I would use the same value for both voice and video.  However, if the app sharing video is considered more important by some applications, perhaps that's the value that should be used in those applications.
> 
> I can accept the suggestion, leaving the specific selection as an implementation matter.  I do wish there was something more concrete so that two devices would always follow the same approach to selecting a value, but I doubt we can get agreement very quickly.
> 
> Paul
> 



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