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

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Wed, 27 August 2014 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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 AC82A1A00FE; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] 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 mJCB22RupGkn; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.uio.no (mail-out4.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9A0C1A019C; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by mail-out4.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1XMi82-0000XP-CB; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:39:30 +0200
Received: from 25.71.202.84.customer.cdi.no ([84.202.71.25] helo=[192.168.0.114]) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1XMi81-0002B8-RR; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:39:30 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <22E25F9C-E9B1-4C3C-989E-570BAAF58018@csperkins.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:39:27 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4501649-B293-4B6F-A4EB-A08B30EF922C@ifi.uio.no>
References: <embac59e09-6dad-42df-94b2-7daa46d31d5d@sydney> <704DAEE2-C26F-48C8-8C75-548FE115B91F@csperkins.org> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BB42E1F@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <22E25F9C-E9B1-4C3C-989E-570BAAF58018@csperkins.org>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 7 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 12 sum msgs/h 4 total rcpts 19570 max rcpts/h 44 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 8C2E7AF0E8135D8B7E39A1A592E5EE226832A8A7
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 84.202.71.25 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 179 max/h 7 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/KcGtqN8RvozCB14kRBRoQnSfja8
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.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] [AVTCORE] 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:39:37 -0000

On 27. aug. 2014, at 18:00, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2014, at 17:38, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Answering a question w/a question :-), how are those reports likely to be used?
>> 
>> For example, if the primary use of these reports is to adjust a variable rate
>> codec's sending rate, the P-frame info is probably more useful as indicative
>> of what's happening to the traffic that the network drops first when the going
>> gets rough (or whose delivery w/o loss indicates that a sending rate increase
>> may be reasonable), which suggests P-frame-like RTCP report marking.
> 
> I doubt the RTT estimate derived from RTCP is used for congestion control, since it’s too infrequent to get insight into the dynamics. It’s for user experience reporting, maybe rough clustering of receivers, that sort of thing. 

I'd agree if I didn't have the impression, in RMCAT, that nothing but RTP / RTCP is allowed?!  So can we send extra packets to probe for the RTT?

Cheers,
Michael