Re: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward

Harald Alvestrand <> Fri, 29 August 2014 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155B11A0371 for <>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aPBP1BDHRnQ6 for <>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7131A0104 for <>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B9D7C3F9C; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:29:18 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QQDsQg+R8IsO; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:29:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:40b7:5f40:a179:6443] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:40b7:5f40:a179:6443]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E68A7C3A34; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:29:17 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:29:14 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Colin Perkins <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Ben Campbell <>, "Black, David" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:29:24 -0000

On 08/29/2014 06:04 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2014, at 16:52, Harald Alvestrand <> wrote:
>> On 08/29/2014 05:14 PM, Black, David wrote:
>>> Harald,
>>> I’m about to submit a -05 with the indication that the single DSCP recommendation for SCTP and DCCP may be revised.  The RTCP multi-stream optimisation text will still be in there with Colin's clarification about "received" streams.  I’m about to vanish for about 3 weeks, but could put in a revised -06 over the weekend if you can quickly convince Colin.
>> Explicitly pinging Colin - Colin, are you arguing that the sentence
>>    RTCP multi-stream reporting optimizations for an RTP session
>>    [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation] assume that the RTP
>>    streams involved experience the same packet loss behavior.  This
>>    mechanism is highly inappropriate when the RTP streams involved use
>>    different PHBs, even if those PHBs differ solely in drop precedence.
>> should stay in the draft?
> I was, but thinking again, I’m not so sure.
>> I think this recommendation is wrong.
>> I can't find anything in your latest messages that speak to this particular point.
>> You're one of the authors of -multi-stream, so you should be able to speak clearly to the point.
>> Can you clarify?
> If I have several SSRCs, and receive several media streams, then provided each of my SSRCs sees the exact same quality for each received stream, then  I can use the multi-stream-optimisation to reduce the number of RTCP cross reports I send. The multi-stream-optimisation draft says that already, and it’s not clear that the DART drafts needs to say anything further on the topic.
> Whether I use the same DSCP for all RTCP reports I send is, I think, orthogonal to whether I use the multi-stream-optimisation. The dart draft should possibly say that, but I’m not sure that’s the sentence we have above.
I read the sentence above as saying flatly and unconditionally "don't 
use multi-stream-optimization when the RTP streams have different PHBs" 
- which means that if I want to use one PHB for audio and another PHB 
for video, I can't use multi-stream-optimization.

I'd be sad if that was the case, *especially* if we can't figure out any 
reason to make that recommendation.