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

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 27 August 2014 18:42 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 954571A6EED; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:42:48 -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 Nb8v6jXfe1dv; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:42:46 -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 C3E171A014A; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=36736 helo=[192.168.0.22]) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1XMiB9-0005PO-8E; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:42:43 +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: <A4501649-B293-4B6F-A4EB-A08B30EF922C@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:42:38 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B4C6B70-B3EB-45C0-892D-328954E3AD4E@csperkins.org>
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> <A4501649-B293-4B6F-A4EB-A08B30EF922C@ifi.uio.no>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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/aJrFjMnMTTslSab8SYg7PRcMHOc
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 18:42:48 -0000

On 27 Aug 2014, at 19:39, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> 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?

I’d expect RMCAT will probe the one-way delay variation by measuring the arrival times of RTP packets, and report that in RTCP once per video frame (or so). That would give a much more accurate measurement than a single-packet sample of the RTT derived from RTCP, and would still allow per-frame adaptation.

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