[Dart] Treatment of RTCP - proposed text

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Thu, 28 August 2014 01:59 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86F51A0089; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.969
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cB5hbEcuRV1b; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A342B1A00A5; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd56.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd56.lss.emc.com []) by mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s7S1wprX004930 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:58:52 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com s7S1wprX004930
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1409191132; bh=qfilAdVKVlqK03k3uGOyvw1rcIU=; h=From:To:CC:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=xHKPv40SXRxbum02uLvXZRMS+Gmk+Z+khS4g5pzWJ6B11mC95cWkr1F0LXvuEc1AB G2KNF1tf8r6G2+Bb3SdQndFlvWjJJGhjLs4LTJDbo7PcMS4OEx8w+VeX2YHgvZ8uBs h0ghT1Q0crEA4hbBbiZeWLLMB9xo3nINlwoAndVY=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com s7S1wprX004930
Received: from mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com []) by maildlpprd56.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:58:37 -0400
Received: from mxhub37.corp.emc.com (mxhub37.corp.emc.com []) by mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s7S1waeC030331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:58:36 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([]) by mxhub37.corp.emc.com ([]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:58:36 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:58:34 -0400
Thread-Topic: Treatment of RTCP - proposed text
Thread-Index: Ac/CY5Np9OQoThvRR+WsroEF6xAxkw==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BB4310B@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/hqD0TFFlSb3Ph8Y-cjQT7_TwTeU
Cc: "draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "dart@ietf.org" <dart@ietf.org>, "avt@ietf.org WG" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: [Dart] Treatment of RTCP - proposed text
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: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:59:05 -0000

Trying to propose some text here:

   o  Should use a single DSCP for an RTCP session, primarily to avoid
      RTCP reordering (and because there is no compelling reason for use
      of different drop precedences).  One of the PHBs and associated
      DSCP used for the associated RTP traffic would be an appropriate
      choice.  [Editor's note: This bullet is an open technical issue.]
   o  Should use the same DSCP for RTCP reports as used for the RTP stream
      that is being reported on when that DSCP is known by the RTCP sender.
      When an RTP stream uses multiple DSCPs that differ only in drop
      precedence, RTCP reports on that RTP stream should use the DSCP with
      the least likelihood of drop to favor delivery of the RTCP reports.
      When a single RTCP message reports on multiple RTP streams that
      are sent with different DSCPs, the RTCP sender should choose one
      of those DSCPs.  When the RTCP sender does not know what
	DSCP or DSCPs were used to send an RTP stream, it should choose
	a DSCP that it would use to send a similar RTP stream.
The latter sentence is courtesy of the fact that there will be cases
where the RTCP sender will not know what DSCP or DSCPs were used to send
the RTP stream, due to en-route remarking.

If that text looks close, I'll edit further and try to get the -05 submitted
by the end of this week.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:53 PM
> To: Ben Campbell; Michael Welzl; Colin Perkins; Black, David
> Cc: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org; dart@ietf.org; avt@ietf.org
> WG
> Subject: Re: [Dart] [AVTCORE] Treatment of RTCP (was Re: Colin Perkins
> comments - WGLC: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-02)
> RTCP might not be used for RTT calculations (it might; I just doubt it's
> terribly useful),  but RTCP might be used to convey QoE measurements or
> one-way delay information useful for RMCAT.
> I think there is agreement that the DSCP value applied to the RTCP
> packet for a given SSRC sender should align with the DSCP value used for
> the corresponding RTP packets of that sender. In the case where an AFxx
> class is used, I'm not sure there is agreement (though no disagreement).
>   I stated my view that we should use the lowest drop precedence in that
> case, but others should weigh in.
> Paul
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
> To: "Michael Welzl" <michawe@ifi.uio.no>no>; "Colin Perkins"
> <csp@csperkins.org>rg>; "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>om>; "Black,
> David" <david.black@emc.com>
> Cc: "draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org"
> <draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org>rg>; "dart@ietf.org"
> <dart@ietf.org>rg>; "avt@ietf.org WG" <avt@ietf.org>
> Sent: 8/27/2014 4:48:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dart] [AVTCORE] Treatment of RTCP (was Re: Colin Perkins
> comments - WGLC: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-02)
> >On Aug 27, 2014, at 3:45 PM, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> >
> >>  I don't know the beginning of this but I can help go up the stack:
> >>
> >>  for the short dialogue between Colin and me, the conclusion is: Colin
> >>is right. RTCP probably won't be used by congestion control to
> >>estimate the RTT.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks, Michael, I think that fits with some earlier conversations as
> >well.
> >
> >Colin and Paul (and David):
> >
> >Are we converging on what guidance to put into the DART draft?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >Ben.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Dart mailing list
> >Dart@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart