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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 08/29/2014 10:09 PM, Black, David wrote:
> Ok, I see a range of views from skepticism to outright opposition ...
>
> I'll delete the paragraph and reference to the multi-stream optimization
> draft and submit the resulting -06 version w/a change note that any interaction
> of DiffServ and RTCP multi-stream optimization will be dealt with in the draft
> about the latter.
>
> That submission won't happen tonight, as the network in the SAS Lounge in
> EWR isn't even close to what we're used to at IETF meetings :-).

Looks good to me!

>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:29 PM
>> To: Colin Perkins
>> Cc: Ben Campbell; Black, David; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward
>>
>> On 08/29/2014 06:04 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>> On 29 Aug 2014, at 16:52, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> 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.


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.