Re: [Dart] Treatment of RTCP - proposed text

["Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>]

Ben,

I think the answer is really whether we can quickly reach consensus.  I 
have an idea how I'd implement it if I didn't have guidance otherwise, 
which I explained in my last email.

I think this can be resolved pretty quickly.  If not, we can certainly 
leave it open.

Paul

------ Original Message ------
From: "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>
To: "Black, David" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>; "Michael Welzl" 
<[e-mail]>; "Colin Perkins" <[e-mail]>; 
"[e-mail]" 
<[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" 
<[e-mail]>; "[e-mail] WG" <[e-mail]>
Sent: 8/27/2014 10:28:07 PM
Subject: Re: Treatment of RTCP - proposed text

>I do not object to the text per se.
>
>But I do have a bit of a nagging concern that we may be offering too 
>strong of guidance, given the thought process so far. Do we believe we 
>understand this well enough to say the sender should to this or that, 
>as opposed to say that these are things the implementer should think 
>about, and that these are probably reasonable choices?
>
>Is this an area where we need more deployment experience to offer real 
>guidance? (I think it's okay for the doc to say that, if needed.)
>
>But in any case, I will defer to Colin, Paul, and David.
>
>On Aug 27, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>  Trying to propose some text here:
>>
>>  OLD
>>    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.]
>>  NEW
>>    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.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>  --David
>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>  From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:53 PM
>>>  To: Ben Campbell; Michael Welzl; Colin Perkins; Black, David
>>>  Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>>[e-mail]
>>>  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" <[e-mail]>
>>>  To: "Michael Welzl" <[e-mail]>; "Colin Perkins"
>>>  <[e-mail]>; "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>; 
>>>"Black,
>>>  David" <[e-mail]>
>>>  Cc: "[e-mail]"
>>>  <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]"
>>>  <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail] WG" <[e-mail]>
>>>  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 <[e-mail]> 
>>>>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
>>>>  [e-mail]
>>>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart
>>
>