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

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Thu, 28 August 2014 18:03 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 C5DB81A88DB; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:03:09 -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 ZVG0pV9UzG50; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:03:06 -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 8B07E1A0B79; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=34034 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 1XN42H-0000RR-GW; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:03:02 +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: <C976F604-C51C-45A8-A207-A8416765CB83@csperkins.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:02:54 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9E8BAB84-3666-4692-8CF1-8FFE285DDF1B@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> <C976F604-C51C-45A8-A207-A8416765CB83@csperkins.org>
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/x16ttyPFVnKArLZi2O6NIrXea_Q
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: 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: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:03:10 -0000

On 28 Aug 2014, at 18:31, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Yes, as I replied a couple of days ago. 

Wait, sorry, that was the email I replied to a couple of days ago reappearing… RTT probing, I guess :-)

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