[dispatch] draft-petithuguenin-dispatch-rtp-pmtud-00 [was Re: draft-petithuguenin-ice-pmtud-00]
Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Mon, 13 March 2017 13:22 UTC
Return-Path: <petithug@acm.org>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD551295EE for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.291
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=0.732, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 YGAgGvEQ_PAP for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (unknown [92.243.22.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABCB5129610 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:648:8301:730f:cca5:d340:c44b:ae82] (unknown [IPv6:2601:648:8301:730f:cca5:d340:c44b:ae82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E6CEAEB2F; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:22:18 +0100 (CET)
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
References: <56353963-c569-711d-c891-7ae901c81cd7@acm.org> <599BE47B-FB71-4D44-A218-D61186D77F89@iii.ca> <38cb0611-d307-ab24-1019-747fdcb3765c@acm.org>
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
Message-ID: <97b83f0a-ee55-5f58-8f29-2f48adaee89e@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:22:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <38cb0611-d307-ab24-1019-747fdcb3765c@acm.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0qvofldjOwMF62QvWxPfP1tHU5J2WfdxG"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/Y9ahPuhOuINdv_lo5j-PkoRj0iU>
Cc: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: [dispatch] draft-petithuguenin-dispatch-rtp-pmtud-00 [was Re: draft-petithuguenin-ice-pmtud-00]
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:22:22 -0000
I just submitted the draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-petithuguenin-dispatch-rtp-pmtud/ Comments are welcome. Cullen, you may want to update the DISPATCH agenda with the new name of the draft. Thanks. On 03/02/2017 05:20 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > On 03/01/2017 10:00 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >> >> So it seems like this would be in scope for TRAM. Would it make sense to just send it there or do you think we should consider other places for it? > > The subject of this draft is "How to do PMTUD with RTP" aka "how much video can I safely stuff in an RTP packet". Using STUN as the mechanism to discover the MTU in the path of the RTP packets is not central to this discussion, but as a transport to collect the packets identifiers (i.e. to implement RFC 4821). So it could be AVTCore (or whatever it will be called after it reabsorbs payload and avtext). We will also need a way to signal that an endpoint supports that feature and that's a new SDP attribute. So it could be MMUSIC. But maybe getting a larger Path MTU could be used to prioritize ICE. So it could be in the ICE WG. But at the end the only people who will probably care about this stuff are RTCWeb peple, not SIP people. So maybe WebRTC. Hence going to Dispatch to figure that out. > >> >> >>> On Feb 18, 2017, at 4:46 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Dispatch, >>> >>> I would like 5 minutes to present draft-petithuguenin-ice-pmtud-00 (not yet published) during the dispatch session. This draft started with the ICE specific stuff that was removed from draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-02, with the goal of defining a usage of stun-pmtud to discover the Path MTU for an RTP/RTCP session. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> > -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
- [dispatch] draft-petithuguenin-ice-pmtud-00 Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [dispatch] draft-petithuguenin-ice-pmtud-00 Cullen Jennings
- Re: [dispatch] draft-petithuguenin-ice-pmtud-00 Marc Petit-Huguenin
- [dispatch] draft-petithuguenin-dispatch-rtp-pmtud… Marc Petit-Huguenin