IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Congestion controll

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Mon, 10 June 2013 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <emil@sip-communicator.org>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5130721F9473 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_19=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2K7rWvjemF+g for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419D921F9648 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id x54so4176528wes.4 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=jfXVLI2frj41O4GAiAjEymMEoXnSrIfU2TVqvL7RsDU=; b=dAdTJI7w/WWcQHcZNfYUhnMRUzOGvwjFapiCRUVWNEvr4Yq3FoJsTYE8l/l5q41tkh bYE74tB+vFiBYZwxK0W0GkG4Z5D59dRRfckTk0rzDXmIdM4abr3nei4RD22AN6WwlksO Jsv447wNzb0IX0DttCEDDJVdbrF/CTUgqXqkU1+SFAJD015pPcCBZoV8EgtayKWgvyVx mdWuSnwI3jT0cgvmu6T4VGecfti9If/5SCv5v3ghpAHTRKE8zdc0mNvEeWtRqRQexLhs SZ0wP8aCWzL7LBGl6dwIFy45FW+Izv+jYGrEmR+ey8kOT59D4V+y7On55qEHIMpjwQUI /1Iw==
X-Received: by 10.180.87.162 with SMTP id az2mr1355666wib.10.1370884209303; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.local ([2a01:e35:2e2c:f600:1fd:ec91:e41a:f5b8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f8sm12328682wiv.0.2013.06.10.10.10.07 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51B6086E.5020802@jitsi.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:10:06 +0200
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <20130530185619.4124.56395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51A87F91.2080500@jitsi.org> <51AEA08D.8090103@cisco.com> <BLU403-EAS336A4AA94CDB5E97170F9A5939F0@phx.gbl> <25B9903E-DC06-4BB0-92A1-C1E7A2AA569E@iii.ca> <BLU169-W609A2EAD331201B824EB6093980@phx.gbl> <4D8F5FFC-F89B-4A5B-8464-3EF20E7D67E9@iii.ca> <CABkgnnUFbc0+A=-rFZRSPN+maXCDHv7QnOOuf4N+wFOc_u7h4g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUFbc0+A=-rFZRSPN+maXCDHv7QnOOuf4N+wFOc_u7h4g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl4LDgYPpyzfSBco93J08VpQDa45W6csrpHHvHi1b9pT3WKXYBI25ff9G4Yn7Ts0NUumbe8
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, Ari Keranen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Congestion controll
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:10:11 -0000

On 10.06.13, 18:52, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 7 June 2013 21:44, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>>> It would appear to me that both Plan A and Plan B use signaling not just to control the envelope of acceptable configurations, but to determine what is actually being sent at a given moment.
>>
>> This is the part I strongly disagree with. I think both plan A and B allow any type of control that is acceptable in RTP / SDP for this including the use of RTCP. I can't see how plan A / B have anything to do with this.
>
> I think that this is the part that is getting confused.  This is not a
> complaint against plan A or B.

It is indeed a problem with both of them and it is also mentioned in the 
No Plan draft.

Emil

> I suspect that this is instead a
> (wholly valid) concern with the the idea of using a=imageattr for
> *setting* resolutions, which limits the ability of a sender to react
> to congestion signals.  I agree with Cullen that this is separable
> from A/B discussions.




-- 
https://jitsi.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email