Re: [MMUSIC] T.140 in Data Channel scenarios

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Wed, 25 September 2019 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
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 E8965120178 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 0_GcGSY-qORj for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 710C5120048 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id r134so5008006lff.12 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OVq7sQ0ckUk6+wcV+DplmUFdT/5mzQk65ovUtVDhg8Q=; b=YL6WgBrQqGqIhvZafgC+9YZIUOK0NU/eHGDNkgoOdrVlgXGQRoNIRolkrbtUmMQOFA E0TozmjiSHt7VeJf4GQ0ctkgr0XWGJwv4CQN3nJCivlcGRjkv1EOca+0JGVkTom+X/Id eexk3kgvOtc7QbmN4+sJKGU9YNMZmAR2f34xCfg64mbknCLqP9UK4lWHfneiQDthCiJr LMevndbg8G96G01C5dEOxG2eTNfSakLnhTo8rfTAA/M7WKgEAs6CHfiJ595k2BMHI81v 4Stf+j+CE123KQg35cfqNJDGplQgaxazLipG3JXf0K27AQ1L+vtdGnZV3Z0qgZu8IJbw oWsg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OVq7sQ0ckUk6+wcV+DplmUFdT/5mzQk65ovUtVDhg8Q=; b=PpsbxwRMLwgd35ESDNcWGDV/pI4JA2gTuZWj6J+DtXkuZgo6QqWmGqUoZolLps6gtq Oz6PVc91lVt4hFQKedtW99AEyyfZCmdEtA8EhUWle9zP6EyDjNKXyr3hWdY3qDQegTHH MJfgeDG2bVuH/VO/hL3Kfai8vQUiJHh+nd/J/VgkP2EQhLJ1MmUTHyAElIWzAZKzhywx wUwg0HP+pbedQMMKievjYAI+p5LTl3XNRyAOlczDd72KKoFkhyOd1epm4C6E/dQ7rrAu 8AZP5Oy6ASKkMFo3Y1erB/43xbA0OWTA1bXZebnYq+JgMJ2oNQlZhq8XHHXMsRIHsvmC Tudg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUp1W7PFb+8y5yWq9KwCL6DjPQHiVbDyzatn1pVxgzVtnUh9IKC ozBIw4xUf+O0Ww2CKotOFqq/c9rm7cGUU/AVL2g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzTPG5tc6MMsIlkKkwE9L7drggd2Wn+fP1FWecmulA54UMEeiVQY248ig5WMj1E6D9cVEGirNHJX+5nwiZj7wk=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:98e:: with SMTP id 136mr2993541lfj.156.1569437910303; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOW+2duiD8ZTDQpzupfC9S7tp7k6Xm5K2vA+643RMTpkDCnsMQ@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB3161640EC7A7269FE3A0D11993840@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOW+2duN+PhXRvVRQRejWzkcA7-Ah8M=Ligy7RrywDVELQsauQ@mail.gmail.com> <AB3B3CB9-1CF9-49C6-AC4F-8696E15E9EFE@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <AB3B3CB9-1CF9-49C6-AC4F-8696E15E9EFE@ericsson.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:58:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2du57abm4PYFDMmeJjQq_YHxyz+WYNjRKXE=cD9=UNv72w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000240a500593653d46"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/0ONs95284qPWREW_jQobUOvhwQc>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] T.140 in Data Channel scenarios
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 18:58:36 -0000

Your note looks good.  You might also want to add a sentence or two about
why you have chosen reliable transport and the implications (that
redundancy is not needed).

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 2:26 AM Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> > Thanks for the explanation.  Would there be a way for some of this to
> make its way into the document?
>
> > I think that would make it easier for the APA to review.
>
>
>
> What about the following note below the table:
>
>
>
> “NOTE: T.140 does not provide reliable and ordered transmission of T.140
> data.
>
> Instead, T.140 requires the transport channel to provide real-time text
> without
>
> duplication and in original order. When RTP based transport is used, the
> RTP sequence
>
> number is used to detect packet loss and out-of-order packets, and a
> redundancy
>
> mechanism using the RTP timestamp is used to achieve reliable delivery of
> T.140 data.”
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Christer said:
>
>
>
> "T.140 requires the transport mechanism to keep packets in order, and
> without duplication. When using RTP, the sequence number is used to detect
> out-of-order packets and loss of packets. You don’t have that mechanism in
> a data channel, and T.140 itself does not contain a sequence number.
>
>
>
> When using RTP, reliability can provided by sending of redundant data, or by using FEC. FEC is RTP-specific, so you can’t use that on a data channel.
>
>
>
> I don’t think the redundancy mechanism can be used on the data channel either, because it uses the RTP header timestamp.
>
>  And, you can not re-transmit T.140 text on a data channel (T.140 RTP packets are not re-transmitted either), because the receiver will not be able to detect it (again, because T.140 does not contain a sequence number).
>
>
>
> Of course we could have defined an “envelope” for the data channel T.140
> text, with sequence numbers. But, the idea was to simply send the T.140
> text as the data channel itself provides delivery and reliability."
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:12 PM Christer Holmberg <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bernard,
>
>
>
> Gunnar will probably be able to give a better answer, but below are some
> comments from me.
>
>
>
> >At the W3C TPAC 2019 meeting last week,
> draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel came up as part of a discussion
> of Accessible RTC Use Cases:
>
> >https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Accessible_RTC_Use_Cases
>
> >
>
> >Here are a few of the questions that came up.
>
> >
>
> >Section 3
>
> >
>
> >       +--------------------------+-------------------------------+
>
> >       | Subprotocol Identifier   | t140                          |
>
> >       | Transmission reliability | reliable                      |
>
> >       | Transmission order       | in-order                      |
>
> >       | Label                    | See Section 4.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-05#section-4.1> and Section 6 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-05#section-6> |
>
> >       +--------------------------+-------------------------------+
>
> >
>
> > Are there any situations in which unreliable or partially reliable transport might be appropriate?
>
> > For example, some participants envisaged scenarios in which low latency communications might be
>
> >  desirable, such as in emergencies, and questioned whether it might make sense to use the maxPacketLifetime
>
> > or maxRetransmissions parameters.
>
> >
>
> > So there was a question about whether it might ever make sense to support an unreliable data channel (possibly with redundancy).
>
>
>
> T.140 requires the transport mechanism to keep packets in order, and without duplication. When using RTP, the sequence number is used to detect out-of-order packets and loss of packets. You don’t have that mechanism in a data channel, and T.140 itself does not contain a sequence number.
>
>
>
> When using RTP, reliability can provided by sending of redundant data, or by using FEC. FEC is RTP-specific, so you can’t use that on a data channel.
>
>
>
> I don’t think the redundancy mechanism can be used on the data channel either, because it uses the RTP header timestamp.
>
>  And, you can not re-transmit T.140 text on a data channel (T.140 RTP packets are not re-transmitted either), because the receiver will not be able to detect it (again, because T.140 does not contain a sequence number).
>
>
>
> Of course we could have defined an “envelope” for the data channel T.140 text, with sequence numbers. But, the idea was to simply send the T.140 text as the data channel itself provides delivery and reliability.
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> >Lost information (compared with RTP)
>
> >
>
> >We had some questions relating to information "lost in translation" between realtime text
>
> >and data channel.  This includes aspects of the RTP header, including SSRCs, timestamps and sequence numbers.
>
>  Yes, that information is lost.
>
>
>
> There were some discussions about including SSRC somehow, in order to support conferences where a mixer uses a single data channel for text received from multiple remote users, but we decided that it is outside the scope of this draft.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
>