Re: [MMUSIC] Proposal for LS reply regarding RTCP bandwidth negotiation

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
The liaison looks OK to me.
I agree with using option B in the first comment and to allow increasing BW
in the answer. 
As for comment 2 I assume that you are saying that the tradeoffs between
increasing RTCP and reducing RTP bw using same session bw, or increasing the
total session bw can be used to provide more RTCP bw with or without chaning
RTP bw. These options should be documented.

On the RR and SR value 0 are you suggesting to change RFC 3556.  I am not
sure it is a good question to ask 3GPP if they did not mention it
themselves; I am not supportive of the topic of negotiation of the use of
RTCP. So suggest to remove this comment
Roni




-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Magnus Westerlund
Sent: 01 August, 2012 3:36 AM
To: mmusic (E-mail)
Subject: [MMUSIC] Proposal for LS reply regarding RTCP bandwidth negotiation

MMUSIC WG,

Below you find my proposal for a reply to the LS we received from 3GPP
SA4 WG.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1159/

This is intended as a starting point for a discussion of what reply we as WG
want to send. So please review it and send comments on this.

I would highly appreciate any insights how this issues is currently dealt
with in any implementations. If we have knowledge of multiple different
solutions then that is something we should indicate. Also if any existing
solution clashes with SA4's proposed solution.

I also raise the question if we should initiate any update of RFC 3556.
And if we can come to such an agreement and have volunteers we may be able
to strengthen the language in the last paragraph. Otherwise that language is
intended to signal a preference for the driving parties in
SA4 to come help us update the RFC in MMUSIC WG.

===
Source: IETF MMUSIC WG
To: 3GPP TSG SA WG4 (SA4)

Title: Reply regarding On RTCP Bandwidth Negotiation


MMUSIC WG thanks SA4 for seeking our input on this topic. We agree with
SA4's identification that there exist no well defined behavior for the
negotiation of the RTCP bandwidth parameters RR and RS when used in
Offer/Answer context to negotiate a unicast transported RTP session. It is
clear that the RTP session participating end-points do need to agree on
common values or there exist a potential for interoperability failures.

Regarding the proposed recommendations for negotiation MMUSIC WG has the
following comments.

1. Based on the limitations of Offer/Answer and the requirement on arriving
at a common RTCP bandwidth value for RR and RS respectively there exist only
two possible choices. A. that the Offerer dictates the bandwidth values
without any possibilities for B to change the values, or B. as proposed in
the LS that the Offerer suggest a value that the Answerer may modify. On
that high level MMUSIC WG considers the proposed solution appropriate

2. However, we do consider the limitation that the answerer only can keep or
reduce the bandwidth values to a be a potential issue in the proposed
recommendation. The reason is that the answering party then have no way of
increasing the value if the peer agent is not willing to accept the higher
suggested values in a subsequent Offer. This may appear a reasonable
behavior in many cases and considering limited total bandwidth on the path
between the agents. However, when an agent requires a higher RTCP bandwidth
due to its usage of some RTCP based extensions this could prevent such
functionality from being used. And the bandwidth usage could be addressed by
having the answering party to reduce the total RTP session bandwidth in its
answer and be forced to reduce the bit-rate delivered to the other agent in
proportion to the increase of the RTCP bandwidth.

3. Has any special consideration been taken around the usage of RR or RS
parameter values of 0. If either offerer or answerer intended to turn off
RTCP completely or for receivers only, it is questionable that this should
have precedence over the other agents desire to use RTCP.

MMUSIC may consider to update RFC 3556 to amend the lack of Offer/Answer
rules for the RR and RS bandwidth parameters. This would be to provide all
users of the RTCP bandwidth parameter with guidance on this issue.
If the participants in SA4 WG considers that appropriate, MMUSIC WG would
highly appreciate any engagement from the SA4 participants in the MMUSIC WG.

Actions: None

-- end of proposed LS reply --

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic