Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-06
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Tue, 12 July 2016 15:01 UTC
Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 649DA12DE60; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 VGbxrJkf_0JI; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D380112DAF9; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 07:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79936d0000030e4-c6-5784feeb637e
Received: from ESESSHC014.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.60]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id DF.96.12516.BEEF4875; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:30:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.294.0; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:30:03 +0200
To: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <9f237771-3d8c-edf7-6b28-3e8f214075a5@cisco.com>
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <61d550ef-32a2-f759-1cbd-1b2d937da1a0@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:30:01 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9f237771-3d8c-edf7-6b28-3e8f214075a5@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7je7rfy3hBrf3KVtMXL+OyeL9BV2L qcsfszgwe0z5vZHVY8mSn0wBTFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGS+mChY8CK34+GA1UwPjAacuRk4O CQETiU1Lv7JB2GISF+6tB7OFBI4wSuxfkNLFyAVkL2eUuPbvBBNIQljATOLAy5PsILaIgKvE kYV3mSAabCQaFh8Ba2YWUJHoetfICmKzCVhI3PzRCBbnFbCXeP6qn7mLkYODRUBV4sVMOxBT VCBGYn1fAkSFoMTJmU9YQGxOAVuJ7hOfGUFKmIE6H2wtgxguL9G8dTYzxFJtiYamDtYJjIKz kHTPQuiYhaRjASPzKkbR4tTi4tx0I2O91KLM5OLi/Dy9vNSSTYzAYD245bfuDsbVrx0PMQpw MCrx8C641xwuxJpYVlyZe4hRgoNZSYS35WdLuBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGaQ4WJXFe/5eK 4UIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZJg5OqQZG+cVTYt02JTqc9NF/+0Ntalq53YQdkX+FdDQW50yrko2R PBWzclnI+usMT3/ly17iLu9xdf3tGHH6paT29sMzGm+rrnG4X1o1XeeZQmbyCoa9ds0xrBGV 2e8Ml/j8OOd4eJMS68pHD1/pfnj1/OfFbS1rLDL6TCvC5atPmq2fPW+6dvGT+gnzlFiKMxIN tZiLihMBLJ3i71ICAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/6-UOretYuQ5mdgr2NQKdV4cv4Xw>
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-rid@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-06
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:01:16 -0000
Hi, Here are my WG last call comments. 1. Section 2: However, the assignment of static mapping of RTP payload type numbers to payload formats and multiplexing of RTP with other protocols (such as RTCP) could result in limited number of payload type numbers available for application usage. Is still the state of the implementations such that overriding a static payload doesn't work? Already RFC 3264 is quite clear that this is possible. If possible I would avoid repeating this as a reason. I think RTP/RTCP MUX is a more relevant limitation that takes a significant chunk out of the PT range. 2. Section 4: This value binds the restriction to the RTP Stream identified by its RTP Stream Identifier SDES item [I-D.ietf-avtext-rid]. The draft is missing a statement making clear that if one implements mmusic-rid, then one is required to also implement avtext-rid using RFC 2119 langauge. Yes, I realize implicitly that this is the case, but I think one should make it explicit so that no one glancing it through misses this aspect and to avoid future debates. I also think there exist a question if one MUST include the SDES item, in the RTP stream, even when the PT is 3. Section 4: This framework MAY be used in combination with the "a=fmtp" SDP attribute for describing the media format parameters for a given RTP Payload Type. In such scenarios, the "a=rid" constraints (Section 5) further constrain the equivalent "a=fmtp" attributes. I wonder if this should include a bit of clearer purpose declration here. By using rid one can hopefully create more generic PTs that are focused on the codec and basic payload type configuration, and thus put the more detailed contrains to the rid. The introduction hints at this but I would prefer if this is made clearer as intended result of using rid. Possibly this may better belong in this Section 2 paragraph: The additional constraints on individual streams are indicated with a new "a=rid" SDP attribute. Note that the constraints communicated via this attribute only serve to further constrain the parameters that are established on a PT format. They do not relax any existing restrictions. 4. Section 4: This framework MAY be used in combination with the "a=fmtp" SDP attribute for describing the media format parameters for a given RTP Payload Type. I wonder if "MAY" is really the right RFC2119 word here. I don't see how you can't use a=fmtp to define the PTs. Because this leads my thought in the direction that you can use a=rid only and not use the whole PT declration mechansism with m= lines, a=rtpmap and a=fmtp. I don't believe this is the intention here. 5. Section 4: A given "rid-id" MUST NOT be repeated in a given media description ("m=" section). So this indicates a uniqueness requirement on media description level, but does not discuss how a receiver gets to correctly identify the RTP Stream within an RTP session to the Media Description, as this is what an actual receiver needs to deal with. Section 6 says: Note that "rid-id" values are only required to be unique within a media section ("m-line"); they do not necessarily need to be unique within an entire RTP session. In traditional usage, each media section is sent on its own unique 5-tuple, which provides an unambiguous scope. Similarly, when using BUNDLE [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], MID values associate RTP streams uniquely to a single media description. What the above section 6 text doesn't cover is multiparty cases, when a receiver can receive RTP streams from multiple endpoints matching a particular media description, something that can occur in declarative use cases. In this case, one could add the CNAME will work as clear separator. Then there are the declarative interpretation that each media description is an RTP session. And in some cases, that could mean that one thinks multiple media sources fits a particular media description. I have no idea if there are actual deployed cases of this. However, I think the reasonable way forward here is to document the assumption that this is based on that even in declarative cases where there might be multiple endpoints that sends according to a specific media description, this only supports one media source. To conclude, I think the text about this needs be extended to cover the different cases better and make clear that there exist a requirement here. And the assumption that we don't need to solve multiple media sources from the same endpoint sent according to one media description (declarative usage). 6. Section 5: o max-bpp, for maximum number of bits per pixel, calculated as an average of all samples of any given coded picture. This is expressed as a floating point value, with an allowed range of 0.0001 to 48.0. Does this need a clarification that any values outside of the range will be encoded with the closest value allowed? Secondly, the floating point value, how many digits of decimals are allowed? Is this intended to fit in an 32-bit or 64-bit floating point representation or something else? 7. Section 5: While this document does not define constraints for audio codecs, there is no reason such constraints should be precluded from definition and registration by other documents. I think this could add that additional media types are also possible. Possible formulation: While this document does not define constraints for audio codecs or any other media types than video, there is no reason such constraints should be precluded from definition and registration by other documents. 8. section 6.2.2: 3. If the "a=rid" line contains a "pt=", the list of payload types is verified against the list of valid payload types for the media section (that is, those listed on the "m=" line). Any PT missing from the "m=" line is removed from the set of valued in the "pt=". This may need handling of the case if the last action results in that the set of PTs in "pt=" becomes empty, then the whole a=rid line needs to be discarded. This as the RID was intended for a limited set of PTs, rather than the default any PT which no "pt=" implies. 9. Section 6.2.2: 5. If the "depend" constraint is included, the answerer MUST make sure that the listed rid-ids unambiguously match the rid-ids in the SDP offer. Any "a=rid" lines that do not are removed. I fail to find a definition of the "depend" constraint in the document. I do find an example using it in addition to the above text. 10. Section 6.4: Note that this matching must be performed semantically rather than on literal PT values, as the remote end may not be using symmetric PTs. For the purpose of this comparison: for each PT listed on the "a=rid" line in the answer, the offerer looks up the corresponding "a=rtpmap" and "a=fmtp" lines in the answer. I am a bit worried that this is still misunderstood to mean that one can do "byte comparison" of the parameters for a PT. The reality of this comparison is after all that you must compare the parameters that are required to be the same between offer and answer. And that is payload format specific. I would suggest that one makes it clear that in many cases this semantically comparison requires payload format understanding. 11. Section 7. Needs to be clarified requirements on being able to determine which rid-identifier that applies to a received RTP stream. So if multiple m= lines are defined and they are not all separate RTP sessions, additional method for determining media description to RTP stream are required. Multi-party also needs to be handled. 12. Section 8.2.3 and 8.2.4: So even if H.264 supports macroblock internal partitions for 4x4 and 8x8 sub-blocks the calculation for the constraints are done on the macroblock sizes that is 16x16 for luminance, see Section 3.78 of H.264 specification. Thus the conversion factor should in both these cases be 256 pixels per MB. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264-201602-I/en (pdf version is free) 13. Section 10: rid-fmt-list = "pt=" fmt *( "," fmt ) ; fmt defined in {{RFC4566}} When I verified the ABNF by running Bill Fenner's parser on it I got the "fmt undefinded". One way of avoiding this is to actually define fmt as prose value, by saying that it is an external reference. fmt = <as defined in RFC4566> 14. Section 10: "alpah-numeric" is also undefined. And it is not obvious from where this definition is taken. SP and DIGIT are present in RFC5234 and I assume those definitions are to be used. In addition I have to note that if one would use the "alpha-numeric" definition from SDP (RFC4566) then one can't use any of the allowed UTF-8 values from the SDES item in the SDP rid-identifier as the alpha-numeric only support 7-bit ascii characters. 15. Section 10: Discrepancy between SDES item and "rid-identifer". To my understanding there exist no limitations in the SDES item against using space or other separators. Such free form is not supported by current "rid-identifier" definition. This effiects both "rid-syntax" and rid-list constructs. 16. Section 11.2: I understand the desire to have this example is "depend" is defined. However, I do note that this is an simulcast example which you in Section 11 refer to the simulcast document. 17. Section 12.1: I don't think this section manages to hit all of the registration requirements for new SDP attributes: From RFC4566: o contact name, email address, and telephone number o attribute name (as it will appear in SDP) o long-form attribute name in English o type of attribute (session level, media level, or both) o whether the attribute value is subject to the charset attribute o a one-paragraph explanation of the purpose of the attribute o a specification of appropriate attribute values for this attribute I think actually doing this like a form ensures that all is covered. Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-06 Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-06 Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-06 Magnus Westerlund