Re: [MMUSIC] mmusic Digest, Vol 117, Issue 19
Sumanth Suryanarayan <sumanth.suryanarayan@gmail.com> Wed, 29 January 2014 12:53 UTC
Return-Path: <sumanth.suryanarayan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBB01A0375 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 04:53:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.501
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.501 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, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_41=0.6, MANGLED_RATES=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 WCyuUaFPJlXR for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 04:52:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-x234.google.com (mail-ee0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A6511A01F2 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 04:52:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e53so879522eek.11 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 04:52:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=b1ZILbNbk8c/ofPYjFxDh6SrzoCdsgqFmtJnbbzVaOI=; b=E9aU9wlIsrTbycmPoP2lHbyDyXI58Yinp1j7Piva2SQa1usU2RSTLJiyhcKi++bkQp dROFzSaB9ODgKk5JQ6+ft7qcweFzGzn40aoqmaBkKkCdZN0ibpjBtQXuOzH7dMTT7vf6 vjb3wqC3hDRmvsh+H79AjyAftMVOqAlksWOy8b6gBIOHwXnGv8q54nTrBW/N9FB0D/DS LZmL4ZYkwbYKMBbOhjKSLtM7po3FmLuAkNbE9L6YGgB09wtW2y4AZY+TLK7mTICeXFtb YLLLuCOC5lYqZrKzIFXgrxtTRuwybQJQjc3J8n/pSSc+0ESkW5lWFZCakY40BD5oATSH leag==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.15.21.2 with SMTP id c2mr2448119eeu.77.1390999974658; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 04:52:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.14.177.69 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 04:52:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.14.177.69 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 04:52:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2427.1390936866.2325.mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.2427.1390936866.2325.mmusic@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:22:54 +0530
Message-ID: <CALuTuZ+KYt655JNv1sG6mfkxneq0g9c8yfh9W-FiYCUn3Z8pAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sumanth Suryanarayan <sumanth.suryanarayan@gmail.com>
To: mmusic@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160d2b85f48d004f11b6bfe"
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] mmusic Digest, Vol 117, Issue 19
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:53:03 -0000
Cool dude. BTW, how much sqft does wardrobe come to? On Jan 29, 2014 12:51 AM, <mmusic-request@ietf.org> wrote: > Send mmusic mailing list submissions to > mmusic@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > mmusic-request@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > mmusic-owner@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of mmusic digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Telephone-event and multiple clock rates (Christer Holmberg) > 2. Re: New Version Notification for > draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs-04.txt > (Pal Martinsen (palmarti)) > 3. Re: Telephone-event and multiple clock rates (Paul Kyzivat) > 4. Re: Telephone-event and multiple clock rates (Christer Holmberg) > 5. Re: Telephone-event and multiple clock rates (Harald Alvestrand) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:02:50 +0000 > From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> > To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" > <mmusic@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Telephone-event and multiple clock rates > Message-ID: > <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D14595C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi, > > I guess it would be good to add some text to BUNDLE, to indicate that you > must include the telephone-event PTs for every m- line which may use them. > I.e. you cannot indicate telephone-event for one m- line, and then use them > on every m- line within the bundle group. > > But, I guess there will be no need for people to support telephone-events > on more than one m- line to begin with, so... > > Regards, > > Christer > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randell Jesup > Sent: 27. tammikuuta 2014 10:48 > To: mmusic@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Telephone-event and multiple clock rates > > On 1/24/2014 10:59 AM, Adam Roach wrote: > > On 1/24/14 04:29, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > >> My understanding for the reasoning behind this definition in the RFC > >> is due to that the events is supposed to be connected to the same > >> time-line as the audio. Thus it ended up using the same SSRC. To > >> avoid timestamp rate switching which we know has issues > >> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-multiple-clock-ra > >> tes/) > >> > >> it was mandated to provide one PT for each rate negotiated for the > >> audio payload types. > > > > To make sure I understand what you're saying correctly: you are > > asserting that having four different clock rates for voice codecs > > requires us to use four different PTs for telephone-event if we're > > going to have them on the same SSRC. Is that correct? > > If those four PT's (not codecs) are accepted (and thus can be switched > between on-the-fly), yes. Multiple clock rates plays hell with RTP > timestamps. > > You could use a separate SSRC (or m=audio line) for each clock rate > instead. This would likely mean glitching at transitions however, so not a > great solution, but works. You might be able to avoid glitches by making > sure you send RTCP for the alternate SSRCs so synchronization info is > available, though this may require the receiver to know somehow that the > SSRC's need to be "lip-synced" (in this case audio to audio though). > Overall - here be (baby) dragons in the glitch-avoidance variation... > > In theory you could allow one telephone-event PT and do a renegotiate > after an effective codec/PT change. You might need to be careful about > asynchronicity due to the renegotiation and not re-use the same PT for a > different rate of telephone-event (ping-pong between two). There would > exist a window when there was a switch where it would be problematic to > send telephone-event (and you'd need to require that both sides switch when > one does). Overall - here be (big) dragons. > > -- > Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:49:19 +0000 > From: "Pal Martinsen (palmarti)" <palmarti@cisco.com> > To: Ari Ker?nen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> > Cc: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>, "Tirumaleswar Reddy \(tireddy\)" > <tireddy@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] New Version Notification for > draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs-04.txt > Message-ID: <7C0E6D63-D816-4415-B621-73A0309C6AB2@cisco.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > > On 24 Jan 2014, at 14:59 pm, Ari Ker?nen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The way forward you proposed sounds good. Looking forward to the updated > draft. However, I didn?t really understand how is the lack of coordination > and different promo algorithms an advantage? > > My thought at the time was due to triggered checks it could in some cases > be good to have uncoordinated checklists for IPv6 due to less NATs and > other restrictive ?things?. But that is clearly a bad idea. Sorry for the > derailing. > > Just posted -05 version of the draft. > > Name: draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs > Revision: 05 > Title: Happy Eyeballs Extension for ICE > Document date: 2014-01-28 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 5 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs-05.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs/ > Htmlized: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs-05 > Diff: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs-05 > > > Not sure if we hit the right balance between keeping it short, but still > readable without having all the ICE details fresh in memory. > > Do we ask for WG adoption, or do we need another MMUSIC session discussing > this? > > .-. > P?l-Erik > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Ari > > > > On 13 Jan 2014, at 13:46, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) <palmarti@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > >>> > >>> > >>> Also, if there is no coordination/signaling between the endpoints, > what are the odds they'd end up using the same promotion algorithm? > >>> > >> Exactly, and that might be an advantage.. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:32:02 -0500 > From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> > To: mmusic@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Telephone-event and multiple clock rates > Message-ID: <52E7DB82.2080907@alum.mit.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 1/28/14 8:02 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I guess it would be good to add some text to BUNDLE, to indicate that > you must include the telephone-event PTs for every m- line which may use > them. I.e. you cannot indicate telephone-event for one m- line, and then > use them on every m- line within the bundle group. > > > > But, I guess there will be no need for people to support > telephone-events on more than one m- line to begin with, so... > > Why would you say that? > > Thanks, > Paul > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randell Jesup > > Sent: 27. tammikuuta 2014 10:48 > > To: mmusic@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Telephone-event and multiple clock rates > > > > On 1/24/2014 10:59 AM, Adam Roach wrote: > >> On 1/24/14 04:29, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > >>> My understanding for the reasoning behind this definition in the RFC > >>> is due to that the events is supposed to be connected to the same > >>> time-line as the audio. Thus it ended up using the same SSRC. To > >>> avoid timestamp rate switching which we know has issues > >>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-multiple-clock-ra > >>> tes/) > >>> > >>> it was mandated to provide one PT for each rate negotiated for the > >>> audio payload types. > >> > >> To make sure I understand what you're saying correctly: you are > >> asserting that having four different clock rates for voice codecs > >> requires us to use four different PTs for telephone-event if we're > >> going to have them on the same SSRC. Is that correct? > > > > If those four PT's (not codecs) are accepted (and thus can be switched > between on-the-fly), yes. Multiple clock rates plays hell with RTP > timestamps. > > > > You could use a separate SSRC (or m=audio line) for each clock rate > instead. This would likely mean glitching at transitions however, so not a > great solution, but works. You might be able to avoid glitches by making > sure you send RTCP for the alternate SSRCs so synchronization info is > available, though this may require the receiver to know somehow that the > SSRC's need to be "lip-synced" (in this case audio to audio though). > Overall - here be (baby) dragons in the glitch-avoidance variation... > > > > In theory you could allow one telephone-event PT and do a renegotiate > after an effective codec/PT change. You might need to be careful about > asynchronicity due to the renegotiation and not re-use the same PT for a > different rate of telephone-event (ping-pong between two). There would > exist a window when there was a switch where it would be problematic to > send telephone-event (and you'd need to require that both sides switch when > one does). Overall - here be (big) dragons. > > > > -- > > Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mmusic mailing list > > mmusic@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > _______________________________________________ > > mmusic mailing list > > mmusic@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:25:17 +0000 > From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> > To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "mmusic@ietf.org" > <mmusic@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Telephone-event and multiple clock rates > Message-ID: <9dt0s2vbp3f9xidieks341ev.1390933514153@email.android.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Paul, > > I can't think of a use-case with multiple audio m- lines, where each would > need to support telephone-events. > > Perhaps such use-cases do exist, but I don't they are very common. > > Regards, > > Christer > > Sent from my Sony Ericsson Xperia arc S > > Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > On 1/28/14 8:02 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I guess it would be good to add some text to BUNDLE, to indicate that > you must include the telephone-event PTs for every m- line which may use > them. I.e. you cannot indicate telephone-event for one m- line, and then > use them on every m- line within the bundle group. > > > > But, I guess there will be no need for people to support > telephone-events on more than one m- line to begin with, so... > > Why would you say that? > > Thanks, > Paul > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randell Jesup > > Sent: 27. tammikuuta 2014 10:48 > > To: mmusic@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Telephone-event and multiple clock rates > > > > On 1/24/2014 10:59 AM, Adam Roach wrote: > >> On 1/24/14 04:29, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > >>> My understanding for the reasoning behind this definition in the RFC > >>> is due to that the events is supposed to be connected to the same > >>> time-line as the audio. Thus it ended up using the same SSRC. To > >>> avoid timestamp rate switching which we know has issues > >>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-multiple-clock-ra > >>> tes/) > >>> > >>> it was mandated to provide one PT for each rate negotiated for the > >>> audio payload types. > >> > >> To make sure I understand what you're saying correctly: you are > >> asserting that having four different clock rates for voice codecs > >> requires us to use four different PTs for telephone-event if we're > >> going to have them on the same SSRC. Is that correct? > > > > If those four PT's (not codecs) are accepted (and thus can be switched > between on-the-fly), yes. Multiple clock rates plays hell with RTP > timestamps. > > > > You could use a separate SSRC (or m=audio line) for each clock rate > instead. This would likely mean glitching at transitions however, so not a > great solution, but works. You might be able to avoid glitches by making > sure you send RTCP for the alternate SSRCs so synchronization info is > available, though this may require the receiver to know somehow that the > SSRC's need to be "lip-synced" (in this case audio to audio though). > Overall - here be (baby) dragons in the glitch-avoidance variation... > > > > In theory you could allow one telephone-event PT and do a renegotiate > after an effective codec/PT change. You might need to be careful about > asynchronicity due to the renegotiation and not re-use the same PT for a > different rate of telephone-event (ping-pong between two). There would > exist a window when there was a switch where it would be problematic to > send telephone-event (and you'd need to require that both sides switch when > one does). Overall - here be (big) dragons. > > > > -- > > Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mmusic mailing list > > mmusic@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > _______________________________________________ > > mmusic mailing list > > mmusic@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:01:46 +0100 > From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> > To: mmusic@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Telephone-event and multiple clock rates > Message-ID: <52E7F08A.6070200@alvestrand.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 01/28/2014 02:02 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I guess it would be good to add some text to BUNDLE, to indicate that > you must include the telephone-event PTs for every m- line which may use > them. I.e. you cannot indicate telephone-event for one m- line, and then > use them on every m- line within the bundle group. > > > > But, I guess there will be no need for people to support > telephone-events on more than one m- line to begin with, so... > > Telephone-events are a hack for gateways into contexts where DTMF > signalling makes sense - which is primarily the telephone network and > telephone-related systems. > > In practice, I don't expect gateways into those contexts to support very > many clock rates - they should support G.711's 8000 and Opus' 48K, and > hopefully that's the end of it. > > I don't want to worry very much about two extra lines of SDP; let's just > declare (probably in -rtcweb-audio-) that if multiple audio codec > bitrates are offered, and one wishes to use DTMF no matter what codec is > selected, one must offer DTMF at each clock rate offered - each offer > consuming one PT. > > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randell Jesup > > Sent: 27. tammikuuta 2014 10:48 > > To: mmusic@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Telephone-event and multiple clock rates > > > > On 1/24/2014 10:59 AM, Adam Roach wrote: > >> On 1/24/14 04:29, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > >>> My understanding for the reasoning behind this definition in the RFC > >>> is due to that the events is supposed to be connected to the same > >>> time-line as the audio. Thus it ended up using the same SSRC. To > >>> avoid timestamp rate switching which we know has issues > >>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-multiple-clock-ra > >>> tes/) > >>> > >>> it was mandated to provide one PT for each rate negotiated for the > >>> audio payload types. > >> To make sure I understand what you're saying correctly: you are > >> asserting that having four different clock rates for voice codecs > >> requires us to use four different PTs for telephone-event if we're > >> going to have them on the same SSRC. Is that correct? > > If those four PT's (not codecs) are accepted (and thus can be switched > between on-the-fly), yes. Multiple clock rates plays hell with RTP > timestamps. > > > > You could use a separate SSRC (or m=audio line) for each clock rate > instead. This would likely mean glitching at transitions however, so not a > great solution, but works. You might be able to avoid glitches by making > sure you send RTCP for the alternate SSRCs so synchronization info is > available, though this may require the receiver to know somehow that the > SSRC's need to be "lip-synced" (in this case audio to audio though). > Overall - here be (baby) dragons in the glitch-avoidance variation... > > > > In theory you could allow one telephone-event PT and do a renegotiate > after an effective codec/PT change. You might need to be careful about > asynchronicity due to the renegotiation and not re-use the same PT for a > different rate of telephone-event (ping-pong between two). There would > exist a window when there was a switch where it would be problematic to > send telephone-event (and you'd need to require that both sides switch when > one does). Overall - here be (big) dragons. > > > > -- > > Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mmusic mailing list > > mmusic@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > _______________________________________________ > > mmusic mailing list > > mmusic@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > > -- > Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > > ------------------------------ > > End of mmusic Digest, Vol 117, Issue 19 > *************************************** >
- Re: [MMUSIC] mmusic Digest, Vol 117, Issue 19 Sumanth Suryanarayan