Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport
"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 20:06 UTC
Return-Path: <mzanaty@cisco.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 A645311E8201 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 8YoFwYK103JO for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D301E11E81C5 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12111; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377201967; x=1378411567; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=EQhXFtUp4lkqZl6x2wa5YFlzyseQLEh+2H0fC4CSXzo=; b=DtOKL7cuZBBOckq2tP1NHJ4SBDloCVjm7wpqmYcSXl/XgXtxCvOBtTIx EFpPVYEXU2U9RxS1cSZwpEZDaPY8zmW3/0qSDBwt+v8FRNND60Rc8rVXW dgdHvuIWnkLHRZ66Liqlco3ZaXCbxf29KktAhjDmGwgs/OIn3WnkdbnHO o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqMFAMBuFlKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABagkNENVGtSpJAgR0WdIIkAQEBBC1MEAIBCA4DBAEBCx0HMhQJCAIEAQ0FCId2Aw+3E41tgkgxBgGDG3sDlX6OGYUpgx+CKw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,935,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="250653606"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2013 20:06:06 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7MK66G5028059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:06:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.38]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:06:06 -0500
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, 'Jonathan Lennox' <jonathan@vidyo.com>, 'Bernard Aboba' <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport
Thread-Index: AQJ680PtyCDXIknXog+yt3k+QmtJ0gEe3FNKAgCnf3gCFUU8LQNTIcKFmAQHXVCAALK6sA==
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:06:05 +0000
Message-ID: <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D91D508265@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
References: <BLU169-W630D4FBAA70899F6C54A0593830@phx.gbl>, <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D91D487E63@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>, <EE556E46-54C1-4AAB-B03A-56FB8971D8A2@vidyo.com> <BLU169-W1208949649FACAC3137B05C93630@phx.gbl> <3AD93742-DBA4-4EDD-80AD-A667994ECE8D@vidyo.com> <034a01ce9f16$bc2d8600$34889200$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <034a01ce9f16$bc2d8600$34889200$@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.150.28.99]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D91D508265xmbrcdx14ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:06:12 -0000
Selective forwarding of layers at a switch is simpler with MST versus SST, since SST requires rewriting timestamps and sequence numbers to drop layers. RTCP reporting per layer is another benefit of MST. These advantages stem from using multiple SSRCs independent of whether they use the same or separate transport flows. I think the entire nomenclature of SST/MST should evolve to Single/Multiple SSRC (not Session) Transport, since that is really what matters. BUNDLE and UP make this evolution inevitable. Note that MST is already widely deployed this way, which is non-standard. So updating the nomenclature would align with both current deployments and future standards like BUNDLE/UP. Mo From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:05 AM To: 'Jonathan Lennox'; 'Bernard Aboba' Cc: mmusic@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport Hi Jonathan, Maybe if you want to use FEC only on the base layer and not on all layers. Roni From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Lennox Sent: 19 July, 2013 5:54 PM To: Bernard Aboba Cc: mmusic@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport On Jul 18, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com<mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>> wrote: Jonathan said: "I don't understand how single-session multi-source transmission will work without either a) signaling "a=ssrc-group DDP" decoding dependencies, or b) making various implementation-specific assumptions about the structure of the SVC streams." [BA] In terms of SDP choices for expressing layering within a single m line, you can either go the a=ssrc-group:DDP route, or use distinct payload types for each layer and RFC 5583 a=group:DDP (this is what "Unified Plan" Section 4.7 appears to advocate). I'm not sure how "MST within a single session" could be expressed in SDP without BUNDLE. Was the idea to use multiple m lines and group them together but use the same port? I think the authors of RFC 6190 didn't see a use case for MST within a single RTP session -- all of the interesting MST use cases they saw involved separate transport flows for the separate layers, and if you're sending all the layers on a single transport flow, SST is significantly simpler. What requirement are you trying to achieve that's met by MST in a single session, but not by SST? -- Jonathan Lennox jonathan@vidyo.com<mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com>
- [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport Bernard Aboba
- Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport Bernard Aboba
- Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport Bernard Aboba
- Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport Roni Even
- Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 6190 Single Session Transport Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)