Re: [MMUSIC] TIAS Bandwidth in draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-10

Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Tue, 22 September 2015 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <suhasietf@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 91F161B2ED0 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 nma1031xcA-8 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (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 30A3F1B2EC8 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vkfp126 with SMTP id p126so15593166vkf.3 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
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 :cc:content-type; bh=cRAFmjCXqnLLPW0/YWdXC9Ps9kWUDBcz5c/+hJm2Bi0=; b=masB1m56a8mfyNKuxsrlQRS6PJ6e1L+b0WlcurHTymyGAOLE7h8ZXM8A/Dse6ePwM6 mzSt1ohQ/jffzaVAdSl1zApUtjgiIpAgOYj5ymdVcvk/UrW0T2L/1x7RkhXbZGGM/IPR WRZlHdL05MqMZwyx0+6cQlwWOcNGLBmGhTCcd8y6Gapj9fcnnrTXqyARVjuM5pE8l1yH qig3jclkizL8ySmSx2Lv+dr28sPm3w9LSdJN2iJxW0yJ4kh02gOlYS5uPtOzDPjFrUvB aY3C5+LZ5N4UMs+Z2FVUvUx64LVCWY9vObK6AAKH6MXZRUpu3VX4K57NuDps55TPq9Sd lMoQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.168.82 with SMTP id r79mr19972784vke.100.1442957137340; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.88.28 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55F2E52B.5030905@ericsson.com>
References: <55F2E52B.5030905@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:25:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGQLAmEg-LZRoexVqFBkDGiYB44z4Q7R7xxzSoG7WMb7QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11414fda98f45e05205ca3f0"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/KKJ-JbnDKjs-yv4tEHyQFYPFsTI>
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes@tools.ietf.org, "mmusic (E-mail)" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] TIAS Bandwidth in draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-10
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: <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, 22 Sep 2015 21:25:43 -0000

Hello Magnus

  Many thanks for the analysis and sorry for the delayed response.
  I agree with you on the overhead across bundle group being same and go
with multiply first and sum next.

Given that, I see the current assignment is SPECIAL and the note clarifies
the point.

So the question is should we keep the current assignment and note same or
are you recommending a change in them ?

Cheers
Suhas

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I looked at Section 6.3 of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-10 and
> reacted to the below text.
>
>    NOTE: The intention of TIAS is that the media level bit-rate is
>    multiplied with the known per-packet overhead for the selected
>    transport and the maxprate value to determine the worst case bit-rate
>    from the transport to more accurately capture the required usage.
>    Summing TIAS values independently across "m=" lines and multiplying
>    the computed sum with maxprate and the per-packet overhead would
>    inflate the value significantly.  Instead performing multiplication
>    and adding the individual values is a more appropriate usage.
>
> First, there is no difference between multiplying on m= block basis and
> then summing versus first making the additions of the maxprate and then
> multiplying given that the overhead value is the same for all m= blocks.
>
> Only if the overhead value is different do one need to multiply on m=
> block basis first and then adding the values together. However, based on
> the definition for overhead and how bundle groups work, I don't really
> expect different overhead values.
>
> It might be best to recommend that one does perform the multiplication
> first and then addition between m= blocks to be certain. But, I think the
> motivation should be more in case there should arise future cases where
> overhead may have different values within a bundle group.
>
> Comments?
>
> 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 mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>