Re: [MMUSIC] Offer/Answer PT Questions

"Makaraju, Raju (Nokia - US)" <raju.makaraju@nokia.com> Mon, 22 February 2016 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <raju.makaraju@nokia.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 AD9611B2E31 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:29:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 WV_hLiq4WRW9 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpatc-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.18.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B3F71B2E2B for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70tumx1.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.18.13]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 86AA76CCB9504; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:29:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.63]) by us70tumx1.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u1MNTRVh000923 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:29:28 GMT
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.48]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u1MNTOi1001410 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:29:24 GMT
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.8.189]) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.48]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:29:24 -0500
From: "Makaraju, Raju (Nokia - US)" <raju.makaraju@nokia.com>
To: "md3135@att.com" <md3135@att.com>, "christer.holmberg@ericsson.com" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu" <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Offer/Answer PT Questions
Thread-Index: AdFrl0kuiZ+JG67LRQCl2lgEejcpMAAYtOkAAGpJ4lD///3bAIAAB/sA///p1yCAAKJkAP//uSBv
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:29:24 +0000
Message-ID: <000f424c.6bc92f9b4284d924@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <E42CCDDA6722744CB241677169E8365615E419C0@MISOUT7MSGUSRDB.ITServices.sbc.com> <56C89F86.7020401@alum.mit.edu> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E35E33@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxsDGhSA1WpzVVEvdd0CQdbnFn+ST+ZP_=aYVWBVdKKs4g@mail.gmail.com> <56CB6DB6.30802@alum.mit.edu> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37E36086@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>, <E42CCDDA6722744CB241677169E8365615E45C92@MISOUT7MSGUSRDB.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <E42CCDDA6722744CB241677169E8365615E45C92@MISOUT7MSGUSRDB.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_000f424c6bc92f9b4284d924alcatellucentcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/SZirv3YcOPuyGrZud5Jrr0qQNMY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:18:14 -0800
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Offer/Answer PT Questions
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: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:29:31 -0000

+1 for fixing it to allow unambigous payload reuse.

Thanks Christer, for bringing it up.


BR

Raju


------ Original message------

From: DOLLY, MARTIN C

Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2016 4:43 PM

To: Christer Holmberg;Paul Kyzivat;mmusic@ietf.org;

Subject:Re: [MMUSIC] Offer/Answer PT Questions


Paul,

I agree with Christer, this needs to be fixed. We are doing interop testing with other carriers for VoIP interconnection, and this is  a major issue.

Fixing this would help accelerate VoIP interconnection.

Regards,

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:42 PM
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>; mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Offer/Answer PT Questions

Hi,

>> One thing that bothered me here is that PT cannot be reused for the
>> duration of the session. It is probably safe to reuse the PT after
>> session modification if PT is no longer used. I always felt that
>> dynamic PT reuse criteria were much stricter then realistically possible or needed.
>...
>> I think the most important criteria here is that there should be no
>> ambiguity regarding how an RTP packet with particular PT should be
>> decoded. If it is guaranteed that there are no packets sent between
>> Alice and Bob with PT 111 over some reasonable time interval (couple
>> of network round trip times), then PT 111 can be safely reused. If,
>> in this scenario Bob's end point knows that it was not sending
>> anything with payload 111 recently, then it can safely reuse this payload.
>> Alice could not be sending anything with payload 111 since Bob did
>> not accept it previously. On the other hand, Bob must not reuse PT
>> 100 for, let's say, CN, since there are packets with this payload in
>> flight and this will create decoding ambiguity. To conclude, an end
>> point should be able to safely reuse any PT that it is not currently
>> accepting or was not sending or accepting for at least a few network round trip intervals.
>
> I agree that this is how it *should* be. I don't know if we can change
> this safely or not. It seems likely to me that some implementations might be freaked out by this. It is worth discussion.
>
> There are cases where it really isn't feasible to meet the current
> requirement. In particular, when a transfer is done via 3pcc the transferee won't know the history of past PT usage. So I expect in cases such cases the rule is commonly broken.
>
> Coming up with clear rules for when PTs can be recycled could be a challenge.

Well, I think we have to try, because these kind of issues keep causing problems.

The fact that something may freak about because we fix it is not a reason for not fixing it :)

Regards,

Christer

_______________________________________________
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