Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: a single stream with multiple MIDs?

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Wed, 13 July 2016 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1002ceae5a=jonathan@vidyo.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 F143C12DA13; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.83
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, 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 P4vYVKQOR9_V; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E45512D9C6; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0073110.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with SMTP id u6DEv3tL015206; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:58:51 -0400
Received: from mail.vidyo.com ([162.209.16.214]) by mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 241uh6bqmr-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:58:51 -0400
Received: from 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77]) by 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:6b62%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:58:51 -0500
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: a single stream with multiple MIDs?
Thread-Index: AQHR2KAHglPM/iUn/kOx+O/DTOsKb6AWzk6AgAACZAA=
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:58:50 +0000
Message-ID: <2C352584-0489-4410-A2AC-10BE19BF9094@vidyo.com>
References: <6C642BD1-679B-4CCA-9148-DD4A7ACB48A4@vidyo.com> <CAMRcRGQj=rrhxJ9bc2KshFtL6TDTJH5O9sMEDMi6yFW6Qm=4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMRcRGQj=rrhxJ9bc2KshFtL6TDTJH5O9sMEDMi6yFW6Qm=4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [160.79.219.114]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2C35258404894410A2AC10BE19BF9094vidyocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.15.96, 1.0.3, 0.0.0000 definitions=2016-07-13_06:2016-07-13,2016-07-13,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1603290000 definitions=main-1607130166
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/X06M-FqmGieLgvdzjG4p_1fwWAI>
Cc: IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: a single stream with multiple MIDs?
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: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:58:56 -0000

On Jul 13, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com<mailto:suhasietf@gmail.com>> wrote:



On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com<mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com>> wrote:
Hi, all —

(This was an issue I raised in AVTCORE in Buenos Aires — I promised to send e-mail to the list but hadn’t remembered to get around to it until now.)

When finishing up the CLUE RTP mapping draft, I realized that one of CLUE’s RTP requirements didn’t actually end up getting satisfied by BUNDLE (which is the solution CLUE converged on).  This isn’t a CLUE-specific issue, so I’m raising it here.

The issue is whether we want to support a use case, in BUNDLE, where a single RTP stream corresponds to more than media description (and thus has more than one MID value)?

The use case is where one m-line has a semantic of “always view this person” (my boss, say, or my customer); and another m-line has a semantic of “the current loudest speaker”. (In CLUE, these would be a single content capture in the former case, and a switched capture for the latter.)  Whenever the boss *is* the current loudest speaker, the same content would be sent for both m-lines.

A naive implementation would simply duplicate all the packets for the two m-lines, with different MID values, but this has two problems.  First off all, it obviously wastes bandwidth.  Potentially more seriously, it precludes any RTP middlebox topology which doesn’t rewrite SSRC values, since the same content (arriving with a single SSRC value at the middlebox) would need to be sent with two different SSRC values down from the middlebox.  If PERC goes with its current consensus of no SSRC rewriting, this will particularly be a problem for PERC.

I certainly don’t think this is something that should block BUNDLE’s completion, but I think it could be a pretty easy extension.

(My initial design proposal was to allow multiple SDES values of the same type, and multiple SDES header extensions items of the same type, to be sent simultaneously in RTP — protocol-syntactically this is trivial, you’d just need to negotiate that you support it.  But I’m not wedded to this solution.)


Thinking a bit more on this .. it seems like a nice way forward . I agree with Magnus that it needs a way for the recipient to understand addition/removal of an item from the set ..

My thinking was that you always send the complete set, if you send any MID at all. Thus, when you go from 2 MIDs to 1 MID, you send 1 MID, and the receiver knows that the other MID no longer applies.  (This rule applies both for header extensions and SDES items.)

If the set represent duplicates , then when the boss is the loud speaker, the set will contain 2 mids .. when the loudest speaker is not the boss, the set will have just one item in this example and the receiver will do the normal processing of the loudest speaker .. From the mux point of view these MIDs must be IDENTICAL-PER-PT

Right.



What do people think — is this worth working on?  Is there interest in discussing it in Berlin, and if so, in what venue?
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic