Re: [MMUSIC] [AVTCORE] Duplication semantics drafts

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Tue, 11 October 2011 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 2B97221F8C00; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ZUPwVKYFhbX6; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA7521F8BFE; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c26ae0000035b9-8e-4e940f54b3f4
Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F9.83.13753.45F049E4; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:41:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:41:39 +0200
Message-ID: <4E940F52.4030007@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:41:38 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
References: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5410097E4B@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5410097E4B@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "mmusic (E-mail)" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [AVTCORE] Duplication semantics drafts
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: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:41:42 -0000

On 2011-10-10 20:17, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
> I revised the two drafts per the feedback in Quebec.
> 
> If there are further comments, we would like to hear about them. As
> of now, there are no open issues from our standpoint except possibly
> defining a new RTCP XR report, which can be done later. Thus, we
> would like these two drafts to be considered and adopted by the
> MMUSIC wg.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-begen-mmusic-redundancy-grouping/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-begen-mmusic-temporal-interleaving/
> 
> CC'ing AVT(core) since the topic is relevant but please post your
> comments to mmusic where the drafts belong to.
> 

Hi,

(as individual)

I have looked at the redundancy-grouping draft and still think it fails
as RTP specifications for how duplication should be done in RTP, either
using SSRC multiplexing with two different SSRCs in the same RTP session
or for the alternative how having two different RTP sessions. This first
appears to be sufficiently specified, where my only comment is the
dependency on signalling to determine that this grouping is in place. I
do propose that an RTP/RTCP based complement is derived. I would
personally suggest that my own proposal for a new SDES item SRCNAME is
used but that should clearly be discussed.

For the case where multiple RTP sessions are used, it is still not clear
how a receiver determine which SSRC in each RTP session that are
related. And I would like to point out that CNAME is not sufficient.

I still think we should consider splitting this into one AVTCORE
document discussing the RTP aspects of duplication, and another MMUSIC
document defining the grouping semantics.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------