Re: [MMUSIC] Proposal for LS reply regarding RTCP bandwidth negotiation

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Wed, 01 August 2012 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.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 8AFF011E83D0 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 11:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 LeSHNlEsxqvz for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85B711E83DF for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbjt11 with SMTP id jt11so1509467pbb.31 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; bh=sTBXjMOBhgiiOYk0fe8QEXG25uF8aiqdvNoN/Wy9HAw=; b=Upy4XBr2YduCi0O9v/GQycSlhjP7Jg05WabCQBjeR+GMaLGdItVxfxw39G3Sgd7iub cMXH3xzO9uQ3hrQhDSBuDZRAC/PggHTmq1QJDYWMEKGWkWwMXQDeOvcd0vg874SLzvW6 y/tuJiCY0BjTMRBXUdwvpDBhBNQk30nm4XpZYfwwJxRocmkB7YPSMMOHPZ5Xu9bt7Ldf 8KX4n17tUqo1jB23aPYZjaJ+WX7+VMnW1d/U2go/U7nKQXe9SXwTjX65W3S5q4vl7CnQ 6QRrcu8Mwc5LeZ5ALGXA//GSRrXKOa9N5BwXK1Ojwc/IBK0+QVr8mWbxNP6YdZPl3nlP U7eg==
Received: by 10.68.241.41 with SMTP id wf9mr54753715pbc.41.1343845733548; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE ([2001:df8:0:16:3424:a76a:4bd6:e1bf]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ot4sm3045185pbb.65.2012.08.01.11.28.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
References: <501887FF.7020203@ericsson.com> <004f01cd7016$83580e70$8a082b50$@gmail.com> <50196EF0.2050207@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <50196EF0.2050207@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:27:45 +0200
Message-ID: <005f01cd701b$bc78be70$356a3b50$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQD8I46QGr1zZSaKGiBCtHZbX0DPawDidzeoAOGd52eY2c52YA==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: "'mmusic (E-mail)'" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Proposal for LS reply regarding RTCP bandwidth negotiation
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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:28:54 -0000

Magnus,
Inline
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com] 
Sent: 01 August, 2012 8:01 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 'mmusic (E-mail)'
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Proposal for LS reply regarding RTCP bandwidth
negotiation

On 2012-08-01 11:50, Roni Even wrote:
> Hi,
> The liaison looks OK to me.
> I agree with using option B in the first comment and to allow 
> increasing BW in the answer.
> As for comment 2 I assume that you are saying that the tradeoffs 
> between increasing RTCP and reducing RTP bw using same session bw, or 
> increasing the total session bw can be used to provide more RTCP bw 
> with or without chaning RTP bw. These options should be documented.

I wanted to point out that you can allow increasing the value in a response
without affecting the total bandwidth as that is likely a concern for the
offerer.

RE: this was not clear to me from the text since you talk also about
increasing or decreasing the total bw.

> 
> On the RR and SR value 0 are you suggesting to change RFC 3556.  I am 
> not sure it is a good question to ask 3GPP if they did not mention it 
> themselves; I am not supportive of the topic of negotiation of the use 
> of RTCP. So suggest to remove this comment

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. My intention was to try
to request that it is clarified about the usage of 0. So if I offer a
non-zero value are the answer really allowed to turn off RTCP? The 3GPP
proposal do allow for turning off RTCP as proposed.

RE: maybe point in the answer to RFC3556 for this comment " Has any special
consideration been taken around the usage of RR or RS parameter values of 0
as specified in RFC3556"

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------