IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: RTCP port issue solution alternatives

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Fri, 23 October 2015 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 496581A878B for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 y-B1hMIsw3dj for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B91341A8798 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.104]) by resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Yh5E1r0052Fh1PH01h7Kk4; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:07:19 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.151]) by resomta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Yh7K1r00S3Ge9ey01h7Krd; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:07:19 +0000
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B805A7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B85DD4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B8AB6E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <562A6946.704@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:07:18 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B8AB6E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1445620039; bh=84rfwsHJifJEE3Z/y0slETKGq46TOi4mdMAxYQ1ujFE=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=uTCW2ObCk0B5QUFX037QytwknGOVJ8HeT59AFbvdEPkLojlOZsp2GSj7tMPjmzYek 5bNeG/enlaqGttfD/LcLF/KczVJkKihTmJcDj/L09Jvr5IjIe8SJzCTDPS4tKc4z9Y 0QCTPVCpcEG5t9DEPeYJx2itfQfVIfgXWrPp1m43UJ8IEjWF7Y/w5ggREEW+6ye6WL upj0wgn0Rlbi1Sj7JUrAdUgNlvc+3is0EofiHxTrZMM9h1VxW8Af/8yVM3/+CCWl8h aXSDLry2Bsz6fD5xVkXFAKGvWGwCT9g8XTUDKZS8gsCcrtv++HSwQ0AOD0nFiemdYQ BI0pvCTjXmgBQ==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/dbq-a1SWUBOeAhD-RAuukZXN-rQ>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: RTCP port issue solution alternatives
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: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:07:30 -0000

On 10/23/15 5:56 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg
>
> Assuming silence means “I don’t care, do whatever”, does that mean we
> could move forward with Alternative 1?

Given that everything else seems worse, I agree with alternative 1.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> *From:*mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Christer
> Holmberg
> *Sent:* 22. lokakuuta 2015 14:02
> *To:* mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: RTCP port issue solution alternatives
>
> Hi,
>
> A clarification to alternative 1).
>
> The suggestion is that clients must still support non-rtcp-mux, and are
> free to include a=rtcp etc if they want, for cases where the remote
> endpoint does not support (or does not want to use) BUNDLE and there is
> a fallback to non-BUNDLE.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> *From:*mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Christer
> Holmberg
> *Sent:* 21. lokakuuta 2015 14:19
> *To:* mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [MMUSIC] BUNDLE: RTCP port issue solution alternatives
>
> Hi,
>
> Based on the discussions so far, I have identified 3 alternative
> solutions for the RTCP port issue:
>
> 1)Mandate RTCP-MUX whenever BUNDLE is used
>
> Note: In order to maintain alignment with SDP, my suggestion would be to
> still mandate including of a=rtcp-mux in all RTP m- lines. I.e. the
> rtcp-mux usage would not be implicit.
>
> 2)Select the RTCP port based on the RTCP properties (implicit or
> explicit) associated with the FIRST RTP m- line within the BUNDLE group,
> or the RTCP properties associated with the selected offerer BUNDLE
> address m- line if RTP.
>
> 3)Allow usage of RTCP properties (a=rtcp, ICE RTCP components, etc) also
> in non-RTP m- lines.
>
> Note: This MAY require updates of some RFCs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email