Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP
Thomas Stach <thomass.stach@gmail.com> Mon, 19 October 2015 07:04 UTC
Return-Path: <thomass.stach@gmail.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 CA5781A3BA1 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 6b8-QP7w7wL9 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3F9D1A6EDA for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicfx6 with SMTP id fx6so35836959wic.1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=xqtl4uEyCV7kWXULlJXeOpm1tCa1YooJTxxPfJ+phB4=; b=TyKpBeVoOtp0BKZb9LizGEHmmw8W4x1z06ki1J/EuZUOlqlG9t7LBtWAnrnyxkgus3 w/U9rwONrrixpWI45ebbE3WNaZX8Zb0MqT9tpSDUhxhAxumCsq7yEvcWt6XIehQHNtwT LmhewEL5GlFZL/NYAUCcL+103ilEY5KwO/A67ArRxCHwzFyZV7feeR2Msy0sVUXnxTXo xQ33Ms0w9lYI46KNpqNicn+LnXNeWtL4UyquvSVMh2vV0uDbW/2lbzXktu6ZR0AQ67/W 9aUDOoJjVPHQL71VCsQn+oZmAv3vYMpFIlMreNCjQhFO0XmFr4FdRJztjBi6ELvA/UwY yW8g==
X-Received: by 10.180.186.98 with SMTP id fj2mr19596623wic.58.1445238269479; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-39-103.utaonline.at. [81.189.39.103]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id r6sm25678211wia.0.2015.10.19.00.04.28 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B66DC9@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B66EEC@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <56248496.2050408@gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B6CAC0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: Thomas Stach <thomass.stach@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <562495FD.7020603@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:04:29 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B6CAC0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030303090907000406010805"
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 151018-1, 18.10.2015), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/nIkhqaJAWYWYmZ-BuA2IElR3Gcc>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP
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, 19 Oct 2015 07:04:34 -0000
Christer, Am 19.10.2015 um 08:41 schrieb Christer Holmberg: > > Hi Thomas, > > >of course there are many possibilities. > >However it would be good to have some explicit signalling. > >Without inventing new signalling elements, you could use the first RTP > m-line that appears in the a=group:BUNDLE attribute in the answer. > > > >So if you have in the offer: > > > >a=group:BUNDLE foo bar baz > >m=data channel 10000 > >a=mid:foo > >m=rtp 11111 > >a=mid:bar > >a=rtcp: 15000 > >m=rtp 11222 > >a=mid:baz > >a=rtcp: 20000 > > > >If you get back in the answer: > > > >a=group:BUNDLE foo bar baz > >... > >then your RTCP port is 15000 > > > >If you get back a=group:BUNDLE foo baz bar then RTCP would go to 20000. > > > >Although I haven't thought it through completely it too much this > could also work reasonably well of the answerer accepts only a subset > of the offered m-lines. > > > >What do yo think? > > I am sure we COULD do something like that. I also have some ideas, but > I think they are all too hacky and/or complex for what we would gain. > > HOWEVER, we could make it SIMPLE and either: > > 1)*Mandate usage of rtcp-mux with BUNDLE*. I.e. if BUNDLE is > negotiated, rtcp-mux MUST be used. > > This was already suggested in the past, but Paul(?) said we should not > make such restriction without a good reason. I think the current issue > is a good reason :) > > m=data channel 10000 > > m=rtp 11111 > > a=rtcp-mux > > m=rtp 11222 > > a=rtcp-mux > > 2)*Mandate usage of either rtcp-mux OR the default “+1” port with > BUNDLE*. I.e. if BUNDLE is negotiated, rtcp-mux or “+1” MUST be used. > The selection is based on whether the rtcp-mux attribute was included > in the offer/answer or not. > > m=data channel 10000 // rtcp-mux > > m=rtp 11111 > > a=rtcp-mux > > m=rtp 11222 > > a=rtcp-mux > > m=data channel 10000 // “+1” > > m=rtp 11111 > > m=rtp 11222 > > The solutions above would not allow explicit negotiation of an RTCP > port when BUNDLE is used, but maybe we could live with that? > Well, I could live with both of your suggestions, but I thought you wanted a solution that can also negotiate which a=rtcp attribute to use. If nobody really needs something like that , I would prefer 1) as it removes the needs for several implementation option that would only be needed to cover full backwards compatibility but would hardly be used. > > Now, if we can agree on a way forward before Yokohama, you won’t have > to sit listening to me talking about BUNDLE at the meeting :) > Well, I wouldn't be sitting there anyhow but understand that your motivation to speak there about BUNDLE again is probably limited. Regards Thomas > > Regards, > > Christer > > Am 18.10.2015 um 19:53 schrieb Christer Holmberg: > > Hi, > > Note that the issue exists even without bundle-only m- lines: > > m=data channel 10000 > > m=rtp 11111 > > a=rtcp: 15000 > > m=rtp 11222 > > a=rtcp: 20000 > > Again, if the data channel m- line is selected as the offerer > BUNDLE address, which port will be used for RTCP? > > Regards, > > Christer > > *From:*mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of > *Christer Holmberg > *Sent:* 18 October 2015 20:47 > *To:* mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org> > *Subject:* [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP > > Hi, > > During the proto write-up process of BUNDLE, an issue came up. > > Assume the following BUNDLE offer, with one non-bundle-only data > channel m- line and one bundle-only RTP m- line: > > m=data channel 10000 > > m=rtp 0 > > a=bundle-only > > Now, if bundle is accepted, the RTP m- line will get port 10000, > as defined in BUNDLE. So far so good. > > Now, if bundle is accepted, the data channel m- line will be > selected as the offerer BUNDLE address, and RTP will use port 1000. > > So far so good. > > Next, assume we want to negotiate an explicit RTCP port for RTP. > As the non-bundle-only m- line is not RTP (and therefore cannot > contain an rtcp attribute), we have to add the actual RTCP port > value to the bundle-only m- line: > > m=data channel 10000 > > m=rtp 0 > > a=bundle-only > > a=rtcp: 20000 > > So far so good. > > Now, assume we also have one non-bundle-only RTP m- line: > > m=data channel 10000 > > m=rtp 11111 > > a=rtcp: 15000 > > m=rtp 0 > > a=bundle-only > > a=rtcp: 20000 > > Now, assume the data channel m- line is selected as the offerer > BUNDLE address. It means that port 10000 will also be used for > RTP. But, which port will be used for RTCP? 15000 or 20000? > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mmusic mailing list > > mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >
- [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Thomas Stach
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Thomas Stach
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Wyss, Felix
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE and RTCP Christer Holmberg