Re: [payload] comments on draft-demjanenko-payload-melpe-02
"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Mon, 22 June 2015 16:52 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDDD1AD2D9 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Tnopgo7vxNDG for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) (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 5696E1B3056 for <payload@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wguu7 with SMTP id u7so74576816wgu.3 for <payload@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:52:49 -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:thread-index:content-language; bh=2aw/uH6pvC/Yo1gHS0M6gQvbRE8+IoXhC9wrJ0UFaUA=; b=L2uqEfCN5PzZfuSDJpkergBAk8sUWKyMO39xvq8AXFAm1XeQL6WACIFvc/eqMX/2jd Mo3X18ouhbOkREmdjCcOjcIJhgmw/ImoPrmb3XLATCbQeUThUc85EXX+lsFEXa1gA2A1 bxOIRHV1NFgBgsaLudNEUIm468f6Gg3NXtIYUZWT8hWt3VL9ADB9VM7aHfvGlTtvY7Gi BjbZd6UYFJoPapX/osBGnOjr2c+gJ7sTnNi4Z1HMIFgbgj+OP6pu5H7S2uqUABJ1S/2t MvrBoD9OJOp/DXRR/0LESLHGCwsMJpWzP2ttiC+tqBUei73VfT7qFe78HZEF7w/MZtwY zEfQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.73.244 with SMTP id o20mr33610276wiv.31.1434991968965; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE (bzq-109-66-120-215.red.bezeqint.net. [109.66.120.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bz2sm15006196wjc.25.2015.06.22.09.52.45 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: "'Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.'" <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com>, payload@ietf.org, "'Ali C. Begen (abegen)'" <abegen@cisco.com>
References: <00d901d066b3$859e0810$90da1830$@gmail.com> <55880233.d4968c0a.5abe.ffffe11eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <55880233.d4968c0a.5abe.ffffe11eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:52:41 +0300
Message-ID: <067501d0ad0b$dd1857f0$974907d0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0676_01D0AD25.02671690"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHvs0L9/fNoRQh9TV3NJhlVbqtJTwMWlXXXnWH4zBA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/iPONk0DlZjydQCCPolnO-q_wLZo>
Cc: dave.satterlee@vocal.com
Subject: Re: [payload] comments on draft-demjanenko-payload-melpe-02
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/payload/>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:52:57 -0000
Hi Victor, We can discuss the MELP at the Payload session in Prague, will you be there? As for the comments see inline ( the response on the comments are as an individual and not as the WG chair) Roni From: Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D. [mailto:victor.demjanenko@vocal.com] Sent: 22 June, 2015 3:40 PM To: 'Roni Even'; payload@ietf.org; 'Ali C. Begen (abegen)' Cc: 'Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.'; dave.satterlee@vocal.com Subject: RE: [payload] comments on draft-demjanenko-payload-melpe-02 Roni, Ali, I would like to have our MELP RTP payload discussed and advanced toward an RFC at IETF-93 in July. We have updated our draft as per appendix of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-13. I believe I might not have addressed all of the below comments before so I will now. I appreciate all the help and suggestions offered. Please let me know what else needs to be addressed. Thanks. Victor From: payload [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:24 AM To: payload@ietf.org Subject: [payload] comments on draft-demjanenko-payload-melpe-02 Hi, I looked at the document and have some comments 1. The term MIME type is not used for RTP payload but we call it media subtype name , the media type is audio in your case v-> Looking at the 03 draft, I can find one place, near the end of section 4.2. Are you suggesting this should be "media subtype name" instead? Are there other places where this needs to be changed? [Roni Even] Yes 2. The term rate should probably be used for the clock rate and for what you call "rate" maybe use "bitrate" v-> Changed in the upcoming 04 draft to use "bitrate" 3. I am not sure what is the meaning of rate=600,1200,2400 in the offer, is that the sender capability to switch dynamically between these three rates? v-> Yes the sender may switch dynamically. This is referred to as dynamic rate switching. Do you think I need to explain this more? Where? [Roni Even] Please explain where you define the rate parameter 4. Are both sides need to use the same rate option (symmetric)? v-> No the section on SDP explains the negotiation and priority given to the answerer's preferred bit rate. [Roni Even] My reading is that the offer includes the send capabilities while the answer is the receive capabilities. So it means that the result MUST be symmetrical, you can provide better options if you use the send and recv attributes. 5. What is the meaning of an answer rate=600,1200 to the above offer? Does it mean that both sides can switch only between 600 and 1200. v-> Yes exactly. 6. We prefer not to have the rate in the media subtype name so use only MELP and MELPE and for fixed rate use the rate parameter. v-> Unfortunately there are legacy deployed systems that use the MELP2400, MELP1200 and MELP600 names. Otherwise I would be in complete agreement on your preference. [Roni Even] If an offer is with MELP1200 can the answer use MELP rate =1200 or is it mandatory to use the same subtype name? 7. An RTP payload document must also have a congestion control section. You can look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-13 about how to write an RTP payload specification and also look at one of the latest RTP audio payloads like opus (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08) for an example about the structure of an audio RTP payload and how to have the congestion control, security, IANA and SDP consideration sections v-> This was done in the preparation of the 03 draft. Hopefully I did not miss anything important. I know I did not split the suggested Background section contents from the Payload Format section. By this I mean I kept the original identification of the MELP parameters immediately ahead of each bit-rate payload format. This seemed to be a more natural organization of the material with less jumping between sections. Thanks Roni Even as individual
- [payload] comments on draft-demjanenko-payload-me… Roni Even
- Re: [payload] comments on draft-demjanenko-payloa… Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.
- Re: [payload] comments on draft-demjanenko-payloa… Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.
- Re: [payload] comments on draft-demjanenko-payloa… Roni Even