Re: [rmcat] Doubt regarding REMB and SSRCs

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 01 March 2017 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A041D1295E2 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 06:17:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=aliax-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 7e27CzQDOp3E for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 06:17:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (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 601DB129474 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 06:17:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id n11so339388wma.1 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 06:17:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aliax-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=f9CbsdaVufkG+SG3VARd4VnaN0df7tpW4+PDr3IIMT4=; b=fvbnGEzJauB8zQhV++DV80VZ5BnwcFD1AhbFRnqjdAJ3yjh5BDegn2hrzTTRHnYvGy 8B69GbyKu2rqvDBxm+bEifuBwZjkIlI4VgxSOkPMLLtmO8VKKAyT5FmzFUIasIZBHUra hBq/mexlKBYQBzRqwn1WAMpsnLJgB6Giip0yhR9pQOwFn6zVZeQGmBHWlF9kA7QY823n ymt6a8KSP/FiI//g+7Q+mlUH86J7Bv4O2cpfTEyklIKIZXjq4m+srngcJiub7f2UQ6+z rBRkiLRybAySjJXYmP4932X9+jti9zLkfVvnG8I0mBfZ/l8K2SLniWqkEU416KAISt4J dnZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f9CbsdaVufkG+SG3VARd4VnaN0df7tpW4+PDr3IIMT4=; b=PBDC3YjcuZ58TPCa0UMBy1+bzh5DQUyw+Y/X3K4GkRg1w1s24S58Jvw3iuy/qZJoh8 3MGHc0KXWQPt4Ca6ubOmhSqqwX191fRcaU2Pn//ICMcKHymYDzDzVs0thNtn/20YNGzL WVVQnuL23TGlkpIdEUu8cBKPo6M7lC2RiHAwT6t3ilwTibGxLTBhmrEmTC9OSAOhb0hO Bkhdn+TE80C4vc5ujDs6FLQJgHYa3KJtC4m+TTx7GD9+BmnyAoId0XcjSfhKQOFJWdpm NQWzboKgHaEQAdHI5uWiP9dISRlef99IWVuJl98Q2zKcU5nM9GFpA7vf/4g3+wt9TIPg NApg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mBYATO2eDURx/wof05tssoW6yPnHrjvB4Aaui+T+4/s5FcKXNIC2GZM1GqlrsOEGvK1OJEvekVYZUUSA==
X-Received: by 10.28.142.73 with SMTP id q70mr3777633wmd.3.1488377818521; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 06:16:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.182.85 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 06:16:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegf=jXMXtOBy=HKJqptWhB_xYGGshKTDJrnX2_n-gcB+d5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegf=jXMXtOBy=HKJqptWhB_xYGGshKTDJrnX2_n-gcB+d5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 15:16:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfkTdUJ81xd+SbvXnQe9smruWgqwcKCMtjAjp_VJ=crXtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: rmcat@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/2NaFX5P2m9GnO_L4sQwaWPVNWGM>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] Doubt regarding REMB and SSRCs
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rmcat/>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:17:01 -0000

2017-03-01 14:49 GMT+01:00 Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>et>:
> It's not clear for me what the "SSRC feedback" entries in the REMB
> message mean. According to the draft [*]:

I've just found a related thread:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/t71fzDtaQatyi2yA9wa0yRfhXHI

-------------------------------------------------
>> the maximum bitrate, is it defined as the maximum bitrate for  a particular stream, or the maximum bitrate for the whole "Session"?

> It depends on how many and which SSRCs are reported in the feedback message. As per the draft, it is up to the implementation (or the congestion control algorithm) to choose which SSRCs, i.e., it could report just the SSRCs of audio or video or a combination.
-------------------------------------------------

So it seems that it's up to the sender to re-distribute the estimated
bit rate across all the indicated SSRCs (if many in a single REMB),
right?

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>