Re: [rmcat] Generic RTCP feedback message AGAIN

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-11-16 13:51, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote:
> HI,
>
> At the 2nd RMCAT session we proposed the following:
>
> * Give usage of a common feedback message for sender side only RMCAT CC's
> _a try_.
>
> With the following proposed way forward
>
> *1* Requirements to be considered in each CC algs draft
> *2* Analyse required feedback rates and timing as well as content
>     and point to existing remedies and/or what new needed
>
> At the RMCAT session agreement on this not established.
> Only *1* was agreed upon.  Whereas *2* was left for future potentially.
>
> NOW given the recent discussion on the list it looks (to me) as
> if we in the wg have a more mature view on this task.
> Note the wg already has a milestone to which this work
> can be associated. I.e., "Submit RTCP extension requirements
> for use with congestion control algorithms to AVTCORE (if needed)".
> Please respond to this email and give your view:
>
> Shall we NOW give the usage of a common feedback message
> for a sender side only CC a try ?
> [Yes I want to be part of this - OR -  No I don't want to be part of this]
naturally yes :-).
>
> Assuming Yes. How shall we collect the requirements ?
> Possible options (I can think of):
>
> * have new updates of the CCs alg candidates (incl. SBD, coupled CC as
> applicable)
>     come soon with a good specification of the requested
> * have the same information instead go into a (potentially temporary?)
>      Appendix of draft-perkins-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-01.txt or new draft ?
> * others - email ?
email discussions- its easy to just send what is already there in the CC 
docs in a email and then discuss.
>
> Assuming Yes. Where shall the outcome of the work be specified ?
> draft-perkins-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-01.txt or new draft
>
My understanding is, this doc describes what can be done and cannot be 
done with current RTCP rate interval - like it says per packet feedback 
may be far fetched while per frame feedback likely possible. Hence I 
think the combination of email discussion and this document should give 
us fair enough information to decide.
>
> BR,
> Karen, on behalf of the chairs
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 3. november 2015 01:29
>> To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Generic RTCP feedback message
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following Stefan’s presentation in the RMCAT session yesterday there was
>> agreement at the mike that we in the RMCAT wg should try to give the
> usage
>> of a generic common feedback message a try.
>>
>> It seems a prerequisite for this that the receiver (sender of the
> feedback
>> message) is (in principle) unaware of the particular CC algorithm that
> the
>> sender is using, but will generate a *to be defined* set of  feedback
>> information in a *to be defined* form that will fulfil the requirements
> of all
>> RMCAT CC algorithms.
>>
>> In order to start on this task we hereby solicit for the people working
> with CC
>> algorithms to respond to this email with information on the requirements
>> that they have to such a generic feedback mechanism.
>>
>> In addition _or alternatively_   please (all) provide feedback on
>> * how you think we should proceed with this task, e.g., start a new
> draft to
>> collect this information (eventually to proceed in an ART wg)
>> * concerns with this approach
>>
>> We will try to collect the information provided and have a short follow
> up in
>> Fridays RMCAT meeting.
>>
>> BR, Mirja/Karen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Zahed

==================================================
ANM ZAHEDUZZAMAN SARKER


Ericsson AB
Services, Media and Network Features
Laboratoriegränd 11
97128 Luleå, Sweden
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
SMS/MMS [phone]
[e-mail]
www.ericsson.com

==================================================