Re: [rmcat] Generic RTCP feedback message AGAIN

[Varun Singh <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

my opinions inline.

Regards,
Varun

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Stefan Holmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:51 AM Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen
> <[e-mail]> 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]
>
>
> Yes - I want to be part of this. :)
>

Yes - same as above.

>>
>>
>> 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 ?
>
>
> I vote for either updating the current CC algorithm candidate drafts with
> this information, or doing it over e-mail as a first step while we wait for
> the updated drafts.
>

Individual algorithm candidates should update their documents, I suppose:
+ what metrics
+ when to send them, and how often.

Nonetheless, the discussion should continue on the mailing list.

>>
>>
>> Assuming Yes. Where shall the outcome of the work be specified ?
>> draft-perkins-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-01.txt or new draft
>
>
> No strong opinion about this.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>



-- 
http://www.callstats.io