Re: [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05

"Roni Even (A)" <> Sun, 15 December 2019 07:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87FD120071; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5uX-Wuyhr8Ai; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBD49120005; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 872101C26A9EE6234C8B; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 07:59:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 07:59:54 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:59:49 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <>
To: Colin Perkins <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05
Thread-Index: AdWrParOQoDqW2unTp6vJCt9sZdx9AEGe1dwAGF+cQAAj+rQwA==
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 07:59:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D35758dggemm526mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 07:59:59 -0000

Hi Colin,
The proposed text for section 4 looks OK
Roni Even as individual

As for submitting an updated draft please wait for the end of the WGLC (end of this week)

Roni Even as co-chair of AVTCore WG

From: Colin Perkins []
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:16 PM
To: Roni Even (A)
Subject: Re: [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05

On 10 Dec 2019, at 12:52, Roni Even (A) <<>> wrote:


Some comments as individual

1. in section 10 the registration of the SDP ccfb attribute need also to include mux category

That attribute is registered by draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes, which include the mux category. This draft is registering a parameter within that attribute.

2. In section 4 it is says  “It has been shown  [I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback<>] that in most cases a per frame feedback is a reasonable assumption on how frequent the RTCP feedback messages can be transmitted.“ later in the section it talks about 50-200msec and say that a value in this range need to be negotiated.  Looking at rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback I got the impression that a report per frame is recommended.

I rephrased the section to:

   There is a trade-off between speed and accuracy of reporting, and the
   overhead of the reports.  [I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback] discusses
   this trade-off, suggests desirable RTCP feedback rates, and provides
   guidance on how to configure the RTCP bandwidth fraction, etc., to
   make appropriate use of the reporting block described in this memo.
   Specifications for RTP congestion control algorithms can also provide

   It is generally understood that congestion control algorithms work
   better with more frequent feedback.  However, RTCP bandwidth and
   transmission rules put some upper limits on how frequently the RTCP
   feedback messages can be sent from an RTP receiver to the RTP sender.
   It has been shown [I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback] that in most cases
   sending feedback one per frame is an upper bound before the reporting
   overhead becomes excessive.  Analysis [feedback-requirements] has
   also shown that candidate congestion control algorithms can operate
   with less frequent feedback, using a feedback interval range of
   50-200ms.  Applications need to negotiate an appropriate feedback
   interval at session setup.

The draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback is trying to show that per-frame feedback is possible, with acceptable overhead, but unless the codec can adapt on a per frame basis, it’s not clear that such frequent feedback is necessary. This version is intended to give bounds, and encourage people to draft draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback, which will be expanded to give more discussion over time. Does this clarify?

3. A nit – please expand RTS at first occurrence, it is expanded a bit late


Let us know when you want us to submit the revised draft.

Roni Even

From: avt [] On Behalf Of Roni Even (A)
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 9:30 AM
Subject: [AVTCORE] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05

Hello, all!

As we discussed in Singapore, this is to announce a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-05.

Please review this document and send comments to the AVT mailing list by Thursday, December 19, 2019.

If you review the document and have nothing to add, please let the list know that as well.

Thank you!

Roni Even
AVTCore co-chair

Colin Perkins