[rmcat] Generic RTCP feedback message AGAIN

Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com> Mon, 16 November 2015 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C628E1A8AF3 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 04:51:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 08vq_EHCyBkb for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 04:51:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (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 97A941A8AE2 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 04:51:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ioir85 with SMTP id r85so117471608ioi.1 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 04:51:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tieto.com; s=google; h=from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xcjalShT9IPiNwPBgqlKQg+fuo/H0aA06a01nEZszFU=; b=hP5fvA0kugmdHpqlWl4KB5WKmdQbzL3uDs5AoxOA//CmkR1QU05ItoIuIEIHdxyn4b BRojF+r6NqhTCulR0kupKJtGLP1WTPX/HgFSdnMxbqzE3cyW5PDVes9Gs0POntMd9GRa 9diwQXkxkgT0cHroyd2T93Bqj6A6/dCtV7BDA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xcjalShT9IPiNwPBgqlKQg+fuo/H0aA06a01nEZszFU=; b=mrzwIIIBtKmmiYn90VRziTkpZjxeqb+Q0K4Gfhe30JCapXC0AT8QSqrbPW39WTwahs ZUOjzhY3q6qZ0AG9UVJBKa6aj3mfK5jVL2FGJzvOa1klTcoZBENRvWiuF+1303W9vEYD GW00sG7hVZj6GT8kCjuZbxZmosjU1UtvjVr8aq9dsAHkuxxTl+bJ2N3AyToGu7qVtLZ+ zPfqfH3ZpeR0I8VIjGQTAWI+GNhl8XuyarjO0lojZ4Iwv8JxbrFoVNXYZDVbqJfcA9NC OkLQldTxJNPCFLkHh312LZnjYD1VhHNt7IarW2nNquaK4z+zYD0LC4XQ0CfR7nbVjgvH v0hA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQllGwxErvLliIj+JhVJvgqCoCHVACgdJs4TsQkxHbaaIqC0bcGu5V/JKJKAnh8Cy11Y7BsdiCiccTTdjgXhJPOMVcbmpUGRIiVh6vR4Ao1ky2wp3I8=
X-Received: by 10.107.166.15 with SMTP id p15mr17827140ioe.38.1447678275028; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 04:51:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AdEgQQ56skfo130IRESj4fMkgjcn4g==
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:51:13 +0100
Message-ID: <09b97044300b550586ac59b692ebbe50@mail.gmail.com>
To: rmcat@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-DomainID: tieto.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/aurzun6iQAhUMqLp92zCMOPLBDk>
Cc: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Subject: [rmcat] Generic RTCP feedback message AGAIN
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:51:18 -0000

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]

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 ?

Assuming Yes. Where shall the outcome of the work be specified ?
draft-perkins-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-01.txt or new draft


BR,
Karen, on behalf of the chairs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen [mailto:karen.nielsen@tieto.com]
> Sent: 3. november 2015 01:29
> To: 'rmcat@ietf.org' <rmcat@ietf.org>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>