[rmcat] Comments on draft-zanaty-rmcat-cc-codec-interactions-00
Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com> Sun, 19 July 2015 18:04 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 773531B2B11 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 hHkD23mQwnqQ for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22f.google.com (mail-ig0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::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 7A45B1B2B0C for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iggf3 with SMTP id f3so67843681igg.1 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
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 :content-type; bh=22B/bPMRszEGgJw6MkBLf/2URrJDn+aNv+ZzHFQ5Z4E=; b=xiS+R3QY1DLS9TFuvH6n6tUoq1/n1l4yht+mWdOOJ0sGeWRc9pW9YgW1PgbQn7bJnn 4qw4eff15PvaqagW+awBXhuSNg43+luWTCjN+8X5H6lx1GhLkfyHJXgremVx/GnIz50G 5A8OD6pL2rAgSgkMzFU7W6WV2BBiJDtWq8EuU=
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:content-type; bh=22B/bPMRszEGgJw6MkBLf/2URrJDn+aNv+ZzHFQ5Z4E=; b=Mz4/Cp7qy8S6KDCYXW8eYeQfkRl2SN42Q25HoZmJnWjh4W4zqLuqJZcembyOmp2Jgg wi3X0umPhOnQp6M+ZKEmG26fnZfzPTXQdLh0PteYCiZUMAeC0nWE4NZeKmdmPOOEs2qo e9RjKFNlL0T0SpnRr/O7KPP9vEzm3Qg0OYzrP3Smlu5K2lkSxZ9mAlswYYdT4e8wUJud iUN8SBG1Lh3gtAyBIpyz+XIyfVoaTisC3l0+t2wWBVN62Jv3lo4EXVmkWMExC/qzOk9W eMxl5Gs7Yq27oDstKv9gStABdX5mPpuLk6vQ6dd+qKALbPZjJ7h8v4t6mYEbrIwjOJ4K r+pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk/wG9LOhkvi3umPQywKVOmGaDn8H91D879/fVOzmsGAzgiSrj4Rt0Ma74QPjFHZ9qzl6HKMAnT9JfJJHZVnJDrtAagw+gVSrr0cSSkNJ7Kch05XNY=
X-Received: by 10.107.136.160 with SMTP id s32mr30878106ioi.174.1437329066996; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdDCTVLB4Wf4ApIxSkG9SB86EGEyuA==
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 20:04:25 +0200
Message-ID: <adf483811175cd873364d6447c504066@mail.gmail.com>
To: rmcat@ietf.org, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ecffe76d4e6051b3e4033"
X-DomainID: tieto.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/vQ5dKp9KY9dwPH3mfOLsC8QfE-o>
Subject: [rmcat] Comments on draft-zanaty-rmcat-cc-codec-interactions-00
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 18:04:31 -0000
Hi Mo, For what it is worth then please accept the following comments to the draft. General: I think that the document now only includes the CC-Codec interactions. I think this complies with what we intended in the wg. I think that we should divide into MANDATORY and OPTIONAL sections, so that the minimal set of features that a codec developer have to rely on from the CC, and interact with, is absolutely clear. Right now the document includes more interactions that what the present RMCAT CC proposals provides. Indeed it seems that they only provides the very basic one (and with couple CC one more). I think that further work shall narrow down the CC-codec interactions that we want to have in the document. While it has value during the progress of the RMCAT CC definition work, to describe codec-cc interactions, that we from a theoretical perspective identify as something that could make sense for an RMCAT CC to provide, but which are not provided by any solution (yet?), then I am not sure that it makes sense to have these interactions in there in the end. Perhaps a solution could be to put the interaction features, which are not supported by any of the CC proposals into the appendix and here describe why one have ended up not supporting each. I indeed suppose that there will be good reason for why one can have or will have to live without. I think that the introduction is a little too heavy and detailed in content. E.g., I don’t think that the doc necessarily needs to motivate why RMCAT CC is needed nor does it need to describe what present application do instead of using RMCAT CC (I think). Also section 3 and section 4 are a little to detailed to my taste. But on the other hand, then as long as no framework document exists, then some context should be given. Detailed comments: Abstract: Suggest to rephrase: and the components dedicated to congestion control functions --> and the RMCAT congestion control layer I assume that FEC is the reason why you use the formulation the application components that relate to congestion control, specifically the media codec control layer, instead of simply: the media codec control layer Section 1: I am not sure if we really need the historical perspective on CC implemented (or not) in RTP media applications in this document. I think that the text is good, but I think that it belongs rather in the requirements doc or in a framework doc. I think that one could jump right into the paragraph under the bulleted list in section 1 or even right into the paragraph starting with . The RMCAT requirements.. Second last paragraph of Section 1: In order to meet these requirements, interactions are necessary between the application's congestion controller, the RTP layer, media codecs, other components, and the underlying UDP/IP network stack. This memo attempts to present a conceptual model of the various interfaces based on a simplified application decomposition. This memo discusses interactions between the congestion control and codec control layer in a typical RTP Application. I suggest to rephrase to (something like): In order to meet these requirements, interactions are necessary between the application's congestion controller and other application components, like the media codecs layer and the RTP layer. This memo describes the interactions between the RMCAT congestion control layer and the codec control layer in a interactive real time media RTP application. Section 3: Suggest to rephrase: understanding and discussion of where congestion control functions operate, and how they interface with the other components. to understanding and discussion of where congestion control functions operate, and how they interface with the codec control layer. Bullet 2 on Config seems to be too detailed for the purpose of this document. I suggest to keep only the text until “For example .. Bullet 4: I suggest to eliminate the text from “such as REMB [I-D.alvestrand-rmcat-remb] ..” and onwards in this bullet. Bullet 6: Shared state : I don’t think this detail is needed here. It is ? If so then I think that it should just be part of bullet 5 on congestion control. Section 5: The section starts with saying “the necessary..”. but it seems to describe both necessary and optional interactions. IF we end up describing optional interactions then I think we should have two subsections here – one for the “necessary” ones and, one section for the optional ones. Section 5.2: Right now what we have here is the priorities in coupled congestion. Correct ? If so I think that this could be made more concrete. Section 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.8, 5.9: No RMCAT CC solution seems to support this at present. Should it be here ? 5.6 has the heading Forward Error Correction, but truly speaks about sensitivity to loss patterns. Shouldn’t this be the tittle ? (if kept). Section 5.7: This may be provided by the RMCAT CC (judging from the present discussions in the wg). Should as the other paragraph say more exactly what the interaction consists of (CC-FEC/encoder). BR, Karen
- [rmcat] Comments on draft-zanaty-rmcat-cc-codec-i… Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen
- Re: [rmcat] Comments on draft-zanaty-rmcat-cc-cod… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)