IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RTP Usage: Is RTP Retransmission REQUIRED or RECOMMENDED

"Roy, Radhika R CIV (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil> Fri, 29 June 2012 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20FD21F8619 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S1dBkxH7Wfcf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge-cols.mail.mil (edge-cols.mail.mil [131.64.100.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C4A21F85F6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from UCOLHP3M.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.152) by ucolhp2w.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:17:39 +0000
Received: from UCOLHP4H.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.6.163]) by UCOLHP3M.easf.csd.disa.mil ([131.64.100.152]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:17:37 +0000
From: "Roy, Radhika R CIV (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTP Usage: Is RTP Retransmission REQUIRED or RECOMMENDED
Thread-Index: AQHNVgl23cV9UI8QsEC78nxHGxFFjJcRcyCg
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:17:36 +0000
Message-ID: <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF484EC771@ucolhp4h.easf.csd.disa.mil>
References: <4FEAB80A.7040207@ericsson.com> <4E5389B4-F54C-4060-952E-8319A801FDC3@iii.ca> <4FED4E81.7000607@ericsson.com> <B7F8286E-BDB0-4033-991C-A54A0A1227EB@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <B7F8286E-BDB0-4033-991C-A54A0A1227EB@iii.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.64.77.12]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTP Usage: Is RTP Retransmission REQUIRED or RECOMMENDED
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:18:01 -0000

Yes, I support Cullen because so many problems are there for RTP-retransmissions since the inception real-time conversational applications including lip-synch.

With respect video quality, it is a question mark what you are getting at the cost of what, where, and how. Who is paying for the extra-bandwidth that may even lead to severe congestions over the networks if it is not done very carefully and selectively and if this is what all users try to do "fun" through retransmissions? Video-RTP-retransmissions are NOT well proven in the public Internet for wider use.

I even NOT want for even for video retransmissions, if it's the audio and video conversational application. If anyone likes to do this, let us keep this a private (optional) at users' discretion without publicly supporting in the IETF RFCs. At best, we can support the word "MAY."

BR/Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:12 AM
To: Magnus Westerlund
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTP Usage: Is RTP Retransmission REQUIRED or RECOMMENDED


Right - so on the question of it retransmission is mandatory to implement for audio codec, I am on a definitely "No". The bulk of systems today do not do it and work fine. Vendors can easily choose to do if they want in an interoperable way with out it being MTI. Why we should add a bunch of stuff in to version 1 of this that we can live without is beyond me. This is how IPv6 got big and hard, by everyone taking their favorite technology and attaching it to v6. I don't even want it as RECOMMENDED for audio - I see it as OPTIONAL. 

I probably feel differently about video. 


On Jun 28, 2012, at 23:43 , Magnus Westerlund wrote:

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email