Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multiparty topologies in draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com> Mon, 07 April 2014 02:42 UTC
Return-Path: <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7EF1A0658 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 19:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham
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 hTSAnRTscUp7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 19:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cserver5.myshophosting.com (cserver5.myshophosting.com [175.107.161.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D5C1A065D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 19:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppp118-209-187-61.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net ([118.209.187.61]:63578 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by cserver5.myshophosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>) id 1WWzVm-0002ks-9i for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:42:14 +1000
Message-ID: <53421089.3050506@nteczone.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:42:17 +1000
From: Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <533E7A50.5040909@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <533E7A50.5040909@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cserver5.myshophosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - nteczone.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cserver5.myshophosting.com: authenticated_id: christian.groves@nteczone.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/QvDv-woroT3KvylfKLJAtYw2x98
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multiparty topologies in draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:42:29 -0000
Hello Magnus, Please see my comments marked CNG below. Regards, Christian On 4/04/2014 8:24 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > WG, > (As Author) > > Colin and I have been working on resolving terminology usage and in > general giving the draft a polish over before the WG last call. One > section that has gotten quite some attention from us is the below one. > The changes are significantly from an editorial stand point. However, > the intended content has not been intended to be changed, although > clarified and better motivated. So please review it, we intended to > include this in the upcoming draft update. Feedback appreciated. > > 5.1. Conferencing Extensions and Topologies > > RTP is a protocol that inherently supports group communication. > Groups can be implemented by having each endpoint sending its RTP > packet streams to an RTP middlebox that redistributes the traffic, by > using a mesh of unicast RTP packet streams between endpoints, or by > using an IP multicast group to distribute the RTP packet streams. > These topologies can be implemented in a number of ways as discussed > in [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update]. > > While the use of IP multicast groups is popular in IPTV systems, the > topologies based on RTP middleboxes are dominant in interactive video > conferencing environments. Topologies based on a mesh of unicast > transport-layer flows to create a common RTP session have not seen > widespread deployment. Accordingly, WebRTC implementations are not > expected to support topologies based on IP multicast groups. WebRTC > implementations are also not expected to support mesh-based > topologies, such as a point-to-multipoint mesh configured as a single > RTP session (Topo-Mesh in the terminology of > [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update]). However, a point-to- > multipoint mesh constructed using several RTP sessions, in the WebRTC > context using independent RTCPeerConnections can be expected to be > utilised by WebRTC applications. > > WebRTC implementations of RTP endpoints implemented according to this > memo are expected to support all the topologies described in > [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update] where the RTP endpoints send > and receive unicast RTP packet streams to some peer device, provided > that peer can participate in performing congestion control on the RTP > packet streams. The peer device could be another RTP endpoint, or it > could be an RTP middlebox that redistributes the RTP packet streams > to other RTP endpoints. This limitation means that some of the RTP > middlebox-based topologies are not suitable for use in the WebRTC > environment. Specifically: > > o Video switching MCUs (Topo-Video-switch-MCU) SHOULD NOT be used, > since they make the use of RTCP for congestion control and quality > of service reports problematic (see Section 3.6.2 of > [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update]). [CNG] Is 3.6.2 the right reference? clause 3.8 talks about Topo-Video-switch-MCU and the reports problem. > > o Content modifying MCUs with RTCP termination (Topo-RTCP- > terminating-MCU) SHOULD NOT be used since they break RTP loop > detection, and prevent receivers from identifying active senders > (see section 3.8 of [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update]). [CNG] Is 3.8 the right reference? clause 3.9 talks about loop detection for Topo-RTCP- terminating-MCU. > > o The Relay-Transport Translator (Topo-PtM-Trn-Translator) topology > SHOULD NOT be used because its safe use requires a point to > multipoint congestion control algorithm or RTP circuit breaker, > which has not yet been standardised. > > The RTP extensions described in Section 5.1.1 to Section 5.1.6 are > designed to be used with centralised conferencing, where an RTP > middlebox (e.g., a conference bridge) receives a participant's RTP > packet streams and distributes them to the other participants. These > extensions are not necessary for interoperability; an RTP end-point > that does not implement these extensions will work correctly, but > might offer poor performance. Support for the listed extensions will > greatly improve the quality of experience and, to provide a > reasonable baseline quality, some of these extensions are mandatory > to be supported by WebRTC end-points. > > The RTCP conferencing extensions are defined in Extended RTP Profile > for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/ > AVPF) [RFC4585] and the "Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio- > Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF)" (CCM) [RFC5104] and are fully > usable by the Secure variant of this profile (RTP/SAVPF) [RFC5124]. > > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multiparty t… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Christian Groves
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Roni Even
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Roni Even
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Roni Even
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft proposal for updating Multipar… Bernard Aboba