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

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Thu, 28 June 2012 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
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 9F85711E8170 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 lX679kZK5Iav for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C666511E8097 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbds11 with SMTP id ds11so5308422wgb.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language; bh=TpZ54y8Pm8gifTkxP1T/gIeXgM1rtRWsDk/n7QMPFIU=; b=UjD4ggxcBUSQ7s8Ctpibispk1rZYSCrXRRdVxAdsnCAR6p4rNhjTjXi2dtrzAyCSjH 7c0FWov2uGLvdxlGwj8i9fTm5cQulgVMu0y7+DZsaSx32MKGmj9BVpOeCMJqEO7CgxJY cehRWoHlPbZ93woYS1ic0Gs8ROoXCrzN0n1ZJpudas9Neha6DMtlycSYbQs+S4NwcByu A3uWcb879JQhIW1iE8RqnNXyoJXz6ZewOgyeg1C5TiOPMvDaRoh2kEBx3QtsA8vYXeng WNtKRQ/SchWqaA92QG7kM3lLaHHJNF8BgyeXMT8zC2APbELSLAnxJjxF6U2wBeukZD94 IEWg==
Received: by 10.216.206.164 with SMTP id l36mr405497weo.154.1340864719912; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE ([109.64.198.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id db7sm14849712wib.6.2012.06.27.23.25.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4FEAB80A.7040207@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FEAB80A.7040207@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:24:58 +0200
Message-ID: <007c01cd54ff$207dee50$6179caf0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIWS+mLc/5Xu0n/e00tw8qzpIQ1c5Z9YWBw
Content-Language: en-us
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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:25:21 -0000

Hi,
My view is that retransmission have great value for content delivery or
streaming applications, when the communication is unidirectional. 
For conversional applications like we are defining in RTCweb, retransmission
has the lower value comparing to other loss recovery options like FEC or
receiver based recovery. The latency involved with the extra roundtrips
makes it not effective comparing to typical jitter buffer sizes at the
receiver, note that receiver will take correction actions even for late
arrival and will not try to dynamically change the jitter buffer to a larger
size beyond the maximum threshold of end to end delay. 
 If we look at the typical behavior of conversional applications, they will
add to audio on the sender side FEC or even send the media twice is
subsequent packets encoded in different encoders,( of course for the
conversation itself the listener can always ask the talker to repeat since
he did not hear it clearly). On the video FEC and receiver side recovery
like motion estimation is common.
I propose that retransmission can be recommended and in my view for
conversional usage even this is strong.

Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Magnus Westerlund
Sent: 27 June, 2012 9:37 AM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] RTP Usage: Is RTP Retransmission REQUIRED or RECOMMENDED

WG,

We had a discussion at the interim if RTP Retransmission is to be considered
REQUIRED or RECOMMENDED to implement. I would like to see if we can first
have some discussion on this topic before moving on to see if we can get a
consensus here on the mailing list.

Please provide your views on this topic.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund
(As Chair and document editor)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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