Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-perkins-rtcweb-usage-03 (Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-perkins-rtcweb-rtp-usage-03.txt)

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Tue, 30 August 2011 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 BC12F21F8CA5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:32:43 -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=[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 T5Zazqy0q+xq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A5321F8C6F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-173-49-141-165.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.141.165] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1QySCQ-0006Jv-Kz for rtcweb@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:34:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4E5D1E78.9090709@jesup.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:31:36 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <20110828175441.24054.11368.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <57BFE815-5A39-4AC5-9787-80E13D34B68E@csperkins.org> <4E5B9513.6040606@alvestrand.no> <F40AE990-5CB6-4C5B-9F90-AAA98F0AEA2B@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <F40AE990-5CB6-4C5B-9F90-AAA98F0AEA2B@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-perkins-rtcweb-usage-03 (Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-perkins-rtcweb-rtp-usage-03.txt)
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: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:32:43 -0000

On 8/30/2011 12:22 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>
>> - In section 3, you make the point that improper signalling of bandwidth can cause failure to interoperate (because of differing RTCP timings). Is there a (possibly theoretical) problem with interoperation between RTP/AVP and RTP/AVPF too, or have we verified that the AVPF profile always sends enough RTCP packets that AVP-conformant endpoints don't time out?
> I'm not aware of any problems here. They were designed to interoperate.

Agreed, this should be fine and has been done a lot.

>> - In section 6, I would recommend removing the point about scenarios with mixers using point-to-point RTP sessions are "not well utilizing the mechanisms of RTP" - I think people's engineering tradeoffs should be respected.
>> I'm fine with leaving in the comment about protocol violations (although I'd like to be more specific about what they are - protocols shouldn't be violated; if people "have" to do that, there's something wrong with the protocol).
Or they're handling a usecase that isn't covered by the protocol or wasn't anticipated.
That may not be something "wrong" with the protocol - they may be using the wrong
protocol, or they may need a new protocol, or they may need an extension to the protocol
to cover this new usecase.

If it's a "covered" usecase, then there's something wrong with the protocol.


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org