Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15.txt
"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Thu, 17 July 2014 13:38 UTC
Return-Path: <mzanaty@cisco.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 E20261A0B04 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 oiF5HiMjup5d for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 06:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBF281A03A8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 06:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20352; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1405604283; x=1406813883; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=qw+MkUZ77lcOhh6ToxUTitym5fXfssxx9dzGUJWgfTk=; b=N/DvhLWdNOCl78ZpYOYMC8YJGOdlO3rpLhCj7gcxO1UB493IGz79Qh7V bWMPpcD9WJCnoHwxdGECROhRjTBGyjS6Y34V+P9064KBdlp/aEWnDJB66 ceIJC468UKjo19VjBRZHvbB/BhDAZJiS27z2xm1DAd1LBf7BGfiSz3eRI 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As0LAE3Rx1OtJV2S/2dsb2JhbABZgw5SUwSwPZE2gVcBCYZvUwGBBRZ2hAMBAQEEAQEBCWILDAICAgEIDgMDAQIBJwcbDAsUCQgCBA4FCYg5CAXGHhcEjyURDQQHBgOCLlMkgRgFhHAChTiQdYFMkmCDRGw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.01,678,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="61646128"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2014 13:38:02 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6HDc2iv004888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:38:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.221]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:38:02 -0500
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPoW2JoQuG4RWdAkWIBa1kY9OfkpukRc6F
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:38:02 +0000
Message-ID: <95102B78-C77E-4718-AEFB-24EEB46F13C2@cisco.com>
References: <20140528112153.7351.96214.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5385C8AB.8080606@ericsson.com> <43EF4063-F132-4A4B-BB54-871E93DF1401@csperkins.org> <CFEAF041.34E61%mzanaty@cisco.com>, <CAOJ7v-36bOuqkEbX4nxTds3nwde0cipuaSQvPXTaj6kTqE8ZRw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-36bOuqkEbX4nxTds3nwde0cipuaSQvPXTaj6kTqE8ZRw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_95102B78C77E4718AEFB24EEB46F13C2ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/geZlMHi5KKV5FjP01kk2S_mebWc
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15.txt
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: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:38:08 -0000
5109 uses the old FEC semantics in SDP which were deprecated by FEC-FR. No FEC-FR encoding id has been defined yet for XOR parity with ULP. So there would be a bit more work to do. As Colin points out though, ULP gives very little (if any) bang for lots of bucks, so reusing LDPC (XOR without ULP, which is already in FEC-FR) is perhaps a better alternative. Some (including myself) also feel XOR is often ineffective for most real-world loss patterns. It is only useful for isolated single-packet loss, which is indeed useful for very highly multiplexed links like transcontinental / transoceanic paths. But it is mostly ineffective for low stat-mux environments like access links, especially wireless which often exhibits consecutive losses. (For this reason, we use RS which is complex but provides optimal repair.) Mo On Jul 16, 2014, at 11:16 PM, "Justin Uberti" <juberti@google.com<mailto:juberti@google.com>> wrote: In DC we talked about making a baseline FEC proposal using 5109. Other variants could be added in the future, but 5109 would be MTI. I still need to write up said proposal though, including explaining how it works with BUNDLE (it can do so fairly easily) On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzanaty@cisco.com<mailto:mzanaty@cisco.com>> wrote: There is also RFC 6865 Reed Solomon FEC. Since there are many encoding schemes (parity/LDPC, Raptor/Q, Reed Solomon), many encoding-dependent variants (1d/2d interleaved, ULP, staircase, triangle, etc.) and parameters (n,k,etc.), several RTP packetization and multiplexing options, and several SDP expressions, it seems premature to make any sort of FEC recommendation without some more detailed work and discussion. So I agree with the current draft text. Mo -----Original Message----- From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org<mailto:csp@csperkins.org>> Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM To: "rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15.txt As far as I¹m aware, the only open issue with the RTP usage draft is whether it should make some recommendation regarding FEC. The draft currently states: ³There are several block-based FEC schemes that are designed for use with RTP independent of the chosen RTP payload format. At the time of this writing there is no consensus on which, if any, of these FEC schemes is appropriate for use in the WebRTC context. Accordingly, this memo makes no recommendation on the choice of block-based FEC for WebRTC use.² but some people have expressed a desire that it recommend some FEC scheme. As I understand it, the possible FEC schemes are as follows: - RFC 2733 parity FEC; requires FEC use same SSRC as original media, so doesn¹t work with bundle; abuses RTP header fields for FEC, so can¹t be used with mixers - RFC 5109 parity FEC with uneven level protection (ULP); unnecessary complexity due to ULP; requires FEC use same SSRC as original media, so doesn¹t work with bundle - SMPTE 2022-1 extends RFC 2733 for 2d interleaved parity FEC; sets CC, CSRC, and timestamp to zero, so doesn¹t work with mixers; requires SSRC=0 and PT=96, so can¹t support >1 FEC stream per RTP session - RFC 6015 interleaved parity FEC; abuses RTP header fields for FEC, so can¹t be used with mixers; works with bundle - RFC 6682 Raptor FEC; works with bundle There are IPR declarations on most of these, most have problems with bundle due to the way they use SSRCs, and some have problems with RTP mixers due to the way they abuse the CC/CSRC header fields to convey protection information. Accordingly, I don¹t see a particularly good choice for WebRTC, and since we can add FEC in a backwards compatible manner in a later revision of WebRTC, my proposal is that we leave it out. However, I¹m open to other suggestions. Also, if there are other open issues with the rtp-usage draft that I¹ve missed, then please let me know. Colin On 28 May 2014, at 12:29, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com<mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>> wrote: > WG, > > This version contains some changes as result of last weeks discussion. > Especially you who wasn't there should review this to see that you agree > with the changes proposed. > > The changes are: > > - Multi-stream optimization are now a MAY support, MUST signal to use. > > - The T_rr_interval = 4 is now explained in > draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream, so a reference has been added here. > > - Signalling of extensions has been clarified to be a MUST > > - The DoS potential from RTCP configuration that Martin Thomson noticed > is now discussed and the general consideration that an WebRTC > implementation needs safe guards among this is present. WG needs to > consider if it needs more or are sufficient. > > Cheers > > Magnus > > On 2014-05-28 13:21, internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote: >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Real-Time Communication in >>WEB-browsers Working Group of the IETF. >> >> Title : Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC): Media >>Transport and Use of RTP >> Authors : Colin Perkins >> Magnus Westerlund >> Joerg Ott >> Filename : draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15.txt >> Pages : 44 >> Date : 2014-05-28 >> >> Abstract: >> The Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) framework provides support >> for direct interactive rich communication using audio, video, text, >> collaboration, games, etc. between two peers' web-browsers. This >> memo describes the media transport aspects of the WebRTC framework. >> It specifies how the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used in >> the WebRTC context, and gives requirements for which RTP features, >> profiles, and extensions need to be supported. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage/ >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15 >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtcweb mailing list >> rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >> >> > > > -- > > Magnus Westerlund > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287<tel:%2B46%2010%207148287> > Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079<tel:%2B46%2073%200949079> > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com<mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-… internet-drafts
- Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-us… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-us… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-us… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-us… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-us… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-us… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-us… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-us… Colin Perkins