Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] RTP demux in JSEP and BUNDLE

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Fri, 09 December 2016 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@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 E3E5A12951B; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:02:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 JJw7XLfYLhll; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:02:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x231.google.com (mail-ua0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3222212947C; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:02:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 12so24820456uas.2; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 10:02:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TmHwm20IIQ0XkwsUwla7Ujh57yc/dXHMDR7Wan2kaJI=; b=hHpMHoNbJRIWAsc+L/nGXObOfaYsdV3+ExZHzjYyzJn86TApDpl78Eaa6ckax+0UaD v6JpaGr4wlzwkh02dxHMwmCEc7aeJKSlufJIf2+3FxdPNLHqGIVMEs+LTKwG1Ouzcr6h zNINUc8oiTz6jGta2LLFdCHKgT2KVFCa+4p42dpQb4SGWYkdKGLEa1nnhL/qVb9K1oo0 Zm17FVfbtEaL5uuZ1Znl7wnYkMsVLFPasqv0B9n6MdaA/mA/kEMGC32T2UubDXPVJRUO ZlGeLTwuJl5WpTGtpF1ppnh3Ra17awqA/agP/+SMNao80vy1hugC8ROAyWfkEaMN5s8S M/dg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TmHwm20IIQ0XkwsUwla7Ujh57yc/dXHMDR7Wan2kaJI=; b=DJdH0U9FH5YaKhlpZwFRAeCclLzzh+BVRRvHuAkR6CqRPIs4GpD9Mb4nyAUJQFEhEm aHX4TF7orSRYKE+4ps1UJZo2+fG01nJGHHn58AzVmy4y3FimFMa16q26hsi4xbUIgfTe 7EqdAo7DKZWP1DLLDPMNngMYQWXDZyTqiGnxVXNoQWThHM1fxirYWYRDN2aFoKuR2pop YP1zit3fsdXdvyFAMrDp9l4Hr5nXau1sUQKPBRwFu8jez+B2R9KIK+dTVukE68BTXGJb QbMH9HyROlM+30V4UpJyddYusGWEQoDBLXBNprPSXCdOoJeDbolxjeECsC+TAC81tUbq js8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02IDcOWniDHmc6iQUKdme1/jtzNO8V479RUBlGBtIkZI6qcYiGTMy/n6mPzTc4cI1PerkCoAfDiFS9v4g==
X-Received: by 10.159.50.138 with SMTP id l10mr52620874uab.166.1481306524042; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 10:02:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.6.5 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:01:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPNhAhTx0ynV+RY7kbJiQAVM7DW9kr0YtjusyCfK_9uwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CC36EBFF-A877-433E-B590-1DFC2F1293B1@csperkins.org> <BED69D59-AA4E-4CC5-B58E-28C77B50B044@iii.ca> <CABcZeBPNhAhTx0ynV+RY7kbJiQAVM7DW9kr0YtjusyCfK_9uwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 10:01:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2duywP6oFnWpLaNbzvG82f8FZ2TkAQrCdZPjcPOsex4yNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ddf7a2b4dcf05433d8db0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/hZIyz3LwN3iBtnCzBN48rSbl9a4>
Cc: "mmusic (E-mail)" <mmusic@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep@tools.ietf.org, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] RTP demux in JSEP and BUNDLE
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 09 Dec 2016 18:02:10 -0000

I agree with Eric and Cullen that a more explicit algorithm is needed.  The
proposed text is not specific enough to resolve observed implementation
differences.

Cullen said:

" I'd also like it be clear that MID takes priority over PT."

[BA] Yes.  This is something that multiple implementations appear to agree
on.  Also, Peter's suggestion that a MID mismatch result in a packet drop
should be restored.

"I believe we agreed that if the PT was unique, then it would be used for
demux as well."

[BA] That is my understanding as well.

However, I'd also like to understand what happens if the PT is not unique.
The proposed text does not provide enough detail and existing
implementations differ in how they treat non-unique PTs. I am familiar with
an implementation that declares SDP with non-unique PTs to be in error.
Another implementation fills a Payload Type table with a single value, with
the value selected depending on whether SSRCs are also specified (e.g.
specification of SSRCs is taken as an indication that only SSRC matching is
desired, and therefore that a Payload Type entry is not needed).  The ORTC
API spec says to latch the SSRC on a Payload Type match and then remove the
Payload Type table entry, but some implementations have found this leads to
problems so they have foresaken either the latching or the PT removal (or
both).

Cullen said:

"I prefer the much more explicit algorithm particularly for the RTCP
handling as implementors have a hard time figuring out wha they need to do
to process the RTCP."

[BA] I would also prefer that we have a more explicit algorithm here,
because we have seen very substantial implementation differences.  One
implementation I'm familiar with sends the RTCP packets to all RtpSender
and RtpReceiver objects.  While this is inefficient, it does avoid sending
RTCP packets to the wrong objects.  Another implementation sorts the RTCP
reports as indicated in the proposed text - but has found that the required
handling is so message-dependent that it leads to bugs (e.g. FIR and APP
messages have caused issues in particular).  So this approach is more
efficient, unless we are willing to get into detail on every RTCP message,
it will fall short.


On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> I agree with Cullen that the algorithm structure used in current JSEP is
> the better structure.
>
> Magnus, Colin, do you think you could rewrite your text in that structure?
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> In general, I think it makes sense to put most the details in bundle and
>> overview in jsep as you have proposed here.
>>
>> I believe we agreed that if the PT was unique, then that would be used
>> for the demux as well. I'd like to see that explicitly spelled out in this
>> text instead of just left as an option allowed but not really specified by
>> this text.  I'd also like it be clear that MID takes priority over PT.
>>
>> I prefer the much more explicit algorithm particularly for the RTCP
>> handling as implementors have a hard time figuring out wha they need to do
>> to process the RTCP.
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 8, 2016, at 3:54 AM, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > [cc’ing RTCWEB and MMUSIC, since this relates to both JSEP and BUNDLE
>> drafts]
>> >
>> > There’s been a lot of discussion on the lists, and at the meeting in
>> Seoul, around how RTP streams are mapped onto higher-level, application
>> meaningful, semantic roles. In particular, around how RTP streams map onto
>> JSEP objects for WebRTC. Magnus Westerlund and I would like to propose the
>> following updates to JSEP and BUNDLE to try to clarify the behaviour.
>> >
>> > Comments and feedback very welcome.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Colin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > # Replacement for Section 6 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-17
>> >
>> > <section title="Processing RTP/RTCP" anchor="sec.rtp.demux">
>> >    <t>As described in <xref target="RFC3550"/>, RTP packets are
>> >    associated with RTP streams <xref target="RFC7656"/>. Metadata
>> >    about those streams, including source description information
>> >    and reception quality feedback is conveyed in RTCP packets.
>> >    Each RTP stream is identified by an SSRC, and each RTP packet
>> >    carries an SSRC value that is used to associate the packet with
>> >    the correct RTP stream. RTCP packets also use SSRCs to identify
>> >    the RTP streams that the reports and metadata relate to.  RTCP
>> >    packets generally carry multiple SSRC values and report on, or
>> >    deliver source description information relating to, several RTP
>> >    streams.</t>
>> >
>> >    <t>Each incoming RTP stream, identified by its SSRC, is mapped to
>> >    an m= section in the SDP. The SDP m= sections then correspond to
>> >    RtpReceiver objects. This allows each RTP stream to be associated
>> >    with an RtpTransceiver. Further processing of the RTP stream can
>> >    then be done at the RtpTransceiver level.  This includes using
>> >    RID <xref target="I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid"/> to distinguish between
>> >    multiple Encoded Streams, as well as determine which Source RTP
>> >    stream should be repaired by a given Redundancy RTP stream.</t>
>> >
>> >    <t>The process of mapping RTP streams onto m= sections depends on
>> >    whether streams are bundled or not. If the SDP BUNDLE extension
>> >    is in use, then RTP streams are mapped onto m= sections based on
>> >    the MID values as described in
>> >    <xref target="I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation"/>.  If the
>> >    SDP BUNDLE extension is not in use, each m= section corresponds
>> >    to a transport layer connection and the RTP streams received on
>> >    that connection correspond to the m= section.</t>
>> >
>> >    <t>Incoming RTCP packets contain metadata including reception
>> >    quality feedback, source description information, and other
>> >    signalling relating to RTP streams. The RTCP packets are parsed,
>> >    the associated RTP streams are identified based on the included
>> >    SSRC values, and the metadata relating to those RTP streams is
>> >    updated (this might include updating the MID information, used
>> >    to associate RTP streams with m= sections, if the SDP BUNDLE
>> >    extension is in use). This updated metadata is available to the
>> >    RtpTransceiver objects associated with those RTP streams.
>> >    </t>
>> > </section>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > # Replacement text for section 10.2 of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-n
>> egotiation-36
>> >
>> >     <section anchor="sec-rtp-pt"
>> >              title="Associating RTP Streams With Correct SDP Media
>> Description"
>> >              toc="default">
>> >       <t>As described in <xref format="default" pageno="false"
>> >       target="RFC3550"/>, RTP packets are associated with RTP streams
>> <xref
>> >       format="default" pageno="false" target="RFC7656"/>. Each RTP
>> stream is
>> >       identified by an SSRC value, and each RTP packet carries an SSRC
>> value
>> >       that is used to associate the packet with the correct RTP stream.
>> RTCP
>> >       packets also uses SSRCs to identify on which RTP streams any
>> report or
>> >       feedback relate to. Thus, an RTCP packet will commonly carry
>> multiple
>> >       SSRC values, and might therefore be providing feedback or report
>> on
>> >       multiple RTP streams. </t>
>> >
>> >       <t>In order to be able to process received RTP packets correctly
>> it
>> >       must be possible to associate an RTP stream with the correct "m="
>> >       line, as the "m=" line and SDP attributes associated with the "m="
>> >       line contain information needed to process the packets.</t>
>> >
>> >       <t>As all RTP streams associated with a BUNDLE group are part of
>> the
>> >       same RTP session and using the same address:port combination for
>> >       sending and receiving RTP/RTCP packets, the local address:port
>> >       combination cannot be used to associate an RTP stream with the
>> correct
>> >       "m=" line. In addition, multiple RTP streams might be associated
>> with
>> >       the same "m=" line.</t>
>> >
>> >       <t>Also, as described in <xref format="default" pageno="false"
>> >       target="sec-rtp-sessions-pt"/>, the same payload type value
>> might be
>> >       used by multiple RTP streams, in which case the payload type value
>> >       cannot be used to associate an RTP stream with the correct "m="
>> line.
>> >       However, there are cases where each "m=" line has unique payload
>> type
>> >       values, and then the payload type could serve as hint to the
>> relevant
>> >                   "m=" line the RTP stream is associated with.</t>
>> >
>> >       <t>An offerer and answerer can inform each other which SSRC values
>> >       they will use for an RTP stream by using the SDP 'ssrc' attribute
>> >       <xref format="default" pageno="false" target="RFC5576"/>.
>> However, an
>> >       offerer will not know which SSRC values the answerer will use
>> until
>> >       the offerer has received the answer providing that information.
>> Due to
>> >       this, before the offerer has received the answer, the offerer
>> will not
>> >       be able to associate an RTP stream with the correct "m=" line
>> using
>> >       the SSRC value associated with the RTP stream. In addition, the
>> >       offerer and answerer may start using new SSRC values mid-session,
>> >       without informing each other using the SDP 'ssrc' attribute.</t>
>> >
>> >       <t>In order for an offerer and answerer to always be able to
>> associate
>> >       an RTP stream with the correct "m=" line, the offerer and answerer
>> >       using the BUNDLE extension MUST support the mechanism defined in
>> <xref
>> >       format="default" pageno="false" target="sec-receiver-id"/>, where
>> the
>> >       offerer and answerer includes the identification-tag (provided by
>> the
>> >       remote peer) associated with an "m=" line in the RTP Streams and
>> in
>> >       RTCP SDES packets part of a BUNDLE group.</t>
>> >
>> >       <t>The mapping from an SSRC to an identification-tag is carried in
>> >       RTCP SDES packets or in RTP header extensions (<xref
>> format="default"
>> >       pageno="false" target="sec-receiver-id"/>). Since a compound RTCP
>> >       packet can contain multiple RTCP SDES packets, and each RTCP SDES
>> >       packet can contain multiple chunks, an RTCP packet can contain
>> several
>> >       SSRC to identification-tag mappings. The offerer and answerer
>> maintain
>> >       tables mapping RTP streams identified by SSRC to "m=" lines
>> identified
>> >       by the identification-tag.
>> >       When receiving an RTP packet carrying a MID header extension
>> >       with the identification-tag, or an RTCP packet carrying one or
>> >       more SDES MID items, the offerer or answerer creates a mapping
>> >       table entry between the SSRC value and the identification-tag,
>> >       in order to associate the RTP stream associated with that SSRC
>> >       value with the "m=" line corresponding to the
>> identification-tag.</t>
>> >
>> >       <t>The mapping between the SSRC an identification-tag might change
>> >       mid-session if, for a given SSRC value, a different
>> identification-tag
>> >       is provided in an RTP or RTCP packet. In that case these tables
>> are
>> >       updated each time an RTP/RTCP packet containing a new mappings
>> from
>> >       SSRC to identification-tag is received. Some considerations for
>> >       avoiding update flaps are provided in Section 4.2.6 of <xref
>> >       target="RFC7941"/> which should be followed. </t>
>> >
>> >       <t>If an offerer and answerer is not able to associate an RTP
>> stream
>> >       with an "m=" line (using the mechanisms described in this
>> section, or
>> >       using other appropriate mechanism, e.g., based on the payload type
>> >       value if it is unique to a single "m=" line), it MUST either drop
>> the
>> >       RTP packets associated with the RTP stream, or process them in an
>> >       application specific manner, once non-stream specific processing
>> >       (e.g., related to congestion control) of the RTP packets have
>> >       occurred.</t>
>> >
>> >       <t>When compound RTCP packets are received, they are split
>> >       into their component RTCP packets and those component RTCP
>> >       packets are processed based on their RTCP packet type, in
>> >       the order in which they were placed into the compound RTCP
>> >       packet. Non-compound RTCP packets are processed based on
>> >       their RTCP packet type, in the order they are received.
>> Information
>> >       in each RTCP packet can relate to one or more RTP streams.
>> >       For example, RTCP Sender Report (SR) and Receiver Report (RR)
>> >       packets include an SSRC of sender field that indicates the
>> >       identity of the participant that sent the RTCP packet, along
>> >       with a list of Report Blocks. Each report contains data on the
>> >       reception quality of a single RTP stream, identified by SSRC,
>> >       as received by the SSRC that sent the RTCP packet. Other RTCP
>> >       packet types similarly contain references to the SSRC of the
>> >       sender of the RTCP packet, and the RTP streams to which it
>> >       refers.</t>
>> >
>> >       <t>It should always be possible to process RTCP packets, and
>> >       store the received information in a data structure associated
>> >       with an RTP stream, identified by SSRC, for later access and
>> >       use. It is possible that RTCP packets relating to an SSRC can
>> >       be received before RTP packets relating to that SSRC, so the
>> >       data structures relating to an SSRC might need to be created
>> >       before the corresponding RTP stream is received.</t>
>> >
>> >       <t>Similarly, information relating to an RTP stream might be
>> >       received before the data needed to map it onto an m= line is
>> >       received. Information carried in RTCP packets relating to such
>> >       an RTP stream that is application and/or "m=" line dependent
>> >       MAY be dropped until the SSRCs is associated with a particular
>> >       "m=" line. However, information to generate RTCP report blocks
>> >       and other basic transport level feedback or reporting needs to
>> >       be retained, so RTCP reports relating to the stream can be
>> >       generated.</t>
>> >
>> >     </section>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Colin Perkins
>> > https://csperkins.org/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>