Re: [rtcweb] editorial nits: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-04
Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Fri, 02 November 2012 15:55 UTC
Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.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 B002121F8C17 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nrh0bckNWXIt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.131.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AF521F8C12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.209.247.112] (helo=mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1TUJat-0004dn-PT; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:55:40 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DB441223-1A44-4905-B894-978DCB9F5590"
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC96218B57F57E@FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:55:38 +0000
Message-Id: <806B50B4-503D-4FA0-B706-0123E3C28007@csperkins.org>
References: <5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC96218B57F57E@FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -13
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] editorial nits: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-04
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: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:55:45 -0000
Albrecht, Thanks for the detailed feedback. The -05 version of the draft should fix most of these, although some are differences between English and American that I have no intention of fixing ;-) Cheers, Colin On 13 Aug 2012, at 15:33, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote: > Colin, Magnus, > fyi, some editorial nits, > regards, > Albrecht > > Line numbers according > http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-04.txt > > Editorial change proposals: > > 232 RTP Media Stream: A sequence of RTP packets, and associated RTCP > packets, using a single synchronisation source (SSRC) that > > synchronization (according RFC 3550) > … multiple times in doc > > 295 participants in the session; support for randomised RTCP > => randomized > > 407 session also effects the possibility for differentiated treatment of > => affects > > 528 implemented using a centralised server, multi-unicast, or using IP > => centralized > … multiple times > > 588 Request above as there there may be multiple methods to fulfill the > => delete ‘there’ > > 694 optimisations of non critical functions, and is hence OPTIONAL to > => optimizations > > 715 will support negative acknowlegdements (NACKs) for RTP data packets > => acknowledgements > > 1247 own traffic. While is is clearly considered a bug, it is important > => is is > 1248 that the end-point is able to recognise and handle the case when it > => recognize > > > 1670 This in an attempt to highlight the differencies and the in many case > => differences > > 1718 An RTP session have good support for simultanously transport multiple > => simultaneously > > 1723 video cameras can potentially transmitt video from both to its > => transmit > > 1730 Thus we can introduce a couple of different notiations in the below > => notations > > 1731 two alternate figures of a single peer connection in a a point to > => a a > > 1838 different media bit-rates to the differnt peers, thus not forcing B > => different > > 1839 to endure the same quality reductions if there are limiations in the > => limitations > 1874 encoder instances each beeing associated with two different > => being > > 1883 resource costrained will use a different implementation strategy > => constrained > > 1918 limited to congestion control, also prefered resolution to receive > => preferred > > 1919 based on dispaly area available is another aspect requiring > => display > > 1920 consideration. The need for this type of descion logic does arise in > => decision > > 1949 its operation and form new RTP packets, encrypts and integegrity > => integrity > > 1970 in a media domain mix of the incomming RTP media streams. Then > => incoming > > 1980 produce a Mix of all N streams for the group that are curently not > => currently > > 2046 particpants. As each peer receives a different version produced by > => participants > > 2070 There exist an possible implementation choice to have the RTP > => “a possible” ? > > 2074 about the contributing sources. This removes both the functionality > => functionality > > 2078 they can be avoide to be resolved and instead remapped between the > => avoided > > 2080 requiresthat SSRC/CSRC are never exposed to the WebRTC javascript > => space > > 2185 arguments and conisderations as discussed in Appendix A.3.1.1 applies > => considerations > > 2194 mixer in another RTP session recieves media from that end-point. > => receives > > 2257 sequence number will need to be consequitvely incremented based on > => consequ… ? > > 2263 handled indepdentently also thus working around any SSRC collisions > => independently > > 2265 related WebRTC MediaStream signalling must be correspondlingly > => correspondingly > > 2272 requests comming from an end-point and decide if it can act on it > => coming > > 2327 end-point. For example receving a 2.5 mbps video stream and then > => receiving > > 2328 send out a 250 kbps video stream after transcoding is a vaste of > => waste > > 2332 increasing media bit-rate futher than what is needed to represent the > => further > > 2368 in the two different PeerConnections that are represtented by having > => represented > > 2372 likely needed to be soruced by the translator in response to actions > => sourced > > 2397 keymanagement. On RTP level the main functions that may be missing > => key management > > 2398 in a legacy implementation that otherswise support RTP are RTCP in > => otherwise > > 2433 need to change is higly dependent on what functions it need to proxy > => highly > 2451 packet content or media. In fact one of the more likley scenario is > => likely > > 2455 encryption and integirty protection operation to resolve missmatch in > => integrity > => mismatch > > 2464 and the second one which is to to provide a group communication > => to to > 2480 forwards all the RTP/RTCP traffic and keymanagment to the end-point > => key management > > 2551 the client A must be capable of handlilng that when determining > => handling > > 2560 reporting in that case becomes incosistent and without explicit > => inconsistent > > 2634 A relay approache will result in that the WebRTC end-points will have > => approach > > > 2671 to be most easily accomplished by establishing mutliple > => multiple > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/
- [rtcweb] editorial nits: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-us… Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)
- Re: [rtcweb] editorial nits: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rt… Colin Perkins