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

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 28 June 2012 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 1DE3721F8818 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 6LKS8aMjNJmo for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A92E21F8877 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7fc26d000005908-1d-4fec0c74b39e
Received: from esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 12.49.22792.47C0CEF4; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:49:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.264.0; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:49:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4FEC0C73.4030709@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:49:07 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4FEAB80A.7040207@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FEAB80A.7040207@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3VreU542/wfJqi7X/2tkdGD2WLPnJ FMAYxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXx/lVcwXaxivm/77I0ME4U6mLk5JAQMJF4umALC4QtJnHh3nq2 LkYuDiGBU4wSLxY8YIJwljNKfPr8hQmkildAW2Jbdz8riM0ioCpxZsoHdhCbTcBC4uaPRjYQ W1QgWGLa9HvsEPWCEidnPgHbICIgLLH1VS/QHA4OYQE/ifkNYSCmENDI1V9CQCo4BXQkZp5+ zApxj6TEvfbVYBOZBfQkplxtYYSw5SWat85mBrFBWhuaOlgnMArOQrJsFpKWWUhaFjAyr2IU zk3MzEkvN9RLLcpMLi7Oz9MrTt3ECAzIg1t+6+5gPHVO5BCjNAeLkjgvV9J+fyGB9MSS1OzU 1ILUovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2MYTWdp7RFbhk8PZzQv3tdb/CHbXqZbF88J8yTO38x+cesP288 WE/uDg4ycPv3wm7iBS5HxvV1LF843jj9zsqyksjz/OvwovKBGKt87kH9hrWGwp1dZXEPl2Ze MFq/KrGHf+l64zXTOX6/OvXmmYfD550s+tyiv1ZkeAV5X37FsaRhepKnd9EDJZbijERDLeai 4kQAKXLGcRYCAAA=
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 10:10:30 -0000

Hi,

As Individual I like to state my position.

We have a video conference system developed by my colleagues used
internally at Ericsson that uses RTP Retransmission for video, not for
audio with great success. This is implemented such that we actually
allow the video to fall behind the audio when packet loss and
retransmission is not able to repair in a timely enough fashion. The
benefit is minimal overhead and still no loss induced degradations in
the video. Yes, we get degradation in form of frame display jittering
and short freezes. But those events that are truly visible are rare over
wired networks.

I am personally convinced that RTP Retransmission is great tool in the
toolbox when it comes to improve media quality in many use cases. Yes
there are scenarios where RTP retransmission is less efficient. Long
RTTs (over 200-400 ms) is the primary source of degradations. Compared
to FEC it so much more efficient from bandwidth consumption perspective.

I also think it is important that we have some mandatory to implement
tool for making the transport more robust now that we have a consensus
that we are not going for a FEC solution in the initial specification.

Thus my personal position is that RTP Retransmission should be REQUIRED
to implement.

Cheers

Magnus


On 2012-06-27 09:36, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> 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
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------