Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider requirements
James Hamlin <james.hamlin@purple.us> Mon, 04 November 2019 12:58 UTC
Return-Path: <james.hamlin@purple.us>
X-Original-To: rum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410E71200E6 for <rum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 04:58:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TNMs1m2jlghO for <rum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 04:58:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1pmail.ess.barracuda.com (1pmail.ess.barracuda.com [209.222.82.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22D401200B7 for <rum@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 04:57:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.purple.us (unknown [208.17.91.144]) by mx15.us-east-2a.ess.aws.cudaops.com (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:57:56 +0000
Received: from 1-WP-402-EXCH.purplenetwork.net (10.0.10.144) by 1-wp-402-exch.purplenetwork.net (10.0.10.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 04:56:22 -0800
Received: from 1-WP-402-EXCH.purplenetwork.net ([fe80::b41b:40df:b152:6817]) by 1-wp-402-exch.purplenetwork.net ([fe80::b41b:40df:b152:6817%27]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 04:56:22 -0800
From: James Hamlin <james.hamlin@purple.us>
To: "rum@ietf.org" <rum@ietf.org>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Thread-Topic: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider requirements
Thread-Index: AQHVeIyT+OS9Xi64G0KyEjlMjNcpzad7IbOa
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:56:21 +0000
Message-ID: <1572872182151.78082@purple.us>
References: <a3d82911-8d07-16a3-780b-0592e48e37bd@alum.mit.edu>, <ab68a7fb-7196-4374-7cd4-baf9a03cf6ff@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <ab68a7fb-7196-4374-7cd4-baf9a03cf6ff@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.0.10.15]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BESS-ID: 1572872262-893028-16428-33978-1
X-BESS-VER: 2019.1_20191102.1628
X-BESS-Apparent-Source-IP: 208.17.91.144
X-BESS-Outbound-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-BESS-Outbound-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.220148 [from cloudscan17-181.us-east-2b.ess.aws.cudaops.com] Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------- 0.00 BSF_BESS_OUTBOUND META: BESS Outbound
X-BESS-Outbound-Spam-Status: SCORE=0.00 using global scores of KILL_LEVEL=7.0 tests=BSF_BESS_OUTBOUND
X-BESS-BRTS-Status: 1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/2yWE9IpC09SXOksvksyVzk2oP_8>
Subject: Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider requirements
X-BeenThere: rum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Relay User Machine <rum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rum>, <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rum/>
List-Post: <mailto:rum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum>, <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:58:03 -0000
Paul In the draft-ietf-rum-rue-00, there's an exemption from VP8 support for providers but no exemption from Opus support. The implication is that, in a call from the PSTN using Voice Carry Over, the provider must offer OPUS even though the audio content is constrained to 8bit*8kHz PCM over the PSTN. I don't recall seeing any argument for requiring transcoding in this case; there would be no benefit in audio quality. Best regards James ________________________________________ From: Rum <rum-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Sent: 01 October 2019 20:15 To: rum@ietf.org Subject: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider requirements In the discussion thread that followed the attached message it started to become apparent that there is a need to distinguish the requirements, and/or requirement strength, that apply to the RUE itself from those that apply when a RUE connects to a VRS Provider. Now that we have a wg draft to work from, I would like to see people step forward and make proposal(s) for what those differences should be. While the prior discussion focused on codecs, please also consider what else might need to differ. Thanks, Paul -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Resent-From: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:20:51 -0400 From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> To: rum@ietf.org draft-rosen-rue-01 changes the video codec requirements. It now simply references webrtc RFC7742. RFC7742 distinguishes three types of endpoints: "WebRTC browser", "WebRTC non-browser", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint". AFAIK it assumes that each end is one of these. Is the expectation here that both the RUE and the provider comply with one of these? In particular, that the provider may simply be a "WebRTC-compatible endpoint? Notably: "WebRTC-compatible endpoints" are free to implement any video codecs they see fit. This follows logically from the definition of "WebRTC- compatible endpoint". It is, of course, advisable to implement at least one of the video codecs that is mandated for WebRTC browsers, and implementors are encouraged to do so. Similarly, the audio requirements have been changed to reference webrtc RFC7874. That one doesn't have the distinction between "WebRTC browser", "WebRTC non-browser", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint". It applies the same requirements to all. In particular, it requires OPUS support. I don't know why it doesn't make the same endpoint distinctions as for video. I think simply referencing these documents isn't sufficient. Seems like we need a more nuanced specification of what is required, though we may still reference these docs with qualifications. Thanks, Paul -- Rum mailing list Rum@ietf.org https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2frum&c=E,1,Fpj3uNl4KHZVkbPWDbLGqfVwMGBdbeBLTsOB6QL2I3YozMnj25zcbabu7vIDBK1XllKKO2g7RstAehUCAqLal9VAcn2JjWNhbLeuauSs&typo=0 -- Rum mailing list Rum@ietf.org https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2frum&c=E,1,G7A8JW3tfx9hiDhscPDTeHCoLWUSZAbId59jwHnCzDyqC39OUhM8kWYkfV9kiAEQFFRR9WYYMFy1o70xg8b-0emBXUamnQT4emSupy2-U8Yb5E-WvU4iSpdSVqQ,&typo=0
- [Rum] Let's get into it Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Let's get into it Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [Rum] Let's get into it Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Rum] Let's get into it Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] [EXT] Let's get into it Janett, Amy E.
- Re: [Rum] Let's get into it Brian Rosen
- [Rum] RUE NAT Traversal in draft-rosen-rue-01 Paul Kyzivat
- [Rum] RUE client credentials Paul Kyzivat
- [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Let's get into it Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [Rum] RUE client credentials Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Let's get into it Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Adam Roach
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Richard Shockey
- Re: [Rum] RUE client credentials Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] RUE client credentials Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] RUE client credentials Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Eric Burger
- Re: [Rum] RUE client credentials Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] RUE client credentials Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Adam Roach
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 James Hamlin
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 James Hamlin
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 Eric Burger
- Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01 James Hamlin
- [Rum] Media security Paul Kyzivat
- [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider requirements Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Media security Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Media security DOLLY, MARTIN C
- Re: [Rum] Media security Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Media security Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Media security Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Media security Chris Wendt
- Re: [Rum] Media security Eric Burger
- Re: [Rum] Media security Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider require… James Hamlin
- Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider require… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider require… Eric Burger
- Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider require… James Hamlin
- Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider require… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider require… Keith Drage
- Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider require… Eric Burger
- Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider require… Gunnar Hellström