Re: [ssm] Re: draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm

Toerless Eckert <> Thu, 07 July 2005 15:49 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqYdI-0004WE-Ig; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:49:48 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqYdH-0004Ul-5I for; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:49:47 -0400
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20026 for <>; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:49:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqZ4R-0000lL-F4 for; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:17:54 -0400
Received: from ( by with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2005 08:49:34 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,270,1115017200"; d="scan'208"; a="293317705:sNHT101945680"
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j67FnSod027852; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id IAA11811; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 08:49:30 -0700
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: Joerg Ott <>
Subject: Re: [ssm] Re: draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
Cc: Jörg Ott <>, Julian Chesterfield <>, Magnus Westerlund <>, Colin Perkins <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:21:15AM +0200, Joerg Ott wrote:
> >Sure, I understand that. But from my reading, this draft *does* refer  
> >explicitly to SSM rather than just "multicast" -- what needs to be  
> >changed?
> To add to this, draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm also discusses how
> non-aggregatable RTCP messages shall be treated.  Thus, it is explicitly
> designed to also support RTCP feedback in SSM environments--obviously
> at some loss of damping efficiency but what would you expect if you
> double propagation delay.

I was saying:
> Thanks, Colin,
> Just as a general critique: I don't think that a draft like
> draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback should go forward without specifically
> detailing whether or how it supports ASM and/or SSM multicast. This draft
> only refers to multicast, and that is just not sufficient anymore.

eg: different draft! But one which i think relates quite a bit to the
issue at hand as well and should not become an RFC without explicitly
mentioning ASM and SSM (which it does not).

I for once fail to easily determine from the claims of support whether
one could use the mechanisms described therein with SSM (i think not),
nor do i understand easily whether it would be possible to use them with
SSM if combined with draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm without further extensions.

And this is probably not the only draft about other RTCP stuff. For
all of it, the rule applies: In the real world, customers want to move
to SSM and it needs to be easy to determine applicability  from the
drafts claims !


ssm mailing list