Re: [Tsv-art] [Wish] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-09
Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Mon, 06 November 2023 11:33 UTC
Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED48C1FB88E; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 03:33:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1YIo3vh5f0t; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 03:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BC1C1FB869; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 03:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [31.133.136.219] (dhcp-88db.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.136.219]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 546261B0019A; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:32:49 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------gKugPmf5ubsfjQqZfoKva6Ls"
Message-ID: <d9ca058c-bf8e-4ff1-bb80-39dff8759813@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 12:32:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Tim Panton <tim@pi.pe>, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, tsv-art@ietf.org, wish@ietf.org
References: <CAOW+2duMfhVVpLbDsrEPMOSJiBZxWs2do7j_68gjTJecGGMzAw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ag07aoiDGFobZ6vt8T-vrDwrg3Pj+m_A8R8P0tdkVHhddaHA@mail.gmail.com> <6F036C77-7D85-4CCF-9A38-7D719B183143@pi.pe>
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN
In-Reply-To: <6F036C77-7D85-4CCF-9A38-7D719B183143@pi.pe>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/Czbvt4CIODssZVleDaLiSvvzZPY>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [Wish] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-09
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 11:33:05 -0000
On 06/11/2023 10:48, Tim Panton wrote: > I agree that cc is an issue - I don’t think it is possible to specify > exactly what WHIP _must_ do. > However I do think there is scope for implementation advice somewhere. > > One thing to note is that in most WHIP scenarios REMB will be > sufficient and it is somewhat documented…. > > An implementation advisory document might also want to discuss the > optimal keyframe interval. > > Or perhaps this is all out of scope for WHIP/IETF and caveat emptor > for the implementors... > > T. I am just noting that many TSV reviews point to RFC 8085 as a set of guidelines that apply when you don't use a standard CC, This could be helpful if you would like a list of things to do, Gorry > >> On 6 Nov 2023, at 10:26, Sergio Garcia Murillo >> <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Bernard, sorry for the late review >> >> I agree with your feedback regarding the importance of congestion >> control to ensure the best quality of ingest session (probably more >> important for UGC than for professional grade studios though). >> >> I am not sure what we could do in order to improve it, as as you >> suggest it is mostly an implementation issue and not a spec one. The >> consensus until now was not to provide implementation guidelines in >> the spec itself and only clarify potential misuses/confusions that >> could happen during implementation. Moreover, the group is not >> charter to work on the CC algos themselves, so we would have to point >> to work either on RMCAT or RTCWEB (or even MoQ). >> >> To make things more complicated, the defacto implementation (twcc and >> gcc) is not specified at all, so I am concerned that we could even >> provide any actual guidance within the spec. >> >> Any idea about how we could progress this? Maybe it is something we >> can discuss during tomorrow's meeting? >> >> Best regards >> Sergio >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 3:33 AM Bernard Aboba >> <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> is here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-wish-whip-09-tsvart-lc-aboba-2023-07-25/ >> >> Datatracker has been unstable today so no emails appear to have >> been sent. >> -- >> Wish mailing list >> Wish@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish >> >> -- >> Wish mailing list >> Wish@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish > > > _______________________________________________ > Tsv-art mailing list > Tsv-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
- [Tsv-art] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Wish] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf… Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Wish] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf… Tim Panton
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Wish] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf… Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Wish] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Wish] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf… Bernard Aboba