IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Wish] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-09

Tim Panton <tim@pi.pe> Mon, 06 November 2023 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@pi.pe>
X-Original-To: wish@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wish@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEB0C1D4706 for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 02:48:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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=unavailable 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 0Db4W9BloaZ1 for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 02:48:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp001-out.apm-internet.net (smtp001-out.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.222]) (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 CD87BC198490 for <wish@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 02:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 84116 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2023 10:48:48 -0000
X-APM-Out-ID: 16992677288411
X-APM-Authkey: 255286/0(253943/0) 265
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 6 Nov 2023 10:48:48 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67254805EF; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 10:48:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra003.verygoodemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10026) with ESMTP id TGftR0dJ18hq; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 10:48:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [192.67.4.77]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F37B804AD; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 10:48:48 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tim Panton <tim@pi.pe>
Message-Id: <6F036C77-7D85-4CCF-9A38-7D719B183143@pi.pe>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_14B0C4EE-4557-4881-B8A6-CEAE2BF17FC9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.200.91.1.1\))
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 10:48:37 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CA+ag07aoiDGFobZ6vt8T-vrDwrg3Pj+m_A8R8P0tdkVHhddaHA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, tsv-art@ietf.org, wish@ietf.org
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
References: <CAOW+2duMfhVVpLbDsrEPMOSJiBZxWs2do7j_68gjTJecGGMzAw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ag07aoiDGFobZ6vt8T-vrDwrg3Pj+m_A8R8P0tdkVHhddaHA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.200.91.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wish/uHOzyVBO-l-yPAfys9ZEIKRNtDU>
Subject: Re: [Wish] IETF LC Review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-09
X-BeenThere: wish@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS <wish.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wish>, <mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wish/>
List-Post: <mailto:wish@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish>, <mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 10:48:58 -0000

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.

> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Wish@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish
> -- 
> Wish mailing list
> Wish@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email