From tim@pi.pe Mon Nov 6 02:48:57 2023 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 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, 6 Nov 2023 10:48:37 +0000 In-Reply-To: Cc: Bernard Aboba , tsv-art@ietf.org, wish@ietf.org To: Sergio Garcia Murillo References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.200.91.1.1) Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 10:48:58 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_14B0C4EE-4557-4881-B8A6-CEAE2BF17FC9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I agree that cc is an issue - I don=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=A6. 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 = wrote: >=20 > Hi Bernard, sorry for the late review >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > Any idea about how we could progress this? Maybe it is something we = can discuss during tomorrow's meeting? >=20 > Best regards > Sergio >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 3:33=E2=80=AFAM Bernard Aboba = > wrote: >> is here:=20 >> = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-wish-whip-09-tsvart-lc-aboba-= 2023-07-25/ >>=20 >> Datatracker has been unstable today so no emails appear to have been = sent.=20 >> --=20 >> Wish mailing list >> Wish@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish > --=20 > Wish mailing list > Wish@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish --Apple-Mail=_14B0C4EE-4557-4881-B8A6-CEAE2BF17FC9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 I agree that = cc is an issue - I don=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=A6.

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=E2=80=AFAM Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> = wrote:
is = here: 

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

= --Apple-Mail=_14B0C4EE-4557-4881-B8A6-CEAE2BF17FC9--