Re: [xrblock] 答复: 答复: Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-08.txt
Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com> Thu, 07 March 2013 17:23 UTC
Return-Path: <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C4E21F8BE7 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:23:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.941
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.941 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.712, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m0TnSCvRYVpo for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.38.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0868321F8A05 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 27136 invoked by uid 0); 7 Mar 2013 17:22:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO host291.hostmonster.com) (74.220.215.91) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 7 Mar 2013 17:22:50 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=avanw.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version; bh=HnJRB0XV8wrhkX9dv8tLZgZGaT1W/ehF8ayBfc8p8Hg=; b=GdXGABgypflG3KyDq3xd8M3vCYTHtOyOq/1ook2VouwLClMtHphlpVJ75TvQXtUjVCMTZJFn1LJvOhLO2xSEokFvU35whAKVKrt1UH7H4ci9+AOwB7DOP3XLMk/aFQm/;
Received: from [209.85.210.170] (port=36744 helo=mail-ia0-f170.google.com) by host291.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <kevin.gross@avanw.com>) id 1UDeWo-0003vX-5p for xrblock@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:22:50 -0700
Received: by mail-ia0-f170.google.com with SMTP id h8so645094iaa.29 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:22:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.34.231 with SMTP id c7mr14588433igj.95.1362676968754; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:22:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.183.163 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:22:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CD5A7C1E.4EAD1%alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
References: <CALw1_Q2z3nDwpRJSNomRqFVQhWAN7-7YozUL6GPEppKzL=6W1w@mail.gmail.com> <CD5A7C1E.4EAD1%alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:22:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CALw1_Q0HX9EXir5F4b4=q7j7WBdGnr-5WTjz+A3qzQUU9xnfaA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
To: Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae9340eebaaeb2e04d758f44c"
X-Identified-User: {1416:host291.hostmonster.com:avanwcom:avanw.com} {sentby:smtp auth 209.85.210.170 authed with kevin.gross@avanw.com}
Cc: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] 答复: 答复: Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-08.txt
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:23:21 -0000
In some implementations, nominal delay is a static receiver property. It is the quantity D in your idealized implementation.* It would be helpful to add some of this detail to the draft. The bigger issue I am having is that the draft does not define how to do the reporting for a more realistic implementation or for an adaptive jitter buffer. *This implementation compares a sender clock (RTP timestamps) with a receiver clock (packet receive timestamp). In many systems, these clocks run independently. It wont be long until r <> t, not necessarily because packets are arriving early or late, but because the sender and receiver clocks have drifted with respect to one another. Kevin Gross +1-303-447-0517 Media Network Consultant AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.avanw.com/>, www.X192.org On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>wrote: > Kevin > > The nominal delay in this case is the (additional) delay applied by the > jitter buffer and hence is not affected by network delay (although for an > adaptive jitter buffer could be affected by delay variation). > > Overall user perceived delay = network round trip delay + local (jitter > buffer (nominal) delay + encoder serialization delay) + remote (jitter > buffer (nominal) delay + encoder serialization delay) > > An idealized jitter buffer could do the following:- > > (i) Receive the first packet and delay playout by D ms. Keep the RTP > timestamp and receive time as a reference. > RTP TS[1] > receive time[1] > Assume that both are normalized in ticks > > (ii) Receive the next packet > > (iii) Calculate r = RTP TS[n] - RTP TS[1] and t = receive time[n] - > receive time[1]. If r = t then the packet arrived on time. If r < t then > the packet arrived late and if r > t then the packet arrived early. > > (iv) Delay playout of packet by D + (r -t) > > (v) Go back to (ii) > > In practice jitter buffer implementations vary considerably however should > behave in a manner consistent with the above. > > Best Regards > > Alan > > > On 3/4/13 3:28 PM, "Kevin Gross" <kevin.gross@avanw.com> wrote: > > Thank you Alan. In the context of your explanation, I have read the > section more carefully and I agree that there is no inconsistency in the > definitions. I still feel there is a problem and I'm sorry if it feels like > I am leading this conversation in circles. > > The real question is how do receivers report "nominal delay" in a > consistent manner. From the information provided in the draft, I can see at > least three possible implementations for measuring nominal delay: > > 1. The difference between average arrival time for all packets and > playout time > 2. The difference between arrival time and playout time for the first > packet > 3. The difference between arrival time and playout time on an ideal > network without delay variation > > On most networks delay variation is caused by queuing delays and this > increases average delay while increasing delay variation. I don't see how > these different approaches would yield similar results. > > Kevin Gross > +1-303-447-0517 <tel:%2B1-303-447-0517> > Media Network Consultant > AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.avanw.com/> , www.X192.org < > http://www.X192.org> > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com> > wrote: > > It is incorrect to state that if packets arrive on-time *“there are no > late packets and everything should arrive before the expected arrival time > and most likely at early window” > * > On time packets are delayed by the nominal delay (= late window) and by > definition “on-time” means arriving “at the expected arrival time”. If the > jitter buffer is configured to use a 20ms nominal delay - then packets that > arrive on-time are delayed by 20ms before being played out. If a packet > arrives 10ms early it will be delayed by 30ms before being played out, and > if the packet arrives 5ms late then it will be delayed by 15ms before being > played out. > > The definition in the draft is correct > > Best Regards > > Alan > > > > > On 3/4/13 1:38 AM, "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com <http://bill.wu@huawei.com> > > wrote: > > *发件人:* Kevin Gross [mailto:kevin.gross@avanw.com <kevin.gross@avanw.com>] > *发送时间:* 2013年3月4日 14:02 > *收件人:* Qin Wu > *抄送:* xrblock@ietf.org <http://xrblock@ietf.org> ; Alan Clark > > *主题:* Re: 答复: Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-08.txt > > Responses below. > > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com < > http://bill.wu@huawei.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, Kevin: > Please see my clarification below. > Alan, please correct me if I am wrong. > > Regards! > -Qin > > *发件人:* Kevin Gross [mailto:kevin.gross@avanw.com <kevin.gross@avanw.com>] > *发送时间:* 2013年3月4日 6:13 > *收件人:* Qin Wu > *抄送:* xrblock@ietf.org <http://xrblock@ietf.org> ; Alan Clark > > *主题:* Re: Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-08.txt > > > I'm afraid we're still not there. There is trouble in section 3: > > The jitter buffer can be considered as a time window with one side > (the early window) aligned with the delay corresponding to the > earliest arriving packet and the other side (the late window) > representing the maximum permissible delay before a late arriving > packet would be discarded. The delay applied to packets that arrive > at their expected time is known as the Nominal Delay and this is > equivalent to the late window. > > The "expected arrival time" is the time that a packet would arrive if > there was no delay variation. If all packets arrived at their > expected arrival time then every packet would be delayed by exactly > the Nominal Delay. Early packets arrive before their expected > arrival time and late packets arrive after. The reference for the > expected arrival time may, for example, be the first packet in the > session or the running average delay. > Nominal delay is defined in the first paragraph as the delay inserted for > the latest arriving playable packet. I believe this is a reasonable > definition. > [Qin]: Agree. > > The definition of expected arrival time is in error. If there is no delay > variation, there are no late packets and everything should arrive before > the expected arrival time and most likely at early window. > I suggest expected arrival time should be the same as late window. > > [Qin]: I think “no delay variation” means packet arrives on time or the > received packet, comparing with the reference packet, is neither a late > packet nor a early packet. > So I think the intention here for the definition of expected arrive time > is to emphasize the delay variation is zero by comparing with the reference > packet, > So maybe we can do a little rewording to say: > “ > The "expected arrival time" is the time that a packet would arrive as if > there was no delay variation. > “ > > > > > [kg] Changing "if" to "as if" does not significantly clarify or change the > meaning of the sentence. Are you saying you believe this paragraph is > basically clear and correct as it stands? > > > [Qin]: yes, I think it stands, what I clarify here is delay variation of > one packet is calculated with reference to the reference packet, e.g.,the > first packet. > > > . > > I also find the "window", "early window", "late window" terminology > unclear. Early window and late window are actually the edges of a single > receive buffering "window". > > [Qin]: “Window” means time window or time segment not time instance or xxx > millisecond (ms) point. You may look at section 4.1, 2nd paragraph of the > following URL: > http://www.voiptroubleshooter.com/indepth/jittersources.html > which give a clear definition of time window we are talking about here. > > > > > [kg] I believe I understand what the draft is trying to say. My comment is > that the draft does not say it clearly (i.e there is one window, not > three). The draft needs to be clarified. > > > > [Qin]: Yes, you are correct, it is not suppose to define three window. > How about rephrase the 2nd paragraph of section 3 as follows: > OLD TEXT: > “ > The jitter buffer can be considered as a time window with one side > (the early window) aligned with the delay corresponding to the > earliest arriving packet and the other side (the late window) > representing the maximum permissible delay before a late arriving > packet would be discarded. The delay applied to packets that arrive > at their expected time is known as the Nominal Delay and this is > equivalent to the late window. > ” > NEW TEXT: > “ > The jitter buffer can be considered as a time window with one side > (the early side corresponding to left half window or early window) > aligned with the delay corresponding to the > earliest arriving packet and the other side (the late side > corresponding to right half window or late window) > representing the maximum permissible delay before a late arriving > packet would be discarded. The delay applied to packets that arrive > at their expected time is known as the Nominal Delay and this is > equivalent to the late window. > > ” > > > > > > > I have not done a comprehensive re-review. There are possibly other > problems in this short draft. > > > Kevin Gross > > +1-303-447-0517 <tel:%2B1-303-447-0517> <tel:%2B1-303-447-0517> > > Media Network Consultant > > AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.AVAnw.com> < > http://www.avanw.com/> , www.X192.org <http://www.X192.org> < > http://www.X192.org> > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com < > http://bill.wu@huawei.com> > wrote: > > On 23 February , 2012 10:40 PM, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org < > http://Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's > Extended Report Framework Working Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block > for Jitter Buffer Metric Reporting > > Author(s) : Alan Clark > > Varun Singh > > Qin Wu > > Filename : draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-08.txt > > Pages : 17 > > Date : 2013-02-23 > > > > Abstract: > > This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report > > (XR) Block that allows the reporting of Jitter Buffer metrics for a > > range of RTP applications. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-08 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-08 > [Qin]: Here is our another update to JB draft. In this version (-08), > We rewrote descriptive text and definitions for clarification, thanks for > Alan's proposed text change. > > Kevin: Would you like to take a look this version and see if your comments > are addressed. > > > > > > >
- Re: [xrblock] 答复: 答复: Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-… Kevin Gross
- [xrblock] 答复: 答复: 答复: Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-… Qin Wu
- [xrblock] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: Fw: I-D Action: draft-i… Qin Wu
- Re: [xrblock] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: Fw: I-D Action: dra… Qin Wu
- Re: [xrblock] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: Fw: I-D Action: dra… Kevin Gross
- Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-… Qin Wu