Re: [xrblock] [AVTCORE] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02.txt

"Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 28 June 2011 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.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 6AC5321F85DB; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RkaNERNxvmFz; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A4E21F85E5; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p5SCkuWj009414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:47:37 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.50]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:47:34 +0200
From: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Peter Musgrave <musgravepj@gmail.com>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:47:32 +0200
Thread-Topic: [AVTCORE] [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02.txt
Thread-Index: AcwrWZXiMHWlXe0gSbKRw5gcP95QVQKNy0EQ
Message-ID: <5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC96215F28F7F8@FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <01c501cc1c16$ebad8ea0$46298a0a@china.huawei.com> <BFEA47ED-8F65-476A-BBD4-D369493B9D22@csperkins.org> <029f01cc274c$b8fe19c0$46298a0a@china.huawei.com> <AD38C157-C7DB-4E8A-8603-D87C5A411182@csperkins.org> <BANLkTinQp6nszTDpnKM6M2BUaNvR_cLUWw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinQp6nszTDpnKM6M2BUaNvR_cLUWw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC96215F28F7F8FRMRSSXCHMBSD_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.83
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] [AVTCORE] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02.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: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:47:52 -0000

>> This helps, but to my mind doesn't go far enough. We have the SSRC to identify participants. I don't see much benefit from having a separate identity tag in XR blocks.
Question for clarification:
do you question just the tag element of the proposed measurement identity block (draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-02.txt), or do you want to get completely rid of the the measurement identity block as such?

Keeping in mind that the measurement identity block provides much more capabilities when just the SSRC of the measured stream.

Thanks,
Albrecht


________________________________
From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Musgrave
Sent: Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2011 14:41
To: Colin Perkins
Cc: avt@ietf.org; xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02.txt

I agree with Colin

Peter Musgrave
(as individual)

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org<mailto:csp@csperkins.org>> wrote:
On 10 Jun 2011, at 09:59, Qin Wu wrote:
> Hi,
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Colin Perkins" <csp@csperkins.org<mailto:csp@csperkins.org>>
>> To: "Qin Wu" <sunseawq@huawei.com<mailto:sunseawq@huawei.com>>
>> Cc: <avt@ietf.org<mailto:avt@ietf.org>>; <xrblock@ietf.org<mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>>; <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com<mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 9:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02.txt
>>
>>
>> On 27 May 2011, at 03:36, Qin Wu wrote:
>>> This version addresses the open issues regarding identity information repetition and acknowledge section.
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02.txt
>>>
>>> The diff is:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02
>>>
>>> Comments are welcome!
>>
>> This helps, but to my mind doesn't go far enough. We have the SSRC to identify participants. I don't see much benefit from having a separate identity tag in XR blocks.
>>
> [Qin]:  I think that we are talking about how to define future RTCP XR Block. It seems to me the rule we are following  to define the new RTCP XR BLock in the avtcore-monarch is a little different from the rule of we are doing to the existing RTCP XR described in RFC3611.
>
> As for the existing XR Block defined in RFC3611, each of the existing XR Block has allocated  a field for SSRC of source. However such identity information can be repeated several times if several metric blocks reporting one stream from one source  is carried in the same RTCP Packet.
>
> In order to reduce overhead to carry duplicated SSRC of source in each metric block,  in the new XR Block, we separate such SSRC of source out from each metric block.
>
> One way is to  allocate identity tag field in each metric block which can be used to tell which metric block report on stream from which source.
>
> Another way is to follow the existing rules defined in RFC3611. put back the SSRC of source field into each metric block which also can be used to tell which metric block report on stream from which source.
> However this rule seems to contradict to the rule of reducing identity information repetition discussed in avtcore-monarch.
>
> Which way we should follow?


I think you should follow RFC 3611.

The savings from using the new identity tag don't seem worth the added complexity.

--
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/



_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
avt@ietf.org<mailto:avt@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt