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

I was talking about the tag mechanism.

Colin

On 28 Jun 2011, at 13:47, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:

> >> 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> wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2011, at 09:59, Qin Wu wrote:
> > Hi,
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Colin Perkins" <csp@csperkins.org>
> >> To: "Qin Wu" <sunseawq@huawei.com>
> >> Cc: <avt@ietf.org>; <xrblock@ietf.org>; <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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

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