Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft for the issue:duplication packet discards
Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 22 August 2012 17:35 UTC
Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 AB8D121F8624 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 6fLq+eVbTc9Y for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lon1-msapost-2.mail.demon.net (lon1-msapost-2.mail.demon.net [195.173.77.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF2E21F8620 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.247.112]) by lon1-post-2.mail.demon.net with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1T4Epy-0002nE-bR; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:35:26 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_79D0771E-B605-4CD2-9BF5-F64CC972943A"
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <B5FA0A12FF6548B8B538DC7958295DEC@china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:35:25 +0100
Message-Id: <78E3FF86-53FF-4E52-8885-4CDFB25C4008@csperkins.org>
References: <CC53B1A9.4935B%alan.d.clark@telchemy.com><D04380D1-7EC7-4F4C-A22B-EEE374A452A8@csperkins.org><CALw1_Q0EHyf98AFt4O=53BKAKtQAq4cyUZKqA1DeoPs1dovxNw@mail.gmail.com> <05210899-B3BD-4E02-99A4-71469B6B12E6@csperkins.org> <E107A66D6D774BCB93CA1E1D2045D6BD@china.huawei.com> <A43F1D04-F8D8-4651-A12A-0EFFB5DE5F86@csperkins.org> <B5FA0A12FF6548B8B538DC7958295DEC@china.huawei.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft for the issue:duplication packet discards
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: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:35:28 -0000
On 22 Aug 2012, at 03:52, Qin Wu wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Colin Perkins > To: Qin Wu > Cc: Kevin Gross ; xrblock@ietf.org > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:02 AM > Subject: Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft for the issue:duplication packet discards > > Qin, > > On 20 Aug 2012, at 05:44, Qin Wu wrote: >> Hi, >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Colin Perkins >> To: Kevin Gross >> Cc: xrblock@ietf.org >> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 12:12 AM >> Subject: Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft for the issue:duplication packet discards >> >> Kevin, >> >> On 17 Aug 2012, at 18:11, Kevin Gross wrote: >>> I don't think it is necessary or appropriate to include this sort of value judgement. What is expensive? What is necessary? At best, this is getting tangential. I support the original wording of Qin's note though I think it should be a separate paragraph and perhaps marked as a note. >> >> Qin's original wording seems to me to be encouraging duplication. I do not support that, since it does break RTCP statistics if done in the naïve way implied. I'm happy if someone wants to propose a more neutral wording, part-way between my suggestion and Qin's text. >> >> [Qin]: How about rephrasing it as follows: >> " >> Note that duplicating RTP packets is for robustness or error resilience but may disrupts RTCP statitics. >> In order to tackle this, the mechanism described in [draft-ietf-avext-rtp-duplication-00] can be used which >> will not cause breakage of RTP streams or RTCP rules. >> " >> This statement will put as an indepent paragraph as Kevin suggested. > > The "may disrupt RTCP statistics" is misleading: duplicating RTP packets in the naïve manner _will_ break RTCP. > > [Qin]:Okay, how about removing "may" from the proposed text? That would improve it, although to my mind a stronger statement would still be desirable. -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/
- [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft for th… Qin Wu
- Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft fo… Colin Perkins
- Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft fo… Alan Clark
- Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft fo… Colin Perkins
- Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft fo… Kevin Gross
- Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft fo… Colin Perkins
- Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft fo… Qin Wu
- Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft fo… Qin Wu
- Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft fo… Colin Perkins
- Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft fo… Qin Wu
- Re: [xrblock] proposed change to discard draft fo… Colin Perkins