Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Proposal for LS reply regarding RTCP bandwidth negotiation

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 20:50:21 +0200

Hi,
The liaison looks OK to me.
I agree with using option B in the first comment and to allow increasing BW
in the answer. 
As for comment 2 I assume that you are saying that the tradeoffs between
increasing RTCP and reducing RTP bw using same session bw, or increasing the
total session bw can be used to provide more RTCP bw with or without chaning
RTP bw. These options should be documented.

On the RR and SR value 0 are you suggesting to change RFC 3556.  I am not
sure it is a good question to ask 3GPP if they did not mention it
themselves; I am not supportive of the topic of negotiation of the use of
RTCP. So suggest to remove this comment
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Magnus Westerlund
Sent: 01 August, 2012 3:36 AM
To: mmusic (E-mail)
Subject: [MMUSIC] Proposal for LS reply regarding RTCP bandwidth negotiation

MMUSIC WG,

Below you find my proposal for a reply to the LS we received from 3GPP
SA4 WG.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1159/

This is intended as a starting point for a discussion of what reply we as WG
want to send. So please review it and send comments on this.

I would highly appreciate any insights how this issues is currently dealt
with in any implementations. If we have knowledge of multiple different
solutions then that is something we should indicate. Also if any existing
solution clashes with SA4's proposed solution.

I also raise the question if we should initiate any update of RFC 3556.
And if we can come to such an agreement and have volunteers we may be able
to strengthen the language in the last paragraph. Otherwise that language is
intended to signal a preference for the driving parties in
SA4 to come help us update the RFC in MMUSIC WG.

===
Source: IETF MMUSIC WG
To: 3GPP TSG SA WG4 (SA4)

Title: Reply regarding On RTCP Bandwidth Negotiation

MMUSIC WG thanks SA4 for seeking our input on this topic. We agree with
SA4's identification that there exist no well defined behavior for the
negotiation of the RTCP bandwidth parameters RR and RS when used in
Offer/Answer context to negotiate a unicast transported RTP session. It is
clear that the RTP session participating end-points do need to agree on
common values or there exist a potential for interoperability failures.

Regarding the proposed recommendations for negotiation MMUSIC WG has the
following comments.

1. Based on the limitations of Offer/Answer and the requirement on arriving
at a common RTCP bandwidth value for RR and RS respectively there exist only
two possible choices. A. that the Offerer dictates the bandwidth values
without any possibilities for B to change the values, or B. as proposed in
the LS that the Offerer suggest a value that the Answerer may modify. On
that high level MMUSIC WG considers the proposed solution appropriate

2. However, we do consider the limitation that the answerer only can keep or
reduce the bandwidth values to a be a potential issue in the proposed
recommendation. The reason is that the answering party then have no way of
increasing the value if the peer agent is not willing to accept the higher
suggested values in a subsequent Offer. This may appear a reasonable
behavior in many cases and considering limited total bandwidth on the path
between the agents. However, when an agent requires a higher RTCP bandwidth
due to its usage of some RTCP based extensions this could prevent such
functionality from being used. And the bandwidth usage could be addressed by
having the answering party to reduce the total RTP session bandwidth in its
answer and be forced to reduce the bit-rate delivered to the other agent in
proportion to the increase of the RTCP bandwidth.

3. Has any special consideration been taken around the usage of RR or RS
parameter values of 0. If either offerer or answerer intended to turn off
RTCP completely or for receivers only, it is questionable that this should
have precedence over the other agents desire to use RTCP.

MMUSIC may consider to update RFC 3556 to amend the lack of Offer/Answer
rules for the RR and RS bandwidth parameters. This would be to provide all
users of the RTCP bandwidth parameter with guidance on this issue.
If the participants in SA4 WG considers that appropriate, MMUSIC WG would
highly appreciate any engagement from the SA4 participants in the MMUSIC WG.

Actions: None

-- end of proposed LS reply --

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 11:01:20 -0700

> RTP bw. These options should be documented.

I wanted to point out that you can allow increasing the value in a
response without affecting the total bandwidth as that is likely a
concern for the offerer.

> RTCP. So suggest to remove this comment

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. My intention was to
try to request that it is clarified about the usage of 0. So if I offer
a non-zero value are the answer really allowed to turn off RTCP? The
3GPP proposal do allow for turning off RTCP as proposed.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:27:45 +0200

Magnus,
Inline
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 01 August, 2012 8:01 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 'mmusic (E-mail)'
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Proposal for LS reply regarding RTCP bandwidth
negotiation

On 2012-08-01 11:50, Roni Even wrote:
> I agree with using option B in the first comment and to allow 
> increasing BW in the answer.
> As for comment 2 I assume that you are saying that the tradeoffs 
> between increasing RTCP and reducing RTP bw using same session bw, or 
> increasing the total session bw can be used to provide more RTCP bw 
> with or without chaning RTP bw. These options should be documented.

I wanted to point out that you can allow increasing the value in a response
without affecting the total bandwidth as that is likely a concern for the
offerer.

RE: this was not clear to me from the text since you talk also about
increasing or decreasing the total bw.

> 
> On the RR and SR value 0 are you suggesting to change RFC 3556.  I am 
> not sure it is a good question to ask 3GPP if they did not mention it 
> themselves; I am not supportive of the topic of negotiation of the use 
> of RTCP. So suggest to remove this comment

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. My intention was to try
to request that it is clarified about the usage of 0. So if I offer a
non-zero value are the answer really allowed to turn off RTCP? The 3GPP
proposal do allow for turning off RTCP as proposed.

RE: maybe point in the answer to RFC3556 for this comment " Has any special
consideration been taken around the usage of RR or RS parameter values of 0
as specified in RFC3556"

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:36:16 +0200

A reminder to the WG.

We indicated earlier in the meeting that we have only 2 additional days 
for commenting Magnus'es proposed answer to this LS. We are aiming to get 
an agreed response by this Friday August 3rd.

/Miguel

On 01/08/2012 3:35, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> This is intended as a starting point for a discussion of what reply we
> as WG want to send. So please review it and send comments on this.
>
> I would highly appreciate any insights how this issues is currently
> dealt with in any implementations. If we have knowledge of multiple
> different solutions then that is something we should indicate. Also if
> any existing solution clashes with SA4's proposed solution.
>
> And if we can come to such an agreement and have volunteers we may be
> able to strengthen the language in the last paragraph. Otherwise that
> language is intended to signal a preference for the driving parties in
> Offer/Answer context to negotiate a unicast transported RTP session. It
> is clear that the RTP session participating end-points do need to agree
> on common values or there exist a potential for interoperability failures.
>
> 1. Based on the limitations of Offer/Answer and the requirement on
> arriving at a common RTCP bandwidth value for RR and RS respectively
> there exist only two possible choices. A. that the Offerer dictates the
> bandwidth values without any possibilities for B to change the values,
> or B. as proposed in the LS that the Offerer suggest a value that
> the Answerer may modify. On that high level MMUSIC WG considers the
> proposed solution appropriate
>
> 2. However, we do consider the limitation that the answerer only can
> keep or reduce the bandwidth values to a be a potential issue in the
> proposed recommendation. The reason is that the answering party then
> have no way of increasing the value if the peer agent is not willing to
> accept the higher suggested values in a subsequent Offer. This may
> appear a reasonable behavior in many cases and considering limited total
> bandwidth on the path between the agents. However, when an agent
> requires a higher RTCP bandwidth due to its usage of some RTCP based
> extensions this could prevent such functionality from being used. And
> the bandwidth usage could be addressed by having the answering party to
> reduce the total RTP session bandwidth in its answer and be forced to
> reduce the bit-rate delivered to the other agent in proportion to the
> increase of the RTCP bandwidth.
>
> parameter values of 0. If either offerer or answerer intended to turn
> off RTCP completely or for receivers only, it is questionable that this
> should have precedence over the other agents desire to use RTCP.
>
> rules for the RR and RS bandwidth parameters. This would be to provide
> all users of the RTCP bandwidth parameter with guidance on this issue.
> If the participants in SA4 WG considers that appropriate, MMUSIC WG
> would highly appreciate any engagement from the SA4 participants in
> the MMUSIC WG.
>
> Actions: None
>

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:18:19 +0200

Hi,

Many thanks to Magnus and Roni for discussing the wording of this LS 
resposne. This is to close the discussion on this topic.

There is general agreement on the LS. I believe Roni ask to add a 
reference to RFC 3556 in our bullet point #3.

This is the final response that we will be forwarding to 3GPP SA4.

/Miguel

==========

Source: IETF MMUSIC WG

3. Has any special consideration been taken around the usage of RR or RS
parameter values of 0 as specified in RFC 3556? If either offerer or 
answerer intended to turn off RTCP completely or for receivers only, it 
is questionable that this should have precedence over the other agents 
desire to use RTCP.

=========

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain