Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC of last set of changes to Bundle (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-22) - Magnus' comments

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:34:02 +0000

Hi,

In order to address the issue raised by Magnus, I suggest the following modification:

OLD:

10.3.1.  General

   When a BUNDLE group, which contains RTP based media, is created, the
   offerer and answerer MUST negotiate whether to enable RTP/RTCP
   multiplexing for the RTP based media associated with the BUNDLE group
   [RFC5761].

   If RTP/RTCP multiplexing is enabled, the same address:port
   combination will be used for receiving (and sending) all RTP packets
   and the RTCP packets associated with the BUNDLE group.  Each endpoint
   will send the packets towards the BUNDLE address of the other
   endpoint.

   If RTP/RTCP multiplexing is not enabled, separate address:port
   combinations will be used for receiving (and sending) the RTP packets
   and the RTCP packets.  If the remote endpoint has associated an SDP
   'rtcp' attribute with the "m=" line associated with the BUNDLE-tag,
   the attribute value will be used for sending all RTCP packets
   associated with the BUNDLE group towards that endpoint.

NEW:

10.3.1.  General

   When a BUNDLE group, which contains RTP based media, is created, the
   offerer and answerer MUST negotiate whether to enable RTP/RTCP
   multiplexing for the RTP based media associated with the BUNDLE group
   [RFC5761].

   If RTP/RTCP multiplexing is enabled, the same address:port
   combination will be used for sending all RTP packets
   and the RTCP packets associated with the BUNDLE group.  Each endpoint
   will send the packets towards the BUNDLE address of the other
   endpoint. The same address:port combination MAY be used
   for receiving RTP packets and RTCP packets.

   If RTP/RTCP multiplexing is not enabled, separate address:port
   combinations will be used for sending the RTP packets
   and the RTCP packets.  The same address:port combinations
   MAY be used for receiving RTP packets and RTCP packets.
   If the remote endpoint has associated an SDP
   'rtcp' attribute with the "m=" line associated with the BUNDLE-tag,
   the attribute value will be used for sending all RTCP packets
   associated with the BUNDLE group towards that endpoint.

Regards,

Christer

From: mmusic [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: 25. kesäkuuta 2015 8:19
To: Magnus Westerlund; mmusic
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC of last set of changes to Bundle (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-22)

Hi Magnus,

Thanks for your comment!

Regarding RTP/RTCP mux, I guess it should be clarified that one uses single address:ports for sending and receiving RTP and RTCP, but that those address:ports don't have to be the same.

I'll think of some wording.

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Magnus Westerlund<mailto:[email-masked]>
Sent: ‎23/‎06/‎2015 10:14
To: mmusic<mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC of last set of changes to Bundle (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-22)
Hi,

I looked at the changes and wonder if I spotted an inconsistency?
Otherwise things looks good.

In Section 5 text was changed to enable non-symmetric RTP usages.
Resulting in the following text:

    The address:port combination used for sending bundled media
    MAY be the same as the BUNDLE address, used to receive bundled media,
    depending on whether symmetric RTP [RFC4961] is used.

 From 10.3.1:

    If RTP/RTCP multiplexing is enabled, the same address:port
    combination will be used for receiving (and sending) all RTP packets
    and the RTCP packets associated with the BUNDLE group.  Each endpoint
    will send the packets towards the BUNDLE address of the other
    endpoint.

This appears to strongly suggest that one should/must use symmetric RTP
when doing RTP/RTCP muxing. However, I find nothing in RFC 5761 that
mandates usage of symmetric RTP with RTP/RTCP Mux, even if it the text
is written with that as an assumption, I find nothing that prevents
non-symmetric sending.

Thus, I wonder if the text in 10.3.1 needs to be updated to avoid this
issue.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:54:54 +0200

Hi,

I think this looks okay from my perspective and will resolve my issue.

Cheers

Magnus

Christer Holmberg skrev den 2015-07-13 12:34:
> *_OLD:_*
> *_NEW:_*
> *From:*mmusic [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Christer
> Holmberg
> *Sent:* 25. kesäkuuta 2015 8:19
> *To:* Magnus Westerlund; mmusic
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC of last set of changes to Bundle
> (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-22)
>
> Hi Magnus,
>
> Thanks for your comment!
>
> Regarding RTP/RTCP mux, I guess it should be clarified that one uses
> single address:ports for sending and receiving RTP and RTCP, but that
> those address:ports don't have to be the same.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From: *Magnus Westerlund <mailto:[email-masked]>
> *Sent: *‎23/‎06/‎2015 10:14
> *To: *mmusic <mailto:[email-masked]>
> *Cc: [email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>
> *Subject: *Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC of last set of changes to Bundle
> (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-22)
>
> Hi,
>
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:51:10 +0000

Thanks, Magnus!

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Magnus Westerlund<mailto:[email-masked]>
Sent: ‎14/‎07/‎2015 19:54
To: Christer Holmberg<mailto:[email-masked]>; mmusic<mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC of last set of changes to Bundle (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-22) - Magnus' comments

Hi,

Cheers

Magnus

Christer Holmberg skrev den 2015-07-13 12:34:
> <mailto:[email-masked]>

--

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 17:13:42 -0400

Based on this and the other comments received from this final WGLC, we 
consider the Bundle draft done and ready to move forward. Christer will 
be submitting an updated document per the comments received, and we will 
then move ahead with a publication request.

Thank you for all the contributions and reviews from everybody.

-- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair)

On 7/14/15 3:51 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> From: Magnus Westerlund <mailto:[email-masked]>
> To: Christer Holmberg <mailto:[email-masked]>; mmusic 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC of last set of changes to Bundle 
> (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-22) - Magnus' comments
>
> Hi,
>
> [email-masked]