[xrblock] proposed change to discard draft for the issue: duplication packet discards
Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Thu, 16 August 2012 03:28 UTC
Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 7538121F85AE for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_72=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, 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 fDFxrBjYwAxq for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4B721F85AF for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AJL40393; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:28:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:26:48 -0700
Received: from SZXEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.95) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:26:46 -0700
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml408-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:26:41 +0800
Message-ID: <53777A58EAB149DDA8395907307F29B0@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: xrblock@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:26:40 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0140_01CD7BA2.018B09A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: [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: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 03:28:42 -0000
Hi, Discard count metric block draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-05) supports reporting discards due to packet duplication. It was suggested on the list to provide backgound information for duplication packet discards. In the Vancouver meeting,we re-discussed duplication packet discards issue. It was pointed out RTP packet duplication is not standard method and may break RTCP rules when we do RTCP statistics reporting. Combining these comments and incorporated proposed change from Varun earlier on the list, I propose the following change to the defintion part of Discard Type. OLD TEXT: " An endpoint MAY send only one of the discard types (early, late, duplication packets discard) in one RTCP report or choose to report early (DT=1) and late (DT=2), duplication packets discard (DT=0) in separate block. It MAY also send the combined early and late discard type (DT=2) in one RTCP compound packet, but not any other combination of the three Discard Types. The endpoint MUST not report the the total number of discarded packets covering all three discard types. Instead, two separate report blocks should be used to carry duplication packets discard and the combined early and late discard respectively. " NEW TEXT: " An endpoint MAY report only one of the above four discard types blocks in an compound RTCP report in a reporting interval. It MAY also report a combination of discard types in a compound RTCP report but not all combinations are valid. The endpoint MAY report duplicate packet discard (DT=0) block with any other discard (DT=1, 2, or 3) block. Additionally, an endpoint MUST NOT report combined discard (DT=3) block with early discard (DT=1) or late discard (DT=2) report block. Note that duplicating RTP packets using RTP replication may lead to breakage of RTP media streams or RTCP rules. In order not to disrupt all the RTCP statistics, it is recommended to duplicate RTP packets as described in [draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-duplication-00] which will not cause breakage. " Also in the meeting, Kevin raised we should add some text to clarify the use cases and suggest to put into the section 1.4 applicability section. I propose the following change to the section 1.4 as follows: OLD TEXT: " 1.4. Applicability This metric is believed to be applicable to a large class of RTP applications which use a jitter buffer. " NEW TEXT: " 1.4. Applicability This metric is believed to be applicable to a large class of RTP applications which use a jitter buffer. For example, in one reporting interval, when packets were received but dropped from the jitter buffer due to either buffer underflow or buffer overflow or both, the discard count metric can be used to report such packet discards. In some other cases(e.g., desktop video conferencing), duplicating RTP packets using RTP replication may be used by media receiver for error concealment. These duplicated packets can be counted as discards when they are not used and dropped by application from jitter buffer, in such cases, the discard count metric can be used to report such packet discards due to packet duplication. " Regards! -Qin
- [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