Rapid Synchronisation of RTP Flows
draft-ietf-avt-rapid-rtp-sync-13
Yes
(Robert Sparks)
No Objection
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-06-02)
Unknown
A good document, thanks. I found "can be synchronised immediately" jarred a little. I guess it is immediate from a certain point of time :-)
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-07-01)
Unknown
What is the impact of some of the elements in the multimedia session not being updated to support these extensions? One of the cases mentioned in the document is middleboxes that may not understand the header extensions and may remove them, another would be if some of the receivers or the sender are not updated. I understand that the protocol extensions are designed robustly and with backwards compatibility in mind so that nothing breaks, but what are the tools at hands of a manager to understand which elements in the network support the extensions and which ones do not? From the discussions with the editors I understand that these cases are known and understood and that there are methods for a nertwork operator to detect them like logging which receivers are generating rapid resynchronisation requests or inspecting the signalling exchange (for in-band delivery of synchronisation metadata). It would be good if these were documented in the RFC.
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-06-02)
Unknown
1. Have the identifiers "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ntp-56" and "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ntp-64" passed Expert Review in accordance with RFC 5285? 2. Please check some of the lower-case conformance language ("may", "should", "must"). Here are some examples where the all-caps versions might be appropriate: The RTP extension for unicast-based rapid acquisition of multicast RTP sessions [16] may be used to reduce the time taken to receive the access points in some scenarios. If the use of non-compound RTCP [5] was previously negotiated, both the feedback request and the RTCP SR response may be sent as non-compound RTCP packets. The media source may ignore RTCP-SR-REQ packets if its regular schedule for transmission of synchronisation metadata can be expected to allow the receiver to synchronise the media streams within a reasonable time frame. Once a receiver has synchronised the components of a layered, multi- description, or multi-view flow using the RTP header extensions as described in Section 4.1, it may then derive a decoding order based on the synchronised timestamps as follows (or it may use information in the RTP payload header to derive the decoding order, if present and desired). Flows may also include packets corresponding to additional sampling instants that are not present in the flows on which they depend. The decoding order of the RTP flow hierarchy may be indicated by mechanisms defined in [8] or by some other means. These timestamps may be derived using the NTP format timestamp provided in the RTCP sender reports or as shown in the figure directly from the NTP timestamp contained in the RTP header extensions as indicate by the timestamp in "<x>". If a feedback target receives an RTCP-SR-REQ feedback message in such a case, the request should be forwarded to the media source. Receivers should use both the information contained in RTCP SR packets and the in-band mapping of RTP and NTP- format timestamps as input to the synchronisation process, For H.264 SVC, the Empty NAL unit packet [9] should be used. The receiver should decode the packets in all the component RTP flows as follows: Accordingly, a receiver must estimate the skew on the NTP-format clock in order to align RTP timestamps across sessions. o The sender must negotiate the use of the RTP header extensions described in Section 3.3, and must periodically and synchronously insert such header extensions into all the RTP flows forming the separate components of the layered, multi-description, or multi- view flow. For other uses of the lowercase words, you might consider changing "may" to "might" or "can", "should" to "ought" or "will", and "must" to "needs to" or some other appropriate phrase.
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-06-02)
Unknown
Questions about 2119 language (i.e., should these be capitalized?): 1) and media security keys should have been ... 2) the request should be forwarded to the media source ... 3) Receivers should use both the ... 4) The sender must negotiate the use of the RTP header extensions described in Section 3.3, and must periodically ... 5) For H.264 SVC, the Empty NAL unit packet [9] should be used. 6) The receiver should decode ...
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-06-03)
Unknown
I support Sean's discuss on clock synchronization