RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extension for a Third-Party Loss Report
draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-17
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-05-01
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-04-30
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2012-04-27
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-04-27
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-04-24
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-04-24
|
17 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-04-23
|
17 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-04-23
|
17 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2012-04-23
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-04-23
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-04-23
|
17 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-04-13
|
17 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-17.txt |
2012-04-12
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-04-12
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot comment] moved from DISCUSS to COMMENT after emails from authors: (1) "screwed up" in Section 6.5 is not very technical; please say what is … [Ballot comment] moved from DISCUSS to COMMENT after emails from authors: (1) "screwed up" in Section 6.5 is not very technical; please say what is really wrong (loss, corruption, reordering, etc.) (2) Section 1 lists a number of *BUGS* in implementations as the motivations for this. It starts by saying that a use case for this is people not implementing RFC 4585 dithering correctly, then says that another use case is that there are other poor designs causing implosions of FIRs. It seems silly to write this new RFC adding a new mechanism rather than just applying pressure to fix those implementations; it would be useful to discuss why that isn't the right answer, since receivers have to implement reactions to this new report anyways, they should be fixing their bugs. I think this is an especially relevant question given the lack of implementation noted in the writeup and Pete's ballot. |
2012-04-12
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Wesley Eddy has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-04-12
|
16 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-04-11
|
16 | Francis Dupont | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2012-04-11
|
16 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Had the same question Stephen had. |
2012-04-11
|
16 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-04-10
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot discuss] (1) "screwed up" in Section 6.5 is not very technical; please say what is really wrong (loss, corruption, reordering, etc.) (2) Section 1 … [Ballot discuss] (1) "screwed up" in Section 6.5 is not very technical; please say what is really wrong (loss, corruption, reordering, etc.) (2) Section 1 lists a number of *BUGS* in implementations as the motivations for this. It starts by saying that a use case for this is people not implementing RFC 4585 dithering correctly, then says that another use case is that there are other poor designs causing implosions of FIRs. It seems silly to write this new RFC adding a new mechanism rather than just applying pressure to fix those implementations; it would be useful to discuss why that isn't the right answer, since receivers have to implement reactions to this new report anyways, they should be fixing their bugs. I think this is an especially relevant question given the lack of implementation noted in the writeup and Pete's ballot. |
2012-04-10
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-04-10
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Just checking: there's no way that a 3rd party loss report could cause a flood of re-transmitted data (that hadn't actually been lost) … [Ballot comment] Just checking: there's no way that a 3rd party loss report could cause a flood of re-transmitted data (that hadn't actually been lost) to be (re-)sent to a target is there? If so, that might constitute a new DoS vector. Its not clearly the case that that can't happen. If it could, then that'd be another reason to authenticate these messages. nits/typos: - s/to pose/pose/ - s/message,which/message, which/ - maybe s/the distribution source will not/if the distribution source will not/ in 6.1? (and some missing spaces there too)o - I like "badly screwed up" as a descriptive phrase! |
2012-04-10
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-04-10
|
16 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-04-09
|
16 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-04-09
|
16 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-04-09
|
16 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-04-08
|
16 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] The document writeup says, "There are not yet any reported implementations." Are you really saying that for a protocol that appears to have … [Ballot comment] The document writeup says, "There are not yet any reported implementations." Are you really saying that for a protocol that appears to have serious congestion control effects, nobody has written a line of code yet? Has there been any testing of this at all? Are there any planned implementations (perhaps by more than one independent implementer)? If not, perhaps this should be published as Experimental first. |
2012-04-08
|
16 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-04-08
|
16 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-04-05
|
16 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2012-04-05
|
16 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2012-04-05
|
16 | Robert Sparks | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-04-04
|
16 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I just have a few questions on this draft: 1. The Protocol Overview section states : "Intermediaries in the network that receive a … [Ballot comment] I just have a few questions on this draft: 1. The Protocol Overview section states : "Intermediaries in the network that receive a RTCP TPLR SHOULD NOT send their own additional Third-Party Loss Report messages for the same packet sequence numbers." Why is this not a MUST? Is it simply to handle intermediate devices that don't support this function? If there is another scenario where a device may send a TPLR that overlaps, it would be good to spell that out. 2. There are two places (Sections 4.1 & 4.2) where the length field in the feedback message is set to "2+1*N". Should I interpret that to mean the value is really just N+2? Or is there something I am missing? |
2012-04-04
|
16 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-03-30
|
16 | Robert Sparks | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-04-12 |
2012-03-30
|
16 | Robert Sparks | Ballot has been issued |
2012-03-30
|
16 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-03-30
|
16 | Robert Sparks | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-03-30
|
16 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-16.txt |
2012-03-26
|
15 | Magnus Westerlund | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2012-03-26
|
15 | Magnus Westerlund | Publication was requested on the 23 feb 2012. |
2012-03-26
|
15 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-03-24
|
15 | Francis Dupont | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2012-03-16
|
15 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2012-03-16
|
15 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2012-03-15
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2012-03-15
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2012-03-14
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2012-03-14
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2012-03-12
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2012-03-12
|
15 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (RTCP Extension for Third-party Loss Report) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document: - 'RTCP Extension for Third-party Loss Report' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-26. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract In a large RTP session using the RTCP feedback mechanism defined in RFC 4585, a feedback target may experience transient overload if some event causes a large number of receivers to send feedback at once. This overload is usually avoided by ensuring that feedback reports are forwarded to all receivers, allowing them to avoid sending duplicate feedback reports. However, there are cases where it is not recommended to forward feedback reports, and this may allow feedback implosion. This memo discusses these cases and defines a new RTCP third-party loss report that can be used to inform receivers that the feedback target is aware of some loss event, allowing them to suppress feedback. Associated SDP signalling is also defined. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-03-12
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-03-10
|
15 | Robert Sparks | Last call was requested |
2012-03-10
|
15 | Robert Sparks | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-03-10
|
15 | Robert Sparks | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-03-10
|
15 | Robert Sparks | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-03-10
|
15 | Robert Sparks | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-03-10
|
15 | Robert Sparks | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-03-08
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-03-08
|
15 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-15.txt |
2012-03-05
|
14 | Robert Sparks | Still need changes reconciling the recommendations to ignore feedback suppression and clarifying the IANA considerations seciton. |
2012-03-05
|
14 | Robert Sparks | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-03-01
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-03-01
|
14 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-14.txt |
2012-03-01
|
13 | Robert Sparks | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested |
2012-02-23
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | WG Shepherd writeup for "RTCP Extension for Third-party Loss Report" draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-13 to be requested to be published as proposed standard. (1.a) Who is the … WG Shepherd writeup for "RTCP Extension for Third-party Loss Report" draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-13 to be requested to be published as proposed standard. (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The Document Shepherd is Magnus Westerlund. He has completely reviewed 09, and has reviewed all the changes of all the following versions. He does believe that the document is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document has gotten adequate review by WG members, including key ones. There has not been seen any need for WG external review. The shepherd has no issue with the amount of review although more would never hurt. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No such issues. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No concerns. There are no IPR disclosures against the WG document nor, the indiviudal document which the WG one is based on. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG consensus is strong among a small group of WG participants. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No such opinions voiced. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes, the shepherd has checked the document. There is no formal review criteria required on this document. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The references are split. No down-refs appear to exist. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA sections appears to be consistent and uses existing regestries to add the extension into them. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No formal language used. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary In a large RTP session using the RTCP feedback mechanism defined in RFC 4585, a feedback target may experience transient overload if some event causes a large number of receivers to send feedback at once. This overload is usually avoided by ensuring that feedback reports are forwarded to all receivers, allowing them to avoid sending duplicate feedback reports. However, there are cases where it is not recommended to forward feedback reports, and this may allow feedback implosion. This memo discusses these cases and defines a new RTCP third-party loss report that can be used to inform receivers that the feedback target is aware of some loss event, allowing them to suppress feedback. Associated SDP signalling is also defined. Working Group Summary There is strong consensus among an adequate number of WG participants on this solution. Document Quality There are not yet any reported implementations. The document has had reasonable review. |
2012-02-23
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2012-02-23
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Magnus Westerlund (magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
2012-02-23
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | Publication requested sent by email. |
2012-02-23
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2012-02-23
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | Changed protocol writeup |
2012-02-22
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-13.txt |
2012-02-17
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-12.txt |
2012-02-10
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-11.txt |
2012-02-06
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-10.txt |
2012-01-19
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | WG last call started with last day the 3rd of February. Shepherds comments sent to list. |
2012-01-19
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2011-11-29
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-09.txt |
2011-10-25
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-08.txt |
2011-09-26
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-07.txt |
2011-08-31
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-06.txt |
2011-07-11
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-05.txt |
2011-05-27
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-04.txt |
2011-05-12
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-03.txt |
2011-05-06
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-02.txt |
2011-04-15
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-01.txt |
2011-02-15
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-00.txt |