Hi,
I have the following comments on this document, I think version 7 or 8
was the last version I read before my parental leave.
1. Applicability statement: I think this document should have an
applicability statement making clear that this is only for engineered
environments due to the traffic bursts.
2. Section 6.2, bullet 5: I don't think the document is clear on that
the BRS is expected to determine if a RAMS-R is a retransmission or an
update based on if any content of the message has been changed.
3. I worried that what is intended to be an RAMS-R update from the
client will be interpreted as new RAMS-R request. The reason is the only
that separates these two cases are timing, does it arrive before the
burst ends or not. Relying on this heuristics is quite weak and error
prone. I still wished that an sequence number had been added to RAMS-R.
4. Section 6.2, bullet 5: " Thus, the RTP_Rx MUST choose a globally
unique CNAME identifier."
I don't think this is a statement that can either be fulfilled nor
tested. You can mandate a method for selecting CNAMEs that has low risk
of producing CNAME collisions, but nothing can guarantee it unless a
entity is coordinating the CNAME space for all clients. Can you mandate
the method instead?
If I understand the impact of a CNAME collision is that the collision
clients request will be mixed up, for example terminating each others
request, or update the values in the RAMS-R.
5. Section 6.4 and others: The draft has a tendency of formulating
itself as everything is guaranteed to work as long as one keep within
given limits for bandwidth etc. An example from Section 7.2 Max Receive
Bitrate TLV:
If specified, the total bitrate of the unicast burst(s) plus any
payload-specific information MUST NOT be larger than this value.
Otherwise, congestion and packet loss may occur.
The last sentence I would formulate as:
"Otherwise, congestion and packet loss are much likelier to occur"
Even if one stays within this value congestion and packet loss may
occur. This is not the only case, but when I actually decided this seems
to be an issue, I hadn't taken note of all examples I seen.
6. Section 7:
Each feedback message has a fixed-length field for version, padding,
feedback message type (FMT), payload type (PT), length, SSRC of
packet sender, SSRC of media sender as well as a variable-length
field for feedback control information (FCI).
What is called "Payload type" is actually "Packet Type" in RTCP packet
headers.
7. Section 7.3:
"The MSN value SHALL
be set to zero only when a new RAMS request is received."
How is that actually known? And why reset it at all? Why not increase if
for each new RAMS-I message with new content, independently if it is an
update or a new request.
8. Section 7.3:
"When the RTP_Rx receives a RAMS-I message with a response code
that it does not understand, the RTP_Rx MUST send a RAMS-T message
immediately to the BRS."
Which media sender SSRC should the client direct this request to if it
hasn't been signalled in SDP nor any RTP/RTCP packets received?
9. Section 7.3, Media Sender SSRC TLV:
" While this
information is already available in the message header, it can be
useful to repeat it in an explicit field."
This sentence seems out of place compared to the rest of the text.
10. Section 7.3, RTP Seqnum of the First Packet TLV:
How is this TLV bound to the SSRC number if is for? This is not
explicitly explained.
11. Section 7.4:
Each of these RAMS-T messages has
the appropriate media sender SSRC populated in its message header.
Instead of writing "appropriate" cant you simply write " Each of these
RAMS-T message's media sender SSRC SHALL BE populated with the SSRC of
the Media Stream to be terminated."
12. Section 8.3:
"This section provides a declarative SDP [RFC4566] example for
enabling rapid acquisition of multicast RTP sessions."
Can you make clear that this an example of an SDP to be provided to a
client?
13. Section 9, bullet b:
Be configured to forward certain ports (e.g., using HTML
configuration and UPnP IGD [UPnP-IGD]).
Shouldn't the "and" be an "or"?
14. Section 10:
Shouldn't the security consideration make it clear that RAMS-R are
especially suspectible to Replay attacks as there is no information in
the packet that one can use to detect that it is out of sequence.
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:
magnus(_dot_)westerlund(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf