Hi Magnus,
We are all glad to have you back. Comments are inline. We will get these into
the revision. See inline.
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.
We already put a lot of effort to explain the precautions for using this in BE
networks. I don't think there is a strong argument here that this will only
work in engineered networks. So, personally I don't think we should put such a
statement.
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.
The statement over there implies this. And naturally it is the server's job to
figure that out. Based on this discussion, we even wrote the new CNAME
guidelines document so that the server's job would get easier.
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.
I gave enough arguments why we should not use a seqnum for the RAMS-R messages
earlier. It is not justified IMO. Based on the SSRC of the primary and the
requesting client's CNAME, things are pretty straightforward.
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?
The new CNAME draft has ways to ensure they are unique. If the client uses one
of them, we are all set.
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.
When they are unique, this won't happen.
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:
We don't assume things will sure work or guarantee that they will work if
everything is satisfied. These are simple rules that both sides must comply
with.
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"
How about "more likely 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.
We followed the definition from 4585 but "packet type" makes more sense to me
as well.
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.
If this is relating to a new burst request, then it is reset. Ow, what is the
point of having a seqnum? If something has changed compared to the previous
RAMS-I, then MSN is incremented. If it is just a re-xmit, MSN stays the same.
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?
The rules in the RAMS-T section applies. You received a RAMS-I so you know the
SSRC.
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.
If I recall correctly, this was something you asked for. I am not sure whether
there is a better place to put it. Maybe in parentheses?
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.
What do you mean? The SSRC comes from the RAMS-I's SSRC. There is one (not
multiple) stream per RAMS-I.
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."
Good suggestion.
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?
OK.
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"?
Yes, good catch.
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.
There is a wording about this in that section (which simply refers the reader
to 5760). Are you considering a RAMS-specific replay attack here?
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
Thanks much for the detailed review.
Cheers, acbegen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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