From ssm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 16:09:33 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpXG0-0000Eb-VK; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:09:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpXFt-0000Dm-9U for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:09:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06202 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 16:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpXgR-0007HT-OW for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:36:54 -0400 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2005 13:09:09 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,258,1115017200"; d="scan'208"; a="288100265:sNHT29227320" Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.142]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j64K93od003064; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from eckert@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id NAA15803; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:09:07 -0700 From: Toerless Eckert To: "J. Ott": jo@ipdialog.com, "J. Chesterfield": julian@research.att.com Message-ID: <20050704200907.GJ834@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Cc: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, csp@csperkins.org, ssm@ietf.org Subject: [ssm] draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org Hi folks. What happened to subject draft ? We really need that type of RTCP for SSM feedback to get some standardization and move on on SSM ? Is it just timed out and nobody cares ? How can it be revived ? Thanks Toerless _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 16:39:50 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpXjK-0006YS-K4; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:39:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpXjI-0006YM-Mw for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:39:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10907 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 16:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpY9v-0001Yv-Oy for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:07:21 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:60617 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DpXj6-0004Tc-P4; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:39:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20050704200907.GJ834@cisco.com> References: <20050704200907.GJ834@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <80BEB3DC-39BA-43E2-821C-0496922883A7@csperkins.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:39:32 +0100 To: Toerless Eckert X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Ott?= , Julian Chesterfield , ssm@ietf.org, Magnus Westerlund Subject: [ssm] Re: draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org On 4 Jul 2005, at 21:09, Toerless Eckert wrote: > What happened to subject draft ? We really need that type of RTCP > for SSM > feedback to get some standardization and move on on SSM ? Is it > just timed out > and nobody cares ? How can it be revived ? The latest version was draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-08.txt, which expired recently. I'm hoping a revised draft will be available in time for the next meeting - there has been some discussion on the draft in the last few days. Colin _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 18:02:12 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpZ12-0007Ul-DB; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:02:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpZ10-0007Ud-Rp for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:02:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22267 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 18:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpZRe-000813-KF for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:29:43 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2005 15:01:58 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.142]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j64M1vvM029425; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from eckert@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id PAA02128; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:01:57 -0700 From: Toerless Eckert To: Colin Perkins Message-ID: <20050704220157.GM834@cisco.com> References: <20050704200907.GJ834@cisco.com> <80BEB3DC-39BA-43E2-821C-0496922883A7@csperkins.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <80BEB3DC-39BA-43E2-821C-0496922883A7@csperkins.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Ott , Julian Chesterfield , ssm@ietf.org, Magnus Westerlund Subject: [ssm] Re: draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:39:32PM +0100, Colin Perkins wrote: > On 4 Jul 2005, at 21:09, Toerless Eckert wrote: > >What happened to subject draft ? We really need that type of RTCP > >for SSM > >feedback to get some standardization and move on on SSM ? Is it > >just timed out > >and nobody cares ? How can it be revived ? > > The latest version was draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-08.txt, which expired > recently. I'm hoping a revised draft will be available in time for > the next meeting - there has been some discussion on the draft in the > last few days. Thanks, Colin, Just as a general critique: I don't think that a draft like draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback should go forward without specifically detailing whether or how it supports ASM and/or SSM multicast. This draft only refers to multicast, and that is just not sufficient anymore. Thanks Toerless _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 18:10:05 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpZ8f-0000v5-Mt; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:10:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpZ8d-0000uJ-JS for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:10:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23836 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 18:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpZZH-0000HB-E8 for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:37:36 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:61067 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DpZ8Q-0002WE-8D; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:09:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20050704220157.GM834@cisco.com> References: <20050704200907.GJ834@cisco.com> <80BEB3DC-39BA-43E2-821C-0496922883A7@csperkins.org> <20050704220157.GM834@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [ssm] Re: draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 23:09:44 +0100 To: Toerless Eckert X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Ott?= , Julian Chesterfield , ssm@ietf.org, Magnus Westerlund X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org On 4 Jul 2005, at 23:01, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:39:32PM +0100, Colin Perkins wrote: >> On 4 Jul 2005, at 21:09, Toerless Eckert wrote: >>> What happened to subject draft ? We really need that type of RTCP >>> for SSM feedback to get some standardization and move on on SSM ? >>> Is it >>> just timed out and nobody cares ? How can it be revived ? >> >> The latest version was draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-08.txt, which expired >> recently. I'm hoping a revised draft will be available in time for >> the next meeting - there has been some discussion on the draft in the >> last few days. > > Just as a general critique: I don't think that a draft like > draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback should go forward without specifically > detailing whether or how it supports ASM and/or SSM multicast. This > draft > only refers to multicast, and that is just not sufficient anymore. The draft is titled "RTCP Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Sessions with Unicast Feedback", and makes an explicit distinction between ASM and SSM throughout. I'm not sure exactly what else you think it should say? Colin _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 18:42:08 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpZdg-0007vU-NM; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:42:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpZdf-0007vP-SE for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:42:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28769 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 18:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Dpa4K-0002i8-0J for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:09:41 -0400 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2005 15:41:57 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,258,1115017200"; d="scan'208"; a="288298599:sNHT150678186" Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.142]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j64MfsVX013304; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from eckert@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id PAA04947; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:41:54 -0700 From: Toerless Eckert To: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [ssm] Re: draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm Message-ID: <20050704224154.GQ834@cisco.com> References: <20050704200907.GJ834@cisco.com> <80BEB3DC-39BA-43E2-821C-0496922883A7@csperkins.org> <20050704220157.GM834@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Ott , Julian Chesterfield , ssm@ietf.org, Magnus Westerlund X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:09:44PM +0100, Colin Perkins wrote: > The draft is titled "RTCP Extensions for Single-Source Multicast > Sessions with Unicast Feedback", and makes an explicit distinction > between ASM and SSM throughout. I'm not sure exactly what else you > think it should say? It's a generic problem of all drafts and RFC that only loosely refer to "multicast". "multicast" is not an explicit service anymore. Documents need to refer to ASM multicast and/or SSM multicast to make it clear which of those they have considered. Thanks Toerless _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 04 19:16:34 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpaB0-0006Qv-UA; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:16:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DpaAz-0006Qp-1h for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:16:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03266 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 19:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.249.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Dpabd-0005Iz-HC for ssm@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:44:06 -0400 Received: from csperkins-dsl.demon.co.uk ([80.176.225.173]:61136 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mr1.dcs.gla.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.42) id 1DpaAn-0000BZ-UP; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:16:22 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20050704224154.GQ834@cisco.com> References: <20050704200907.GJ834@cisco.com> <80BEB3DC-39BA-43E2-821C-0496922883A7@csperkins.org> <20050704220157.GM834@cisco.com> <20050704224154.GQ834@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <893DA83C-641A-4D5F-93FB-BEA7FF596D8A@csperkins.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [ssm] Re: draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 00:16:16 +0100 To: Toerless Eckert X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Ott?= , Julian Chesterfield , ssm@ietf.org, Magnus Westerlund X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org On 4 Jul 2005, at 23:41, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:09:44PM +0100, Colin Perkins wrote: >> The draft is titled "RTCP Extensions for Single-Source Multicast >> Sessions with Unicast Feedback", and makes an explicit distinction >> between ASM and SSM throughout. I'm not sure exactly what else you >> think it should say? > > It's a generic problem of all drafts and RFC that only loosely > refer to > "multicast". "multicast" is not an explicit service anymore. > Documents need to > refer to ASM multicast and/or SSM multicast to make it clear which > of those they > have considered. Sure, I understand that. But from my reading, this draft *does* refer explicitly to SSM rather than just "multicast" -- what needs to be changed? Colin _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 07 11:49:48 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqYdI-0004WE-Ig; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:49:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqYdH-0004Ul-5I for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:49:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20026 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqZ4R-0000lL-F4 for ssm@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:17:54 -0400 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2005 08:49:34 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,270,1115017200"; d="scan'208"; a="293317705:sNHT101945680" Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.142]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j67FnSod027852; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from eckert@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id IAA11811; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:49:30 -0700 From: Toerless Eckert To: Joerg Ott Subject: Re: [ssm] Re: draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm Message-ID: <20050707154930.GS834@cisco.com> References: <20050704200907.GJ834@cisco.com> <80BEB3DC-39BA-43E2-821C-0496922883A7@csperkins.org> <20050704220157.GM834@cisco.com> <20050704224154.GQ834@cisco.com> <893DA83C-641A-4D5F-93FB-BEA7FF596D8A@csperkins.org> <42CCE5FB.7010006@informatik.uni-bremen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42CCE5FB.7010006@informatik.uni-bremen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Ott , Julian Chesterfield , Magnus Westerlund , Colin Perkins , ssm@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:21:15AM +0200, Joerg Ott wrote: > >Sure, I understand that. But from my reading, this draft *does* refer > >explicitly to SSM rather than just "multicast" -- what needs to be > >changed? > > To add to this, draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm also discusses how > non-aggregatable RTCP messages shall be treated. Thus, it is explicitly > designed to also support RTCP feedback in SSM environments--obviously > at some loss of damping efficiency but what would you expect if you > double propagation delay. I was saying: > Thanks, Colin, > > Just as a general critique: I don't think that a draft like > draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback should go forward without specifically > detailing whether or how it supports ASM and/or SSM multicast. This draft > only refers to multicast, and that is just not sufficient anymore. eg: different draft! But one which i think relates quite a bit to the issue at hand as well and should not become an RFC without explicitly mentioning ASM and SSM (which it does not). I for once fail to easily determine from the claims of support whether one could use the mechanisms described therein with SSM (i think not), nor do i understand easily whether it would be possible to use them with SSM if combined with draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm without further extensions. And this is probably not the only draft about other RTCP stuff. For all of it, the rule applies: In the real world, customers want to move to SSM and it needs to be easy to determine applicability from the drafts claims ! Cheers Toerless _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 07 18:09:19 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqeYZ-0007Ij-GZ; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:09:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DqeYY-0007Ib-2i for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:09:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09667 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:09:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqezn-0006tr-K9 for ssm@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:37:28 -0400 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2005 15:09:07 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.142]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j67M94od016606; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from eckert@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id PAA25814; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:09:05 -0700 From: Toerless Eckert To: Julian Chesterfield Subject: Re: [ssm] Re: draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm Message-ID: <20050707220905.GD834@cisco.com> References: <20050704200907.GJ834@cisco.com> <80BEB3DC-39BA-43E2-821C-0496922883A7@csperkins.org> <20050704220157.GM834@cisco.com> <20050704224154.GQ834@cisco.com> <893DA83C-641A-4D5F-93FB-BEA7FF596D8A@csperkins.org> <42CCE5FB.7010006@informatik.uni-bremen.de> <20050707154930.GS834@cisco.com> <489ed26c6661d4d157a92e8f57e8129e@cl.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <489ed26c6661d4d157a92e8f57e8129e@cl.cam.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 Cc: Joerg Ott , =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Ott , ssm@ietf.org, Magnus Westerlund , Julian Chesterfield , Colin Perkins X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 05:57:00PM -0400, Julian Chesterfield wrote: > Toerless, > > On 7 Jul 2005, at 11:49, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > >On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:21:15AM +0200, Joerg Ott wrote: > >>>Sure, I understand that. But from my reading, this draft *does* refer > >>>explicitly to SSM rather than just "multicast" -- what needs to be > >>>changed? > >> > >>To add to this, draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm also discusses how > >>non-aggregatable RTCP messages shall be treated. Thus, it is > >>explicitly > >>designed to also support RTCP feedback in SSM environments--obviously > >>at some loss of damping efficiency but what would you expect if you > >>double propagation delay. > > > >I was saying: > >>Thanks, Colin, > >> > >>Just as a general critique: I don't think that a draft like > >>draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback should go forward without specifically > >>detailing whether or how it supports ASM and/or SSM multicast. This > >>draft > >>only refers to multicast, and that is just not sufficient anymore. > > > >eg: different draft! But one which i think relates quite a bit to the > >issue at hand as well and should not become an RFC without explicitly > >mentioning ASM and SSM (which it does not). > > Please read the latest version of the draft. The introduction goes into > great detail about the ASM and SSM communication models, and associated > protocols. % grep SSM draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback-11.txt % grep ASM draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback-11.txt hmmm... > >I for once fail to easily determine from the claims of support whether > >one could use the mechanisms described therein with SSM (i think not), > > again, the introduction discusses three scenarios where the mechanism > would be appropriate. The first scenario is an SSM group. The scheme is > designed towards SSM groups in particular on the basis that an SSM > group can support multicast downstream, and unicast back to the source. > >nor do i understand easily whether it would be possible to use them > >with > >SSM if combined with draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm without further extensions. > > What extensions would be required to make this work over an SSM > architecture? re-read my email ? ;-)) I am concerned about any other draft extending the use of RTCP (and that happens quite a bit via for example as i mentioned "draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback" and other relying on that draft, like RTP retransmissions) - All those folks i think are aboslutely NOT considerin whether and/or how their stuff would work with multicast SSM, and i am saying that each draft that extends RTP needs to explicitly mention it's aplicability claim to ASM and SSM (claims to support ASM and/or SSM), and NOT claim anymore simply "does also support multicast"). Cheers Toerless _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm From ssm-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 08 02:44:29 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqmb7-0007pd-2Z; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 02:44:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dqmb5-0007ou-7T for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 02:44:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02874 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 02:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqn2E-0003s9-0f for ssm@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 03:12:30 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2005 23:42:38 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,272,1115017200"; d="scan'208"; a="647664914:sNHT31189347656" Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.142]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j686gXvM027495; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 23:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from eckert@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id XAA29432; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 23:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 23:42:35 -0700 From: Toerless Eckert To: Magnus Westerlund Subject: Re: [ssm] Re: draft-chesterfield-avt-rtcpssm Message-ID: <20050708064235.GM834@cisco.com> References: <20050704220157.GM834@cisco.com> <20050704224154.GQ834@cisco.com> <893DA83C-641A-4D5F-93FB-BEA7FF596D8A@csperkins.org> <42CCE5FB.7010006@informatik.uni-bremen.de> <20050707154930.GS834@cisco.com> <489ed26c6661d4d157a92e8f57e8129e@cl.cam.ac.uk> <20050707220905.GD834@cisco.com> <408a661d2fc7c774688cf7b235ab73be@cl.cam.ac.uk> <42CE1D10.7060809@ericsson.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42CE1D10.7060809@ericsson.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Cc: Joerg Ott , Julian Chesterfield , ssm@ietf.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Ott , Julian Chesterfield , Colin Perkins X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:28:32AM +0200, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > Hi Toerless and Julian, > > You seem to be talking around each other. What I understand is that you > want the following: > > Toerless requests Joerg (author of RTCP FEEDBACK AVPF draft) to clarify > which parts of the mechanisms that applies to ASM and which is also > usable by SSM. > > Julian request Toerless to review draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-08 which is the > latest version of the draft, although expired and provide comments. > Google after it and you will find it. Sure. > Have I understand this correctly? Aah, you're taking all the fun out of it. This was classical theater where two actors talk monologes over each other ;-) > > In regards to AVPF is not specific to either ASM or SSM it can be used > in either models. However it does require you to implement the SSM RTCP > solution to be able to use it. See, that is a sentence i think should be in that draft. Of course it would require a reference to RTPSSM, but that's exactly what would make me happy ;-) > Please note that AVPF is an approved but not yet published. Thus making > any changes are problematic and only really broken thing or minor > editorial things are adressable. *sigh*. I have been trying to get the notion into the bloody IETF/IESG review process that "supports multicast" is a term in drafts that should be unacceptable, but instead every draft should mention as appropriate ASM or SSM. But if you as someone who probably had more time to understand the potential interaction of the AVPF and RTCPSSM think that they should be combine with each other flawless and without need for further specs, then i am at least less nervuous on that front, because in the end it's about being able to leverage all RTP/RTCP progress while still deploying SSM... Thaks a lot ! Toerless > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 > Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 > S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm