[R-C] BoF approved
Michael Welzl
michawe at ifi.uio.no
Sun Jul 22 15:00:52 CEST 2012
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:40:32 -0400, Randell Jesup
<randell-ietf at jesup.org> wrote:
> On 7/21/2012 4:46 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
>> Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>> Just to be clear, what is the scenario you're envisioning? An
>>> application where one side does new-rmcat-congestion-control and
>>> the
>>> other side doesn't, and the new side has to make the most out of
>>> the
>>> feedback that it gets from the other?
>> Right.
>
> Since RTP flows are typically negotiated, it may be reasonable to
> assume that the rmcat-capable side knows it's talking to a
> non-rmcat-capable source (or even without negotiation, that it will
> know quickly). Or the behavior could be turned on by the first
> exchange of RTCP feedback messages specific to rmcat - there are a
> number of options.
So I'm trying to understand how one could recommend a specific behavior
for such a case. We are facing a situation where we may not get enough
feedback. Say, we get way too little feedback: the IETF-conformant
(TCP-friendly) thing to do, then, is to assume loss and react by at
least halving the send rate. This may not be attractive for the
application at all, depending very much on the content and on the
likelihood that missing feedback is due to the other side sending little
vs. loss from the network.
All in all, I'm having trouble imagining that some reasonable general
behavior can be recommended for this case.
Cheers,
Michael
More information about the Rtp-congestion
mailing list