Duplication Grouping Semantics in the Session Description Protocol
draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-01-17
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-01-06
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2013-12-19
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2013-12-05
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2013-12-05
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2013-12-04
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2013-11-26
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-11-26
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2013-11-26
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2013-11-25
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2013-11-25
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2013-11-25
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-11-25
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-11-21
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Vincent Roca. |
2013-11-21
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-11-21
|
04 | Ali Begen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-11-21
|
04 | Ali Begen | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-04.txt |
2013-11-21
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2013-11-21
|
03 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Richard Barnes has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2013-11-20
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] 3.1: The "a=group:DUP" semantics MUST be used to group the redundant streams except when the streams are specified in the same … [Ballot comment] 3.1: The "a=group:DUP" semantics MUST be used to group the redundant streams except when the streams are specified in the same media description, i.e., in the same "m" line (See Section 3.2). Don't you mean "is" instead of "MUST be"? I don't understand what the MUST means in this context other than "is". 3.1 & 3.2: ...the order of the listed redundant streams does not strictly indicate the order of transmission, although it is RECOMMENDED that the stream listed first is sent first, with the other stream(s) being the (time-delayed) duplicate(s). Is there any downside to doing them out of order (or any upside to doing them in order)? If yes, why isn't it a MUST? If no, why the RECOMMENDation? |
2013-11-20
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-11-20
|
03 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-11-20
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-11-20
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed. Reviewer: Fred Baker. |
2013-11-20
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-11-20
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-11-19
|
03 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot discuss] Section 3.3: "(1) with an answer that ignores the grouping attribute ... In the first case ..." How does the sender recognize that … [Ballot discuss] Section 3.3: "(1) with an answer that ignores the grouping attribute ... In the first case ..." How does the sender recognize that the grouping attribute has been "ignored"? Do you mean to say that the answer will *omit* the grouping attribute? That would be something the sender could recognize and act on. |
2013-11-19
|
03 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-11-19
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] In his OPS-DIR review, Fred summarizes pretty well the operational impacts stemmed from this specification. I would be worth the extra couple of … [Ballot comment] In his OPS-DIR review, Fred summarizes pretty well the operational impacts stemmed from this specification. I would be worth the extra couple of paragraphs IMHO. A new section "operational impact" would be ideal. For completeness, Fred's review is included below: The operational impacts of the duplication mechanism (which is in use operationally, if I'm not mistaken) are three-fold: - impact on total traffic load - impact on routing - impact on receiving system The impact on traffic load is obvious: if I duplicate every packet among a set of packets, I double its total traffic load. The impact on routing is somewhat glossed over by the document, although it is hinted at in comments about using different addresses and so preferring different routes in at least parts of the path. Sending separate packet streams that use the same route subjects all of the traffic streams to the same set of potential failures; if a packet from stream 1 is subject to loss at a congested interface or a place where routing is unstable, so will its counterpart in stream 2. If a given interface en route is heavily loaded, doubling a component of its service load won't reduce that. An important characteristic of these separate streams, therefore, is disjoint routing, and ideally routing along paths unlikely to experience simultaneous failures (e.g., using different lambdas in the same fiber doesn't help if the fiber is cut). The impact on the receiving system is that something one might consider architecturally unusual, such as duplication or reordering of packets and the implied processing, suddenly becomes normal. Duplication is obvious. Reordering would happen when traffic on one stream consistently arrives earlier than that another, and a packet is lost on the first. The arriving packet on the second stream will be perceived as a packet out of order. One can hopefully expect RTP's application to recognize the matter and resolve it, but it would be nice if that could happen as early in packet processing as possible. So one has an increased interrupt and processing load on the receiving system, and the algorithms used to deal with duplicated or reordered traffic may need tuning. I don't know that I would request any changes to the document. If I did, it would be to highlight these issues and point to other RFCs or operational procedures that could be used to mitigate them. |
2013-11-19
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-11-19
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-11-18
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-11-15
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] -- Section 3.3 -- (1) with an answer that ignores the grouping attribute or (2) with a refusal to the request … [Ballot comment] -- Section 3.3 -- (1) with an answer that ignores the grouping attribute or (2) with a refusal to the request (e.g., 488 Not Acceptable Here or 606 Not Acceptable in SIP). SIP? Or should that be "SDP"? |
2013-11-15
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-11-15
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2013-11-15
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2013-11-15
|
03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-11-13
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-10-28
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2013-10-28
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-11-21 |
2013-10-28
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot has been issued |
2013-10-28
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-10-28
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-10-28
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-10-28
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-09-24
|
03 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2013-09-24) |
2013-09-23
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-09-23
|
03 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-03. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-03. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the Semantics for the "group" SDP Attribute registry in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters page at http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/ a new semantic will be registered as follows: Semantics Token Reference ------------------------------------- ------ -------------- Duplication DUP [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the Semantics for the "ssrc-group" SDP Attribute registry in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters page at http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/ a new semantic will be registered as follows: Token Semantics Reference ------- ----------------------------- -------------- DUP Duplication [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2013-09-12
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2013-09-12
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2013-09-12
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca |
2013-09-12
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca |
2013-09-10
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-09-10
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Duplication Grouping Semantics in the … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Duplication Grouping Semantics in the Session Description Protocol) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document: - 'Duplication Grouping Semantics in the Session Description Protocol' as 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 2013-09-24. 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 Packet loss is undesirable for real-time multimedia sessions, but can occur due to congestion, or other unplanned network outages. This is especially true for IP multicast networks, where packet loss patterns can vary greatly between receivers. One technique that can be used to recover from packet loss without incurring unbounded delay for all the receivers is to duplicate the packets and send them in separate redundant streams. This document defines the semantics for grouping redundant streams in the Session Description Protocol (SDP). The semantics defined in this document are to be used with the SDP Grouping Framework. SSRC-level (Synchronization Source) grouping semantics are also defined in this document for RTP streams using SSRC multiplexing. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-09-10
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-09-10
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call was requested |
2013-09-10
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-09-10
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-09-10
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2013-09-10
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-07-30
|
03 | Amy Vezza | PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-03 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-03 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. The title page notes the document as Standards Track. (2) 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 Packet loss is undesirable for real-time multimedia sessions, but can occur due to congestion, or other unplanned network outages. This is especially true for IP multicast networks, where packet loss patterns can vary greatly between receivers. One technique that can be used to recover from packet loss without incurring unbounded delay for all the receivers is to duplicate the packets and send them in separate redundant streams. This document defines the semantics for grouping redundant streams in the Session Description Protocol (SDP). The semantics defined in this document are to be used with the SDP Grouping Framework [RFC5888]. SSRC-level (Synchronization Source) grouping semantics are also defined in this document for RTP streams using SSRC multiplexing. Working Group Summary There is WG consensus behind this draft. All issues raised during and before WGLC have been addressed. Document Quality The document has received multiple reviews from working group participants and the document shepherd. There is currently at least one vendor implementing this mechanism and various other vendors have expressed interest for this technique. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Ari Keranen is the Document Shepherd, and the Responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has reviewed the past three versions of the document and believes the document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No need for any such review. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. No specific concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes, the shepherd has received confirmation from all authors. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are no filed IPR disclosures for this document. (9) 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? There seems to be good consensus on the current document by the WG, which seems to understand and agree with it. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The document has been checked by idnits and the I-D Checklist and no nits have been found (apart from references to this document that will be fixed by RFC editor). (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document provides extensions to SDP only and as such the necessary review has already been done by the MMUSIC WG. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, all references are classified as either normative or informative. (14) 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 plan for their completion? There is no such dependency. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downward normative references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA Considerations section has been reviewed and no issues found. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. There are no new IANA registries defined by this document. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. There is no such formal language in the draft. |
2013-07-30
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2013-07-30
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-07-30
|
03 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-begen-mmusic-redundancy-grouping |
2013-07-29
|
03 | Ari Keränen | Changed document writeup |
2013-07-29
|
03 | Ari Keränen | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2013-07-11
|
03 | Ali Begen | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-03.txt |
2013-06-03
|
02 | Ari Keränen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2013-06-03
|
02 | Ari Keränen | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2013-05-27
|
02 | Ali Begen | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-02.txt |
2013-05-18
|
01 | Ari Keränen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-05-18
|
01 | Ari Keränen | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2013-03-19
|
01 | Ali Begen | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-01.txt |
2013-02-28
|
00 | Ari Keränen | Changed shepherd to Ari Keränen |
2012-10-13
|
00 | Miguel García | IETF state changed to WG Document from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2012-10-13
|
00 | Miguel García | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set. Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2012-10-13
|
00 | Miguel García | IETF state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2012-10-13
|
00 | Miguel García | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2012-10-13
|
00 | Miguel García | Fixing an error. This document is a WG item. |
2012-10-13
|
00 | Miguel García | Issued raided by Flemming: lack of "+" sign in "c=" capability to indicate mandatory to support |
2012-10-13
|
00 | Miguel García | Changed shepherd to Miguel Garcia |
2012-10-12
|
00 | Ali Begen | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-00.txt |