Allyn Romanow Flemming Andreasen Implementing CLUE encoding provider advertisements in.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Re-INVITE Handling draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00.txt
Advertisements

Encoding syntax alternatives Oct 8 th 2013, CLUE design team meeting.
8/2/ IETF, Pittsburgh Kutscher/Ott/Bormann SDPng Requirements draft-kutscher-mmusic-sdpng-req-00.txt Dirk Jörg
XCON architecture and protocol musings Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University.
Expressing encoding limitations in CLUE signalling Design team call 26/11/2013.
Strawman proposal for expressing encoding limits in CLUE Robert Hansen IETF88.
AARNet Copyright 2011 Network Operations SDP Deep Dive Bill Efthimiou APAN33 SIP workshop February 2012.
Early Media in SIP: Problem Statement, Requirements, and Analysis of Solutions draft-barnes-sip-em-ps-req-sol Richard Barnes BBN Technologies IETF 68,
Introduction to SDP Issues. Content Background Goals SDP Primer RTP Primer Use cases “New” Functionalities in SDP Multiple RTP Streams in SDP Decision.
Allyn Romanow Mark Duckworth ) Andy Pepperell Brian Baldino
CLUE DATA CHANNEL CHRISTER HOLMBERG IETF#89 London, U.K.
DATA CHANNEL FOR CLUE CHRISTER HOLMBERG CLUE VIRUTAL INTERIM MEETING 27th January 2014.
T ELEPRESENCE T UTORI A L July 30, Introduction to Telepresence 1 Introduction to the IETF CLUE work 2 Telepresence scenarios 3 CLUE FrameworkCLUE.
SIP Action Referral Rifaat Shekh-Yusef Cullen Jennings Alan Johnston Francois Audet 1 IETF 80, SPLICES WG, Prague March 29, 2011.
Draft-rosenberg-mmusic-sdp-offer-answer-00.txt Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft IETF 52.
Draft-romanow-clue-call-flow-02 Allyn Romanow Rob Hansen Arun Krishna.
CLUE Framework Status and Issues IETF89 - London March 5, 2014 Mark Duckworth draft-ietf-clue-framework-14 1.
Improving the Routing Efficiency of SIP Instant Message SIP 即時傳訊之繞送效能研究 adviser : Quincy Wu speaker : Wenping Zhang date :
1 SIPREC Recording Metadata Model for SRS SIPREC Virtual Meeting 12-Oct-2010 Team: Paul Kyzivat, Ram Mohan R, R Parthasarathi.
SIPREC Conference Recording (draft-kyzivat-siprec-conference-use-cases-01) IETF 89, March 7, 2014 Authors: Michael Yan, Paul Kyzivat, Simon Romano.
Roni Even Jonathan Lennox Mapping RTP streams to CLUE media captures draft-even-clue-rtp-mapping-03 IETF-84.
Slide title minimum 48 pt Slide subtitle minimum 30 pt RTP Multiple Stream Sessions and Simulcast draft-westerlund-avtcore-multistream-and-simulcast-00.
CLUE Framework Issues CLUE virtual interim meeting Jan 27, 2014 Mark Duckworth draft-ietf-clue-framework-13 1.
CLUE MCU use cases Espen Berger February. 15 – 16, 2012.
1 SIPREC Recording Metadata Model for SRS IETF 79 MEETING Ram Mohan R On behalf of the team Team: Paul Kyzivat, Ram Mohan R, R Parthasarathi.
CLUE WG IETF-84 Mary Barnes (WG co-chair) Paul Kyzivat (WG co-chair)
Use-Cases draft-romanow-clue-telepresence- use-cases-01 IETF 80 Prague March 2011.
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Chapter 5 speaker : Wenping Zhang data :
1 SIPREC Recording Metadata for SRS (draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-03) July 28, 2011 IETF 81 meeting Ram Mohan R On behalf of the team Team: Paul Kyzivat,
SIP INFO Event Framework (draft-kaplan-sip-info-events-00) Hadriel Kaplan Christer Holmberg 70th IETF, Vancouver, Canada.
SIP and SIPPING WGsMay, IETF Interim Meeting Orit levin Conferencing Requirements for SIP Based Applications.
IETF-81, Quebec City, July 25-29, 2011
Christian Groves Describing Captures in CLUE and relation to multipoint conferencing draft-groves-clue-multi-content-00 CLUE Interim meeting (09/13)
BUNDLE Christer Holmberg, Ericsson Harald Alvestrand, Google IETF#84, Vancouver.
SIP Performance Benchmarking draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-01 draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-01 March 22, 2010 Prof. Carol Davids, Illinois Inst. of Tech.
CLUE RTP usage Andy Pepperell
Interactive Connectivity Establishment : ICE
SIP-H.323 Interworking Group RRR-1 IETF-48 SIP-H.323 Interworking Requirements draft-agrawal-sip-h323-interworking-reqs-00.txt Hemant.
March 22th, 2001 MMUSIC WG meeting 50th IETF MMUSIC WG meeting The fid attribute draft-ietf-mmusic-fid-00.txt
CLUE Overview and Architecture IETF 82 CLUE ad hoc meeting Allyn Romanow
IETF 53, Minneapolis Kutscher/Ott/Bormann 1 SDPng Update Dirk Jörg Carsten draft-ietf-mmusic-sdpng-04.txt.
July 28, 2008BLISS WG IETF-721 The Multiple Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-johnston-bliss-mla-req-02 Alan Johnston.
FEC Dependency Examples A Review of Existing Tools – January 29 th, 2008 Ali C. Begen
CLUE WG chair: Mary Barnes RTCWEB WG chair: Ted Hardie CLUE & RTCWEB WGs Adhoc Common (SDP/RTP) building blocks IETF-82.
draft-ivov-mmusic-trickle-ice E. Rescorla, J. Uberti, E. Ivov
RTP Usage for CLUE draft-lennox-clue-rtp-usage-02 Clue WG, IETF 83, 27 March 2012 Jonathan Lennox Allyn Romanow
54 th IETFMMUSIC WG1 54 th IETF – Yokohama 18 July 2002.
RTP Usage for CLUE IETF 82 – 14 November 2011 Jonathan Lennox Allyn Romanow Paul Witty.
1 Ali C. Begen Grouping of Adjacent Media in SDP Cullen Jennings and Ali C. Begen {fluffy, IETF 80 – March 2011 draft-jennings-mmusic-adjacent-grouping-03.
Andrew Allen ROUTING OUT OF DIALOG REQUESTS draft-allen-dispatch-routing-out-of-dialog-request-01 Dispatch IETF 92 March 23 rd 2015.
CLUE Framework 01 – comments and issues Interim meeting October 2011 Roni Even.
SDP extensions for setting up circuit- switched audio and video streams Simo Veikkolainen IETF80.
SIPREC Conference Recording (draft-kyzivat-siprec-conference-use-cases-00) IETF 87, November 4, 2013 Authors: Michael Yan, Paul Kyzivat, Simon Romano.
Allyn Romanow Stephen Botzko Robert Hansen Signaling Requirements for implementing the.
SDP Security Descriptions for Media Streams draft-ietf-mmusic-sdescriptions-02.txt November 14, 2003 Flemming Andreasen Mark Baugher.
CLUE Framework IETF 88 – Nov 8, 2013 Mark Duckworth draft-ietf-clue-framework-12 draft-groves-clue-multi-content-00 draft-duckworth-clue-switching-example-01.
Codec Control for RTCWEB
CLUE WG Interim Meeting San Jose, CA Sept , 2012
Volker Hilt SIP Session Policies Volker Hilt
CLUE Framework Interim Meeting Feb 15, 2012 Mark Duckworth
Use of “Latent Configurations" in CLUE
CLUE WG Interim Meeting San Jose, CA Sept , 2012
CLUE WG Interim Meeting San Jose, CA Sept , 2012
Virtual Interim CLUE Signalling discussion
Multi-Media Concepts and Relations
IMTC SIP Interconnect and SuperOp
IMTC SIP Interconnect and SuperOp
RTCWeb Data Channel Management
SDP Offer Answer Examples
draft-rajeshkumar-mmusic-gpmd-01.txt 55th IETF – November 18, 2002
Presentation transcript:

Allyn Romanow Flemming Andreasen Implementing CLUE encoding provider advertisements in SDP draft-romanow-clue-sdp-usage-01 IETF - 83 March, 2012

What we did Used SDP offer/answer to communicate CLUE provider advertisements for encodings and encoding groups Note : I-D is based on -03 version of the framework document; current framework version is now -04: Terminology clarifications and Capture Set/Scene change Purpose: {main, presentation} changed to Content: {slides, speaker, sl, main, alt} [RFC4796]

Why we did it SDP is the preferred way to carry encoding information Intermediaries can make use of the encoding information and it’s easy for them if the values are in SDP

Encoding groups and encodings Encoding Group N Encoding Group 1 encodeGroupID maxGroupBandwidth maxGroupVideoMbps Encoding Group 1 encodeGroupID maxGroupBandwidth maxGroupVideoMbps Video Encodings Encoding1 ( ID, maxBandwidth, maxMbps, maxWidth, maxHeight, maxFrameRate ) EncodingN ( ID, maxBandwidth, maxMbps, maxWidth, maxHeight, maxFrameRate ) Video Encodings Encoding1 ( ID, maxBandwidth, maxMbps, maxWidth, maxHeight, maxFrameRate ) EncodingN ( ID, maxBandwidth, maxMbps, maxWidth, maxHeight, maxFrameRate ) Audio Encodings Encoding1 ( ID, maxBandwidth ) EncodingN ( ID, maxBandwidth ) Audio Encodings Encoding1 ( ID, maxBandwidth ) EncodingN ( ID, maxBandwidth )

Assumptions Use a non-SIP signaling protocol for captures Use a non-SIP signaling protocol for consumer requests Use SDP for stream attributes typically handled by SDP

The issue CLUE model not a perfect fit with offer/answer Both sides don’t agree on a value, but rather A as provider advertises its set of values to B as a consumer B as provider advertises its set of values to A as a consumer These are not necessarily the same or even subsets of each other

Two approaches explored Advertisements in initial offer/answer Bidirectional Unidirectional Advertisements in multiple offer answers coupled with CLUE signaling

Initial offer/answer bidirectional A offer sends provider advertisement for A’s encodings and encoding groups B answer sends provider advertisement for B’s encodings and encoding groups

Issue with bidirectional approach B cannot respond with a type (purpose) not in A’s offer Example: A offers 2 SDP streams- video-main and audio B wants to offer 3 SDP streams- video-main audio, and presentation

Possible solution The initial offer always includes all purposes Example: A offers audio sendrecv, {A encodings} video (main) sendrecv, {A encodings} video (presentation) recvonly, {A encodings} B answers audio sendrecv, {B encodings} video (main) sendrecv, {B encodings} video (presentation) sendonly, {B encodings} Issues : Asymmetric values (codecs, etc.), intermediary value changes

Unidirectional approach A offers Audio-sendonly, {A encodings} Video-sendonly (video-main), {A encodings} Video-inactive (video presentation) Audio-recvonly Video-recvonly (video-main) Video-recvonly (video presentation) B answers Audio-recvonly Video-recvonly (video-main) Video-inactive (video presentation) Audio-sendonly, {B encodings} Video-sendonly (video-main), {B encodings} Video-sendonly (video presentation), {B encodings} Issues: Intermediary value changes

Multiple offer/answers Advantage – don’t advertise incorrectly Disadvantage – multiple offer answers Scheme: Initial o/a sets up call and establishes CLUE 2nd o/a Alice sends provider advertisement, B answers as consumer 3 rd o/a Bob sends provider advertisement, A answers as consumer CLUE protocol – configure advertisements, B consumer request 4 th o/a B renegotiates TIAS based on CLUE outcomes CLUE protocl – A consumer request 5 th o/a A renegotiates TIAS based on CLUE outcomes

Representation of Encodings 3 new SDP attributes Encgrp - encoding group ID, list of encodings, list of eng grp params a=encgrp: Enc – encoding ID, list of params and values a=enc: Clue – CLUE encoding params – max-fps, max-mbps, max-bitrate, imageattr a=clue:

Example of 2 Video Encodings a=clue:1 imageattr[w=1920, y=1088] a=clue:2 max-fps=60 a=clue:3 max-mbps= a=clue:4 max-br=4000 a=clue:5 imageattr[x=960, y=554] a=clue:6 max-fps=30 a=clue:7 max-mbps=61200 a=enc:1 clue=1,2,3,4 Encoding 1 and its clue attributes a=enc:2 clue=5,6,7,4 Encoding 2 and its clue attributes 2 video encoding groups a=encgrp:1 enc=1,2,3 grpparm=3,4,5 a=encgrp:2 enc=4,5,6,7 grpparm=2,4,5

Issues CLUE parameters in SDP Is it worthwhile making the provider encoding advertisements available in SDP? Too much info? Too little info? Possible delays (SIP record-route) Advertisements large – expand SDP size- further work Mixed CLUE/non-CLUE - initial invite to set up CLUE only

END