forked from j0r1/JRTPLIB
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
aboutrfc3550.txt
177 lines (140 loc) · 7.17 KB
/
aboutrfc3550.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
* p 9 (bottom):
In the unicast case, a participant may
receive from all other participants in the session using the same
pair of ports, or may use a distinct pair of ports for each.
COMMENT:
By default, a RTPSession instance will use only one pair
of ports.
* p 14 (top):
A profile MAY define additional
marker bits or specify that there is no marker bit by changing the
number of bits in the payload type field (see Section 5.3).
COMMENT:
At the moment, no support for additional marker bits is present
* About payload data and payload types:
The library doesn't inspect payload data or payload types. It is
left to the application using the library to decide if a packet should
be ignored or accepted
* p 18 (middle):
o If a particular class of applications needs additional
functionality independent of payload format, the profile under
which those applications operate SHOULD define additional fixed
fields to follow immediately after the SSRC field of the existing
fixed header. Those applications will be able to quickly and
directly access the additional fields while profile-independent
monitors or recorders can still process the RTP packets by
interpreting only the first twelve octets.
COMMENT:
No direct support for such extensions are provided
* p 20 (bottom):
4. A fourth, OPTIONAL function is to convey minimal session control
information, for example participant identification to be
displayed in the user interface.
COMMENT: SDES info is supported by the library
* p 21 (top):
The
recommendations here accommodate SSM only through Section 6.2's
option of turning off receivers' RTCP entirely.
COMMENT:
For now, the RTCP (sending) will only be disabled entirely
if no destinations are present.
* p 25 (middle):
The profile MAY further specify that the control traffic bandwidth
may be divided into two separate session parameters for those
participants which are active data senders and those which are not;
COMMENT: this will not be implemented
* p 26 (top):
This delay MAY be set to half the
minimum interval to allow quicker notification that the new
participant is present.
COMMENT: is supplied as an option which is enabled by default
* p 26 (middle):
An implementation MAY scale the minimum RTCP interval to a smaller
value inversely proportional to the session bandwidth parameter with
the following limitations:
COMMENT: not supported
* p 28 (middle):
SSRC sampling -> not supported
* p 28 (bottom):
An implementation which is constrained to two-party
unicast operation SHOULD still use randomization of the RTCP
transmission interval to avoid unintended synchronization of multiple
instances operating in the same environment, but MAY omit the "timer
reconsideration" and "reverse reconsideration" algorithms in Sections
6.3.3, 6.3.6 and 6.3.7.
COMMENT: randomization and reconsideration will always be used. omitting
them is not implemented.
* p 28 (top):
New entries MAY be considered
not valid until multiple packets carrying the new SSRC have been
received (see Appendix A.1), or until an SDES RTCP packet containing
a CNAME for that SSRC has been received.
COMMENT: Currently, probation is optional. A source is considered
valid when either a number (depending on probation) of RTP
packets are received or when a CNAME has been received
* p 42 (bottom):
6.4.3 Extending the Sender and Receiver Reports
COMMENT: Extensions of SR and RR are not supported
* p 68 (middle):
RTP relies on the underlying protocol(s) to provide demultiplexing of
RTP data and RTCP control streams. For UDP and similar protocols,
RTP SHOULD use an even destination port number and the corresponding
RTCP stream SHOULD use the next higher (odd) destination port number.
For applications that take a single port number as a parameter and
derive the RTP and RTCP port pair from that number, if an odd number
is supplied then the application SHOULD replace that number with the
next lower (even) number to use as the base of the port pair. For
applications in which the RTP and RTCP destination port numbers are
specified via explicit, separate parameters (using a signaling
protocol or other means), the application MAY disregard the
restrictions that the port numbers be even/odd and consecutive
although the use of an even/odd port pair is still encouraged. The
RTP and RTCP port numbers MUST NOT be the same since RTP relies on
the port numbers to demultiplex the RTP data and RTCP control
streams.
COMMENT: Currently, the transporter only accepts an even portbase.
* p 68-69:
It is RECOMMENDED that layered encoding applications (see Section
2.4) use a set of contiguous port numbers.
COMMENT: No direct support for this using RTPSession, but it can be
constructed in principle using several RTPTransmitter
instances.
* p 69:
A profile MAY specify a framing method to be used even when RTP is
carried in protocols that do provide framing in order to allow
carrying several RTP packets in one lower-layer protocol data unit,
such as a UDP packet.
COMMENT: For UDP, such a framing mechanism will not be implemented
QUESTIONS:
* p 28: after BYE packet, ssrc should be removed after an appropriate delay.
what delay is considered appropriate?
* p 57: why do CNAMEs have to be forwarded to allow SSRC identifier collisions
to work?
-> If the CSRC sources are not senders, their identifiers wont be
seen in the CSRC list of an RTP packet. By forwarding SDES CNAMEs,
their identifiers will be present in the SDES chunk and collisions
can be detected.
* p 64: Section 8.3
* What MTU should be used? Should it be the same for all session members?
Is it the MTU of the protocol just below RTP or of the link layer?
* p 33 (BYE scheduling): Should members be increased for each BYE packet or
for each SSRC in a BYE packet?
* p 35:
RTP receivers provide reception quality feedback using RTCP report
packets which may take one of two forms depending upon whether or not
the receiver is also a sender. The only difference between the
sender report (SR) and receiver report (RR) forms, besides the packet
type code, is that the sender report includes a 20-byte sender
information section for use by active senders. The SR is issued if a
site has sent any data packets during the interval since issuing the
last report or the previous one, otherwise the RR is issued.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-> Is this also true when the sender timeout multiplier differs
from 2 ??
* About report blocks: should an entry be made for each SSRC_n in the
list of report blocks if the RR or SR originates from a valid SSRC?
-> probably not, since then we don't have the right transport
address of the SSRC_n
-> Indeed: see p 61 at bottom
* Is it a valid tactic to use a timestamp unit estimation (from
two SRs) for jitter calculation if no exact info is available?