Subject: [MMUSIC] RID Open Issue #2: Definition of Bitrate

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:27:05 -0600

I'm putting up the open issues in the RID draft that haven't had 
dedicated threads yet for a final round of discussion.

For this one, see 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-04#section-5

    Some questions have been raised as to whether we need a more formal
    description of bitrate than we currently use.

    If I read correctly, Magnus indicated that the definition in the
    document is consistent with TIAS, and believes it is sufficiently
    well defined.

    PROPOSAL: keep current definition that exists in description of "max-
    br".

To be crystal clear, Magnus' feedback on this topic (October 23, 2015, 
MMUSIC mailing list) was:
> I am of the opinion (having authored RFC 3890) that we should use a 
> more well defined bit-rate definition than what is in TIAS.
> In fact the current definition is well matching that of TIAS, with the 
> additional constraints of a measuring interval. I think this is the 
> minimal improvement we should do.
>
> I can argue for an even more specific bandwidth definitions. My 
> personal position is that the stream specific ones (SMT and SLT) in 
> our SDP bandwidth proposal (now expired) actually makes sense to be 
> used with RID:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-mmusic-sdp-bw-attribute-02.txt

My reading of this is that Magnus believes that the current definition 
in the RID document is an improvement over TIAS, and is acceptable. I 
did not choose to pursue the definitions in the expired bandwidth draft 
for the simple reason that they include on-the-wire overhead that will 
be difficult to accommodate in WebRTC browsers. This evaluation of 
difficulty is based on feedback from both our own media team at Mozilla 
as well as information I've received from people on the Chrome WebRTC team.

If you disagree with the proposal, please send email in the next few 
days with an alternate proposal.

Thanks!

/a

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:36:15 +0200

Hi,
I am OK with the definition in section 5 for the bit-rate.
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 12:27 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MMUSIC] RID Open Issue #2: Definition of Bitrate
> 
> I'm putting up the open issues in the RID draft that haven't had dedicated
> threads yet for a final round of discussion.
> 
> For this one, see
> My reading of this is that Magnus believes that the current definition in
the
> RID document is an improvement over TIAS, and is acceptable. I did not
> choose to pursue the definitions in the expired bandwidth draft for the
> simple reason that they include on-the-wire overhead that will be
difficult to
> accommodate in WebRTC browsers. This evaluation of difficulty is based on
> feedback from both our own media team at Mozilla as well as information
> I've received from people on the Chrome WebRTC team.
> 
> If you disagree with the proposal, please send email in the next few days
> with an alternate proposal.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> /a
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic