----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4453/#review14568 -----------------------------------------------------------
Review of https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Notes+on+RTP+standards -- Section SRTP (RFC 3711) {quote} This document creates a new RTP profile, called RTP/SAVP. From section section 3: {quote} "section" repeated twice. The formatting of section 3 is also a little wonky. -- Section RTP/AVPF (RFC 4585) {quote} In section 3.2, it outlines the rule changes from RFC 3550 with regards to RTCP transmission intervals. The minimum 5 second interval is not enforced and instead the bandwidth of the connection is used to determine the interval (though a minimum may still be optionally selected). Sending packets early is referred to, appropriately, as "early RTCP". Early RTCP follows its own rules about what types of RTCP packets can make up the compound RTCP packet. Honestly, it's a bit of a mess. The rules are: I decide I need to send a feedback packet, and I want to send it NOW, not at the next interval I wait a brief period to make sure no one else that noticed the event has already sent their own feedback packet. I have to check if early feedback is permitted. I can send an an early feedback packet if all the above are fulfilled. So in order to send RTCP feedback, I modify timing with regards to sending RTCP, I can violate those timers and send early feedback, I have to insert small intervals in timing to allow for other feedback senders to send their feedback first, I have to determine permissiveness of sending early feedback. Or I can just add feedback to my compound RTCP packets I'm already sending. I think I know how I'd implement this if given the choice... {quote} I think it's fine to just make a recommendation that we add feedback to the compound RTCP packets. That being said, the scheduling algorithms for this and other feedback mechanisms (such as NACK) are relatively difficult and may end up conflicting with each other. Have you thought about how scheduling different types of RTCP reports should be handled? - Matt Jordan On Feb. 27, 2015, 12:47 p.m., Mark Michelson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4453/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 27, 2015, 12:47 p.m.) > > > Review request for Asterisk Developers. > > > Description > ------- > > I've created a series of wiki pages that discuss the idea of writing an > improved RTP architecture in Asterisk 14. > > To regurgitate some details from the linked page, the current RTP engine in > Asterisk (res_rtp_asterisk) gets the job done but has some issues. It is not > architected in a way that allows for easy insertion of new features. It has > dead code (or code that might as well be dead). And it has some general flaws > in it with regards to following rules defined by fundamental RFCs. > > I have approached these wiki pages with the idea of writing a replacement for > res_rtp_asterisk.c. The reason for this is that there are interesting > media-related IETF drafts (trickle ICE and BUNDLE, to name two) that would be > difficult to implement in the current res_rtp_asterisk.c code correctly. > Taking the opportunity to re-engineer the underlying architecture into > something more layered and extendable would help in this regard. The goal > also is to not disturb the high-level RTP engine API wherever possible, > meaning that channel drivers will not be touched at all by this set of > changes. > > The main page where this is discussed is here: > https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/RTP+engine+replacement . This page > has a subpage that has my informal rambling notes regarding a sampling of RTP > and media-related RFCs and drafts I read. It also has a subpage with more > informal and rambling notes about the current state of RTP in Asterisk. While > these pages are not really part of the review, you may want to read them > anyway just so you might have some idea of where I'm coming from when drawing > up the ideas behind a new architecture. > > I also have a task list page that details a list of high-level tasks that > would need to be performed if a new RTP engine were to be written: > https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/RTP+task+list . This should give > some idea of the amount of work required to make a new RTP engine a reality. > The tasks with (?) around them are tasks that add new features to Asterisk's > RTP support, and it is therefore questionable whether they fit in the scope > of this work at this time. > > Some things to consider when reading through this: > * Refactor or rewrite? When considering current issues with RTP/RTCP in > Asterisk, and considering the types of features that are coming down the > pipe, which of these options seems more prudent? > * Does the proposed architecture make sense from a high level? Is there > confusion about how certain areas are intended to work? > * Are there any glaring details you can think of that have been left out? > * Are there any questions about how specific features would fit into the > described architecture? > > > Diffs > ----- > > > Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4453/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Mark Michelson > >
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
