Re: [AVTCORE] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

I will let the authors and anyone else who want to provide input do so 
now. From my perspective we clarified the positions and possibilities a 
bit more by this exchange.

Den 2016-05-18 kl. 14:17, skrev Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF):

> My personal opinion is that I would not consider ECN at all. However
> my Discuss this that the doc simply should not say
>
> "ECN-CE marked packets SHOULD be treated as if they were lost when
> calculating if the congestion- based RTP circuit breaker“
>
> There is currently no document that says that both signal have to be
> treated differently but there is also no document that defines that
> they have to be the same for circuit breakers. This doc would be the
> first one doing so. Given the currently knowledge we have and the
> current work we are doing, this is simply wrong.

One question that will arise if one remove ECN-CE marks as input, that 
is if the RTP-CB is at all applicable to be used in RTP sessions where 
one have negotiated ECN Capable Transport (ECT). I guess you would say 
yes, based on the arguments so far has brought up. From my perspective, 
I would have to say questionable, as this could result in that the RTP 
flow would have the possibility in some cases to cause persistent 
congestion, without ever having the possibility to trigger for this.

So a possibility could be to remove ECN-CE reaction and at the same time 
reduce the applicability of the specification. Then address this in the 
future when we know what the updated ECN-CE semantics is.

>
> However, I did not say that you cannot use ECN-CE as an input for a
> circuit breaker at all (if you really want to), just treat it not the
> same but different.

And I don't see how we can arrive at such an answer prior to updated 
semantics for the ECN-CE has been defined. Then you can determine what 
is reasonable response for a CB. From my perspective we can't have this 
circuit breaker wait for such work.

>
>> From my personal point of view there are two options here:
>
> 1) have a separate counter for ECN-CE with a much higher threshold
> than for loss, or
>
> 2) make sure that there are not only ECN-CE markings but also loss
> (maybe with a certain minimum rate).

The issue is to set the parameters for these in a correct (or even 
mostly working) way. We have no way of knowing if these would work well 
with the future semantics.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------