Re: [Dart] [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02.txt

"Karen E. Egede Nielsen" <karen.nielsen@tieto.com> Mon, 21 July 2014 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8E91B2A66 for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ppXHo_PyvYCP for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24A8A1B2AB4 for <dart@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id u56so6871048wes.28 for <dart@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tieto.com; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:thread-index:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=2uca0xtQTSvcVwGuCu2GzTY4S+XwcHnUNg8PVJD8SrI=; b=A5UCdKq4jG/19/WHE3e4cmgKGX0cnChFFuJDZW9zKQpfYYTiDVYWV/+aSgBw7iDBRF pYmA06wrtN17Z5O6qRCbMzxzjp+Va5YWdKo+0Z3ffUDJnQsTTkbdukilg0hCNwu7Vdxw u3qRkMAP5BTRfJBCQwVNaP8dfFCWG0Ux8BbVw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=2uca0xtQTSvcVwGuCu2GzTY4S+XwcHnUNg8PVJD8SrI=; b=WRUW1cdk5eRDbV01RjYF0zcn8Swb5YN+7834N2HeQ2miFJ/wa6xG9MS7haE2TGACuE 7tIT/XkmVQQ1feiqcMCBC/o10DiRXQzmkaF9RyHcjuo1jkuPhQZW5OYjFvsJyol3ANZV rv3k/rslcgNIVItjWxaUTYXjrH73zEtT83FvjasBba6KyYinH32eUAz+DEv/l6G1F1/Z d9ORmHOLxMtD8gdmLeU6wZ5ahy5ygTOxbXHEQ/9HMj0N8t3Afetxn0HvArZUWS3uCKUw fUc6y+sPiqd9Qm2XfJhrcSIOkqVMV3C/vzimsDeUlbz5Q0n6xZYFImCEevowwdM8S7Q/ VMyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlgjMrDrodV/ajbQnORKwcmEKY37pndGnr8NWrCZ1zVN6e2HM8XkRZJy0Rons50VMcF1tFd8VnlqkmJpSl2RkJh79T4uA==
X-Received: by 10.180.24.225 with SMTP id x1mr4127258wif.14.1405905752331; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Karen E. Egede Nielsen" <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
References: <20140623191132.21904.23978.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1373b5f3f2f88c06aafc0deb45287f61@mail.gmail.com> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71207783F6386@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71207783F6386@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQLxFDM79VKa65qAlrEeSSnrsrTmeQI8PUdIAZ7WDh+ZR/+qsA==
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 03:20:16 +0200
Message-ID: <cf82224f01a7f8eb7b234c017e80203e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-DomainID: tieto.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/-LIwzWGSCmPtCpvMTOaINUv_zDg
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 06:15:35 -0700
Cc: rmcat WG <rmcat@ietf.org>, dart@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dart] [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" <dart.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dart>, <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dart/>
List-Post: <mailto:dart@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart>, <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 01:22:37 -0000

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David [mailto:david.black@emc.com]
> Sent: 21. juli 2014 02:51
> To: Karen E. Egede Nielsen; tsvwg@ietf.org
> Cc: rmcat WG; dart@ietf.org; Black, David
> Subject: RE: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02.txt
>
> Karen,
>
> <WG chair hat off>, [+dart list]
>
> > I wonder if the recommendations of this document should not relate to
> > the viability (or rather the opposite) of handling different RTCWEB
> > data channels individually from a DSCP markings perspective. Or more
> > generally relate to the fact that media streams within the same
> > congestion control context cannot be handled individually.
> > Right now such considerations are not in the document. If the
> > intention is for such consideration to come in documents from the dart
> > wg, then it would be very important to  have a reference to this
> > dependency - or ?
>
> IMHO, such a reference is necessary, although the dart WG draft will be
> informational.  The reference should be added once there is an official
> dart
> WG draft (likely to happen this week).
>
> > Something else:
> >
> > Right now the document stipulates that packets within the same media
> > stream may be marked with different DSCP codepoints, i.e., it is said:
> >
> >    One may select difference drop precedences for the
> >    different packets in the media flow.  Therefore, all packets in the
> >    stream SHOULD be marked with the same priority but can have
> >    difference drop precedences.
> >
> > which indeed is in compliance with the recommendations put forward in
> > draft-york-dart-dscp-rtp-00 in that
> > it ensures that the DSCP markings  do not result in re-ordering
> > within the media flow, but has it been ascertained, from a CC
> > perspective that usage of different drop precedence within the same CC
> > context is viable ?
>
> Good question - I will include that in my slides for the dart WG meeting.
>
> > >From the RTCWEB data channel perspective this certainly isn't viable
> > >(being
> > SCTP based),
> > whether it is viable from an RMCAT CC perspective is something that we
> > in the RMCAT wg would need to make more clear.
>
> What's the rationale for "certainly isn't viable" regarding different drop
> precedences within a single SCTP session?
[Karen] Ok - "certainly not viable" is too strong formulation.
Having different drop precedences within the same SCTP CC context would,
given that SCTP CC presently is drop driven only,
results in that the whole data channel is impacted, from a CC perspective,
by the highest drop precedence. But I realize that whether this is
acceptable is a question indeed.

>
> Thanks,
> --David (as an editor of draft-york, *not* as a tsvwg WG chair)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tsvwg [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karen E.
> > Egede Nielsen
> > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 4:49 PM
> > To: tsvwg@ietf.org
> > Cc: rmcat WG
> > Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02.txt
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please accept the following comments:
> >
> > I wonder if the recommendations of this document should not relate to
> > the viability (or rather the opposite) of handling different RTCWEB
> > data channels individually from a DSCP markings perspective. Or more
> > generally relate to the fact that media streams within the same
> > congestion control context cannot be handled individually.
> > Right now such considerations are not in the document. If the
> > intention is for such consideration to come in documents from the dart
> > wg, then it would be very important to  have a reference to this
> > dependency - or ?
> >
> > Something else:
> >
> > Right now the document stipulates that packets within the same media
> > stream may be marked with different DSCP codepoints, i.e., it is said:
> >
> >    One may select difference drop precedences for the
> >    different packets in the media flow.  Therefore, all packets in the
> >    stream SHOULD be marked with the same priority but can have
> >    difference drop precedences.
> >
> > which indeed is in compliance with the recommendations put forward in
> > draft-york-dart-dscp-rtp-00 in that
> > it ensures that the DSCP markings  do not result in re-ordering
> > within the media flow, but has it been ascertained, from a CC
> > perspective that usage of different drop precedence within the same CC
> > context is viable ?
> >
> > >From the RTCWEB data channel perspective this certainly isn't viable
> > >(being
> > SCTP based),
> > whether it is viable from an RMCAT CC perspective is something that we
> > in the RMCAT wg would need to make more clear.
> >
> > BR, Karen
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tsvwg [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-
> > > drafts@ietf.org
> > > Sent: 23. juni 2014 21:12
> > > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> > > Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
> > > Subject: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > > directories.
> > >  This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group
> > > Working Group of the IETF.
> > >
> > >         Title           : DSCP and other packet markings for RTCWeb
> > > QoS
> > >         Authors         : Subha Dhesikan
> > >                           Cullen Jennings
> > >                           Dan Druta
> > >                           Paul Jones
> > >                           James Polk
> > > 	Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02.txt
> > > 	Pages           : 7
> > > 	Date            : 2014-06-23
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >    Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks,
> > > can
> > >    provide per packet treatments based on Differentiated Services Code
> > >    Points (DSCP) on a per-hop basis.  This document provides the
> > >    recommended DSCP values for browsers to use for various classes of
> > >    traffic.
> > >
> > >
> > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos/
> > >
> > > There's also a htmlized version available at:
> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02
> > >
> > > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02
> > >
> > >
> > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> > > tools.ietf.org.
> > >
> > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/