[Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Thu, 28 August 2014 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7221A88E9 for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.969
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6g5R5mtVOtDC for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 915171A88DE for <dart@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com []) by mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s7SICH32019718 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:12:18 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com s7SICH32019718
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1409249538; bh=pFClN5GrLLg4xOL9PtV9wngIIGQ=; h=From:To:CC:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=bBARcBj2fQMaGGkQUCp84PNvNzOejLHjgzuqZTDCuTljES2T8hSw8zDl1Ejk0fWpB 2n3PmOVlJpAryitlqj/5DDSDHhm+28iE127UxyzfKoSKlXGaExlgUT9Bl8+GAuWPIx HJSAuXJfEQwrahLPK3GGp3QHPB3MWtmcAqUCefqY=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com s7SICH32019718
Received: from mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com []) by maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:12:06 -0400
Received: from mxhub32.corp.emc.com (mxhub32.corp.emc.com []) by mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s7SIC7nC018488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:12:07 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([]) by mxhub32.corp.emc.com ([]) with mapi; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:12:07 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "dart@ietf.org" <dart@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:12:05 -0400
Thread-Topic: draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward
Thread-Index: Ac/C64/SYiRrXJI/SU+LRj1F3IDkaA==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BC667DE@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/RJLU3rQbhhhuG4SrAlDHRgn_e7o
Cc: "Colin Perkins \(csp@csperkins.org\)" <csp@csperkins.org>
Subject: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward
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: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:12:25 -0000

Looking at the list discussion, I think I see enough info to produce a
-05 version of this draft that should address all the last call items.

Reminder - we had 6 WG LC open issues and work items:

[A] Work item: Gorry Fairhurst's item (1), a new Section 5.4 on "single
PHB/DSCP for a single TCP connection, SCTP association or DCCP connection" -
I need to write this text, and will try to do that over the weekend.

--> Done, as noted previously, this text wound up in section 5.1 of the
--> -04 draft, along with slimming down of the corresponding guideline in
--> section 6.  I haven't seen a note from Gorry indicating that he's
--> checked it, though.

[B] Open issue: PHBs and DSCPs for RTCP.  The RTCP guideline bullet cannot
be revised until this open issue is resolved on the list.  See:

--> I think I see rough agreement that for RTCP SRs, the same DSCP should
--> be used as the RTP stream being reported on, and for RTCP RRs, the 
--> DSCP to use should be the one that would be used to send a similar
--> RTP stream.

--> Beyond that, when an AF class is used, the DSCP with least likelihood
--> of drop should be used, and for a single RTCP report on multiple RTP
--> streams for which different DSCPs apply, it's up to the RTCP
--> implementation to choose one.

--> There's enough text to write here, including mentioning that RTCP
--> feedback is not currently used for congestion control, that I think
--> this should be in a new section 5.4, along with a rewritten guideline
--> item in Section 6.  I hope to send draft text later today.

[C] Work item:  Request to Ben Campbell for "additional text on context
(WebRTC, clue and bundle) for the Introduction and Abstract, plus for a
better example in Section 4."

--> Done, text is in -04, with some minor edits coming in -05.

[D] Open issue: Question to Harald Alvestrand - Does CNAME need to be used
in section 2.2 text?  I hope not.

--> Closed via a small text deletion in section 2.1 of -04 draft.

[E] Open issue: Harald Alvestrand's concerns about "differential treatment"
wrt Section 5.1 .  I don't completely understand these concerns, and suspect
that they may require an email discussion across the DART and RMCAT WGs
to sort through.

--> Deferred - Harald wanted to think about this, and I've seen nothing
--> further.  I'd suggest that IETF Last Call as an appropriate opportunity
--> to share any further thoughts, so I don't think there's anything to be done
--> about this now.

[F] Open issue: Harald Alvestrand's concerns about the RTCP multi-stream
optimization text in section 5.2 .  I don't think there's a problem here,
but I'm not an expert on the RTCP technology involved, and Harald may not
agree.  This is a different RTCP issue than [B].

--> Not an issue - At least Colin Perkins and I believe the existing
--> DART draft text is fine, so I don't think there's anything that needs
--> to be done for this.

I'm about to vanish for 2.5 weeks of vacation w/little to no email access,
so my goal is to get the -05 version submitted either tomorrow or Saturday.

David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
david.black@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754