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

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Fri, 29 August 2014 15:15 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5DA1A047A for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.969
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WlqrBvs7dmOG for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B1F31A0458 for <dart@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd02.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd02.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.34]) by mailuogwprd01.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s7TFEn7w030760 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:14:51 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd01.lss.emc.com s7TFEn7w030760
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1409325292; bh=PEano3md3UqIxFx/59Bv6QGQJzI=; h=From:To:CC:Date:Subject:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=ilZBOf59VSLc987swQoqkaIrfli/WNRCDx1QFODay6AsD1Hxmpf3qSFVZ3NWGot6r tUbXkFP8JpTHoPPu5gXVbQZhiMY+Q15BOnfFElzIIKgDwKSOYFyV8REouT0WB5Lk2G tRQiNURYa/9pC3vJHANc544VC046fzOJOzIU2Z08=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd01.lss.emc.com s7TFEn7w030760
Received: from mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.25]) by maildlpprd02.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:14:31 -0400
Received: from mxhub13.corp.emc.com (mxhub13.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.234]) by mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s7TFEdrU026636 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:14:41 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.175]) by mxhub13.corp.emc.com ([128.222.70.234]) with mapi; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:14:40 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:14:38 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward
Thread-Index: Ac/DdtV0+JRXfxCvRoqaimKY/SePGwAJGdhw
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BC6691C@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BC667DE@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <2B82DD06-83A4-4710-B614-16F5351A0A7F@nostrum.com> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077BC66841@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <EF7D019B-08CF-4C0B-BF89-0F37A0AD3FFB@nostrum.com> <54005A89.1030606@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <54005A89.1030606@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/briS_0eJ5B93puQXCC60s0n4OeA
Cc: "dart@ietf.org" <dart@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:15:02 -0000

Harald,

I'm about to submit a -05 with the indication that the single DSCP recommendation
for SCTP and DCCP may be revised.  The RTCP multi-stream optimization text will
still be in there with Colin's clarification about "received" streams.  I'm about
to vanish for about 3 weeks, but could put in a revised -06 over the weekend 
if you can quickly convince Colin.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:49 AM
> To: Ben Campbell; Black, David
> Cc: dart@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward
> 
> I think the text in -04 looks reasonable.
> 
> I would like to do two things:
> 
> - The justification for "single DSCP" in SCTP and DCCP is "we don't know
> what will happen".
> A logical consequence is that this recommendation might change as the
> result of further study, so we might want to add near the bottom of
> section 5 a sentence saying "This recommendation may be revisited if
> experiments and analysis shows compelling reasons to change it."
> 
> - I still think the ban against RTCP multi-stream reporting optimization
> is completely wrong. The reports will correctly reflect the differing
> packet loss behaviours of the incoming RTP streams, and that's all they
> should be required to do.
> 
> I regard the latter as somewhat important. The former is more a matter
> of taste (if we're arguing based on ignorance, allow for the case where
> ignorance becomes knowledge).
> 
> 
> On 08/28/2014 10:25 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> > Okay, works for me.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Ben.
> >
> > On Aug 28, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com>; wrote:
> >
> >>> If we think we can close this as not a real issue (or at least not an
> issue we
> >>> plan to address), but there's some risk it might come back up at IETF LC,
> then
> >>> that's fine. But if we are saying there is an open issue that needs
> closure,
> >>> but we can close it during IETF last call, then I have reservations. The
> >>> version that goes to IETF LC should be one that the working group believes
> to
> >>> be as complete is it's going to get.
> >> In private discussion, both Harald and I favored saying less (rather than
> more)
> >> about RMCAT in this DART draft.  For that reason I think "at least not
> >> an issue we plan to address" is a valid characterization of this item.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --David
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 3:44 PM
> >>> To: Black, David; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> >>> Cc: dart@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [Dart] draft-dart-dscp-rtp - way forward
> >>>
> >>> (as chair)
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com>; wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> [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.
> >>> I have mixed feelings on this.
> >>>
> >>> If we think we can close this as not a real issue (or at least not an
> issue we
> >>> plan to address), but there's some risk it might come back up at IETF LC,
> then
> >>> that's fine. But if we are saying there is an open issue that needs
> closure,
> >>> but we can close it during IETF last call, then I have reservations. The
> >>> version that goes to IETF LC should be one that the working group believes
> to
> >>> be as complete is it's going to get.
> >>>
> >>> David, thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Harald, do you care to comment further?