Re: [Dart] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-02

Ben Campbell <> Mon, 25 August 2014 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1FC1A00DC for <>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PtPh4vmMPWhR for <>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 179ED1A00B5 for <>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s7PI7AMn051291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:07:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ben Campbell <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:07:10 -0500
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 430682830.409649-d89c731aa6954172fa0b1bec7175106a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Subject: Re: [Dart] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:07:36 -0000

On Aug 25, 2014, at 5:17 AM, Harald Alvestrand <> wrote:

>>>> It might be nice to have a more WebRTC-ish example. For example an audio
>>>> stream, video stream, and a data channel carrying something like a shared
>>>> white board or game.
>>> Sure, please send text.
>> Okay, how about something like the following, added to the end of section 4:
>> "A WebRTC application may carry one or more RTP streams, as discussed above. In addition, it might carry an SCTP data channel. The treatment of the data channel would depend on the nature of the application. For example, messaging applications, shared white board, or guided browsing applications might be best effort, while a latency-sensitive game application might require a higher priority PHB."
> I would prefer to say "A WebRTC application may use...." - an application is something that lives in a browser at one end of a connection, talking to something at the other end of the connection (might be an instance of the same application, might be something completely different).
> I would also prefer "might desire" to "might require" - games are unlikely to refuse to operate if they don't get a higher priority PHB, they'll just work with degraded performance. That's nits.

Harald's suggestions improve the text. I agree with both.