Re: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] [conex] Q-HTTP

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 16 November 2010 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763043A6CFB; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:52:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.767
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.767 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J8TnawJD2ILC; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:52:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1A23A6DED; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:52:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hydra-3.local (99-152-144-32.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.144.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAGJrCJZ053485 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:53:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4CE2E128.9020207@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:53:12 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
References: <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F106701E2@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <EAA2CFBF-9434-4E52-A586-7AE5F665A9DF@apple.com> <1104E0EB-CBAD-4001-962F-9D5F8B856D42@nokia.com> <01d801cb8083$8ca250f0$a5e6f2d0$@iridescentnetworks.com> <1E1ED4EA-7CB5-4A86-BD3F-B1F5F72EF456@netflix.com> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F0C1F@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <EF84DC37-8CB6-4DB7-85AC-E091D90FF075@apple.com> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F0CA2@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011102303170.2639@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F10D0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011111616310.2639@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F1154@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F 16877F3C@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <663377F3-630B-428F-92CC-775CC63B816B@apple.com> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7032A5ABE@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <0068F76E-8631-4A43-A414-02AC36F2F81E@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <0068F76E-8631-4A43-A414-02AC36F2F81E@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 99.152.144.32 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:05:38 -0800
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org, httpstreaming <httpstreaming@ietf.org>, conex@ietf.org, Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "Mike Hammer \(hmmr\)" <hmmr@cisco.com>, "GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER \(JOSE JAVIER\)" <jose_javier.garcia_aranda@alcatel-lucent.com>, Ingemar@core3.amsl.com, "DIAZ VIZCAINO, LUIS MIGUEL \(LUIS MIGUEL\)" <luismi.diaz@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] [conex] Q-HTTP
X-BeenThere: httpstreaming@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <httpstreaming.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/httpstreaming>
List-Post: <mailto:httpstreaming@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:52:42 -0000

On 11/16/10 13:40, Nov 16, David Singer wrote:
> OK, so my example was slightly humorous.  But in general I think the claim that you can give preferential treatment -- preferential allocation of bandwidth -- to certain traffic simply because of its type is doubtful.

I think you need to differentiate between "preferential" and "appropriate."

For example, your gaming neighbor probably would dislike a policy of 
"deliver this packet with little regard to latency, but with a higher 
effort" approach. And you, in downloading a file, probably would dislike 
a policy of "deliver this packet with very little latency, unless it 
can't get there in time, in which case you should just drop it."

/a