Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15.txt> (DSCP and other packet markings for WebRTC QoS) to Proposed Standard
"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Tue, 03 May 2016 03:17 UTC
Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7955712B018; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=packetizer.com
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 9x7UmDZBxR-H; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AEDC12D0B1; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (cpe-098-122-181-215.nc.res.rr.com [98.122.181.215] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u433HVsb011520 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 May 2016 23:17:31 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1462245452; bh=gWq4ec2dUxTJdSBgjIqPzmJemEd3/xLRT3Qz/p+RdoQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:Reply-To; b=sgGrZHoyL4+8t1rqedgGKXFa0Xm3I+L8Q4uzGwh/ykMarHEge/biOfJJZJBfzY2iE Gp78B4rxe71hx6lgOlZiEX0jKmuk8tOz8LHlvWa/ZDqq+lg/0kuHzJpqTyKlHu1qT9 Zp6UZ0Aque3uPcaG2TDVi7ltwg3U4VupmH7rcngI=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15.txt> (DSCP and other packet markings for WebRTC QoS) to Proposed Standard
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 03:17:38 +0000
Message-Id: <emfd25ee64-57d3-4cab-bb2e-9b7dbfd3eef7@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <5715F07D.1050502@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.24928.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (dublin.packetizer.com [10.137.60.122]); Mon, 02 May 2016 23:17:32 -0400 (EDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Zzjsw80i_WapT4eSjBzbx7uFOas>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 03:17:39 -0000
As I understand, we need this addition: Currently in WebRTC, media sent over RTP is assumed to be interactive <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage"/> while media streamed over HTTP <xref target="RFC7230"/> <xref target="RFC7540"/> is assumed not to be. Future WebRTC extensions could allow streamed, non-interactive media over RTP. I modified is slightly by adding "non-interactive" near the end and inserting a reference near "interactive", though this is perhaps a redundant reference since it appears elsewhere in the draft. That RTP usage reference does not speak to HTTP, so I don't have a reference to "prove" that sentence above. Is there a better reference? Paul ------ Original Message ------ From: "Magnus Westerlund" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>; "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@iii.ca> Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>; "tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>; "draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos@ietf.org>; "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org> Sent: 4/19/2016 4:46:53 AM Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15.txt> (DSCP and other packet markings for WebRTC QoS) to Proposed Standard >Den 2016-04-18 kl. 15:04, skrev Black, David: >>So, summarizing Magnus's concerns with proposals: >> >>>>[1] Flow Type in application-facing browser API: >> >>>>Propose an additional sentence: >>>>OLD >>>> o Flow Type: The browser provides this input as it knows if the >>>>flow >>>> is audio, interactive video with or without audio, >>>>non-interactive >>>> video with or without audio, or data. >>>>NEW >>>> o Flow Type: The browser provides this input as it knows if the >>>>flow >>>> is audio, interactive video with or without audio, >>>>non-interactive >>>> video with or without audio, or data. For audio that is >>>>associated >>>> with a video flow, the flow type of the associated video MAY >>>> be used instead of the associated audio type. >> >>Magnus - does that new text suffice? > >Yes. > >> >>>>[2] What does "interactive" mean in an implementation?: >>> >>>We could add something along lines of ..... Currently in WebRTC, >>>media sent over >>>RTP is assumed to be interactive while media streamed over HTTP is >>>assumed not >>>to be. Future WebRTC extensions could allow streamed media over RTP. >> >>I believe the proposed additional sentence addresses the question of >>how a browser >>determines whether a video flow is interactive. This proposed >>sentence will need to >>cite a WebRTC document that contains a statement to that effect, as I >>don't think this >>draft is the right place to be the primary reference for that >>statement. >> >>Magnus - would this approach be ok? > >Yes. > >/Magnus > >> >>Thanks, --David >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@iii.ca] >>>Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 10:48 AM >>>To: Black, David >>>Cc: Magnus Westerlund; ietf@ietf.org; tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org; >>>draft-ietf-tsvwg- >>>rtcweb-qos@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org >>>Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15.txt> >>>(DSCP and >>>other packet markings for WebRTC QoS) to Proposed Standard >>> >>> >>>>On Apr 3, 2016, at 3:37 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>I see a couple of Magnus's points that appear to need additional >>>>text >>>>in the draft: >>>> >>>>[1] Flow Type in application-facing browser API: >>>> >>>>>>>>>o Flow Type: The browser provides this input as it knows if >>>>>>>>>the flow is audio, interactive video with or without audio, >>>>>>>>>non-interactive video with or without audio, or data. >>>> >>>>[... snip ...] >>>> >>>>>The main issue here is that to me it was not clear that >>>>>"Interactive >>>>>Video with or without audio" allows for setting these DSCP values >>>>>also >>>>>for the RTP stream containing audio also. This, I do see a need for >>>>>clarification on. >>>> >>>>Propose an additional sentence: >>>>OLD >>>> o Flow Type: The browser provides this input as it knows if the >>>>flow >>>> is audio, interactive video with or without audio, >>>>non-interactive >>>> video with or without audio, or data. >>>>NEW >>>> o Flow Type: The browser provides this input as it knows if the >>>>flow >>>> is audio, interactive video with or without audio, >>>>non-interactive >>>> video with or without audio, or data. For audio that is >>>>associated >>>> with a video flow, the flow type of the associated video MAY >>>> be used instead of the associated audio type. >>>> >>>>I hesitate to say anything stronger than "MAY" here. >>> >>>Looks good. >>> >>>> >>>>[2] What does "interactive" mean in an implementation?: >>> >>>We could add something along lines of ..... Currently in WebRTC, >>>media sent over >>>RTP is assumed to be interactive while media streamed over HTTP is >>>assumed not >>>to be. Future WebRTC extensions could allow streamed media over RTP. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>The issue is that this document is called: DSCP and other packet >>>>>markings for WebRTC QoS. Then this document define something that >>>>>is not >>>>>immediately mappable onto what is being defined in the other WebRTC >>>>>specifications. That is why I am raising that there need to be more >>>>>clear coupling. If that coupling is to mostly happen in another >>>>>document, can we at least then have a proposal on the table for >>>>>that >>>>>change to ensure that the result is understandable. >>>> >>>>Well, this TSVWG draft is definitely not the right place for a >>>>discussion of >>>>when a video flow is interactive or non-interactive - I hope we can >>>>agree >>>>on that. >>>> >>>>Beyond that, as Cullen (Jennings) is both an author of this document >>>>and >>>>one of the chairs of the rtcweb WG, I'd suggest that he and/or the >>>>rtcweb >>>>WG propose an appropriate location for discussion of when a video >>>>flow >>>>is interactive or non-interactive. This TSVWG draft would then have >>>>an >>>>additional sentence added, e.g., >>>> >>>> See [TBD] for further discussion of how to determine >>>> whether a video flow is interactive vs. non-interactive. >>>> >>>>I believe that the added reference here ([TBD] above) would be >>>>normative. >>>> >>>>Cullen? >>> >>>That discussion happened long ago for WebRTC and we decided we did >>>not need >>>a JavaScript controls point in the WebRTC API to indicate if RTP was >>>interactive or >>>not. If people start doing streaming video over RTP we can come back >>>and revisit >>>this and trivially add an API to indicate that in the W3C WebRTC API. >>>Part of what >>>drove this decision is the likes of Netflix / ITunes / Youtube are >>>not asking the >>>browser vendors for streaming media over RTSP or RTP. They think HTTP >>>works >>>much better for this. Thus the browser vendors see no need for non >>>interactive >>>video over RTP. I agree with Magnus that this might change some day >>>in the >>>future but right now, I think it's close enough that everyone can >>>live with it. >>> >>>I'm not OK in treating it like some open issue that is still in >>>discussion that >>>somehow holds up this spec - it's not. >>> >>>> >>>>Thanks, --David (as document shepherd) >>>> >> >> > > >-- >Magnus Westerlund > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 >Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 >SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Magnus Westerlund
- RE: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Cullen Jennings
- RE: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… gorry
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Paul E. Jones
- RE: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Black, David
- RE: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Ted Hardie
- RE: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Black, David
- RE: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Ted Hardie
- RE: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-q… Colin Perkins