Re: [ledbat] [R-C] LEDBAT vs RTCWeb

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Wed, 25 April 2012 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
X-Original-To: ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0442111E80B3 for <ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.234
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.364, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MKzrETI+-xZL for <ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634E511E80B7 for <ledbat@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-108-16-41-249.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([108.16.41.249] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1SMpnG-0001dm-EY; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:09:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4F97407D.2080002@jesup.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:08:29 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtp-congestion@alvestrand.no
References: <4F840709.4020103@alvestrand.no><CAEdus3+Muyy73UoXYuNv6K3OqaSnUYkZh5yBYcpOT1M4oqBc3w@mail.gmail.com><4F87EF2B.1010805@jesup.org><201204201355.36264.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de><4F91772F.8010806@jesup.org><791AD3077F94194BB2BDD13565B6295D2509B178@Polydeuces.office.hd><4F958A16.6070505@jesup.org><791AD3077F94194BB2BDD13565B6295D2509C952@Polydeuces.office.hd><4F95D01B.1020003@jesup.org><791AD3077F94194BB2BDD13565B6295D2509E0F0@Polydeuces.office.hd> <4F9722D5.2020105@jesup.org> <117602CF2B17DB4F9001427FA6D9053901A0423E@XMB-RCD-312.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <117602CF2B17DB4F9001427FA6D9053901A0423E@XMB-RCD-312.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070902000707070303030702"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: "ledbat@ietf.org" <ledbat@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ledbat] [R-C] LEDBAT vs RTCWeb
X-BeenThere: ledbat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of the LEDBAT WG <ledbat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ledbat>, <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ledbat>
List-Post: <mailto:ledbat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledbat>, <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:09:16 -0000

On 4/24/2012 7:23 PM, Bill Ver Steeg (versteb) wrote:
>
> I am a bit confused by the last paragraph. I understand why one would 
> implement active queue management algorithms in middleboxes like 
> cable/DSL modems, but I am not sure how AQM on a set top box would 
> help with bufferbloat. I guess I could come up with some very narrow 
> cases in which an endpoint would benefit from advance buffer 
> management techniques for self generated competing flows, but this 
> would be very artificial and of no use in the real world.
>

That's a quote from telecom-paristech.fr; it may be a mis-translation, 
or they may be referring to cable modems as "set top" devices.

-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org