IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Congestion controll

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 10 June 2013 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C715121F9385 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_19=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-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 LOlxgp6M2b5R for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2780C21F8F61 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hq4so1126465wib.6 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dHRp9raMlSTQJ1IbOUAIVvy5IaVRliBWEFnfz2Of4PE=; b=HsfzPPdg/MPW3FaU0i85Dmn+dAfE53NM4RmxHYkmRtVSyyEKCNxW7Aycj8M1XOYTN6 KJNwdZoyTIB5vodrbw8hhh67NjeBYfccRFrXQi7O9xzqG/+QbmqVVaBHOdYq6fyDMsOU EwSgkt7cqZh7+rASTI73MeodGfvF/gUoV7zlbcPKiHJa24EAhKXwDJ0YP1S3vUQiGuIq skDxf2HYRCZ9AKm7czTupykInmN5fCzsYXIVpFn1qc3aLlGhLSkR47Oza25qdaWCodLL 8txSEDlSczrxBchroDE2uNj2w3UQP/5T37xKzxmtyGDwlPCLBi4bsLIRkjMDoY2kn7Xk KYJQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.87.162 with SMTP id az2mr1373566wib.10.1370884762239; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.60.46 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51B6086E.5020802@jitsi.org>
References: <20130530185619.4124.56395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51A87F91.2080500@jitsi.org> <51AEA08D.8090103@cisco.com> <BLU403-EAS336A4AA94CDB5E97170F9A5939F0@phx.gbl> <25B9903E-DC06-4BB0-92A1-C1E7A2AA569E@iii.ca> <BLU169-W609A2EAD331201B824EB6093980@phx.gbl> <4D8F5FFC-F89B-4A5B-8464-3EF20E7D67E9@iii.ca> <CABkgnnUFbc0+A=-rFZRSPN+maXCDHv7QnOOuf4N+wFOc_u7h4g@mail.gmail.com> <51B6086E.5020802@jitsi.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:19:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWJrhCPpV2rfwkb5cDhPXC=ACoN2602sSW_sA9HXicKXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, Ari Keranen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Congestion controll
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:19:23 -0000

On 10 June 2013 10:10, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:
>> I think that this is the part that is getting confused.  This is not a
>> complaint against plan A or B.
>
> It is indeed a problem with both of them and it is also mentioned in the No
> Plan draft.

Well then you've assumed something about Plan A/B that is incorrect.
Neither plan constrains usage in a way that would prevent senders from
responding to congestion signals.  The fine-grained control that you
report as being problematic doesn't prevent senders from sending fewer
bits.

Is it possible that you have assumed that the existence of an m-line
or a=ssrc implies that the sender is obligated to send?  It doesn't.

The only possible problem is the use of a=imageattr in the examples of
Plan B, which might (might) overconstrain a sender, but Plan B doesn't
mandate anything regarding that in text.  Assuming anything there
would be a real stretch.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email