Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 12 October 2012 23:18 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1350080115.2197.3.camel@TesterTop4>
References: <CABkgnnWSTDok4-48g-vFGM_zk0ykU-BvrOWfpffAfJeZd41EGA@mail.gmail.com> <1350080115.2197.3.camel@TesterTop4>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:18:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVoyTjFBa2YsYkU8BCKxi8gMp5jdk1g8NsRtAfKXe7gYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Olivier Crête <olivier.crete@collabora.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open
Precedence: list

On 12 October 2012 15:15, Olivier Crête <olivier.crete@collabora.com> wrote:
> I really think you're trying to put this in the wrong layer. SDP already
> has b= lines.

b= lines are under the direct control of a web-based attacker, the
exact person we trust least in this scenario.

> And WebRTC should also include a congestion control
> mechanism which you can probably also use to control/share bandwidth
> more dynamically.

That would be nice, in theory.  After the RMCAT BoF and reading all
the papers from the IAB workshop on the subject, I did not come away
with a warm fuzzy feeling.  There are methods that are proven to work
for some definition of "work" but all of these assume that the
receiver is at a minimum willing to receive the packets that are being
sent.

Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open Martin Thomson
[MMUSIC] The floodgates are open Martin Thomson
Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open Olivier Crête
Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open Ted Hardie
Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open Bernard Aboba
Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open Harald Alvestrand
Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open Martin Thomson
Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open Martin Thomson