IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rmcat] Priority and rtcweb

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Mon, 13 November 2017 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E02128BA2 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:44:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5T_tM-gUZ4yd for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out02.uio.no (mail-out02.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::71]) (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 B3A0B126B6E for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx02.uio.no ([129.240.10.43]) by mail-out02.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1eEAMO-000FwC-T7; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:44:52 +0100
Received: from dhcp-82c4.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.130.196]) by mail-mx02.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1eEAMN-0003Xn-Fo; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:44:52 +0100
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Message-Id: <B01370E2-AABE-41D4-A7A7-8A062ED3B42B@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_35CB4AC0-0F07-4A4C-A424-1B6FCF03C9EE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:44:46 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CACHXSv7z3KSNB+4PZ9+AgrW1nzc7ZH2fbNbBDoeKVqm=SYmZuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
To: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>
References: <CACHXSv7z3KSNB+4PZ9+AgrW1nzc7ZH2fbNbBDoeKVqm=SYmZuQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx02.uio.no: 31.133.130.196 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=31.133.130.196; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=dhcp-82c4.meeting.ietf.org;
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, AWL=0.063, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: B4A4F130CA9DD9CB2D94DDC4C27E959BD6DEB93B
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/4f4jny42iq4HQ4fq66EE3cP7Fkk>
Subject: [rmcat] Priority and rtcweb
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rmcat/>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:44:57 -0000

Can I hijack this thread to talk about priority?

There was a thread about priority in rtcweb - someone asking for a float… coupled-cc can easily support a float, but Harald’s transport draft doesn’t support it. Opinions went back and forth for a bit...
I think we should get more WebRTC deployment and not more debate on small details that delays the work, so I don’t want to be a troublemaker and didn’t interfere with this discussion.
But, what is the view of people in rmcat about this?

Cheers,
Michael


> On Nov 13, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Was there a study done for the parameters needed for congestion control? I know we debated this at length, were there slides created by  the congestion control proponents, that I can reference. 
> 
> From the top of my head, I remember there’s 
> + priority (needed by coupled congestion control)
> 
> I’m asking this for w3c input. They already have max bitrate, max framearte, and degradation preference  degradation preference indicates where the bits should be allocated: in maintaining frame rates or frame sizes. 
> 
> Feedback is appreciated To make sure we didn’t miss anything.
> 
> Cheers,
> Varun. 
> -- 
> Founder, CEO, callstats.io <http://callstats.io/>
> http://www.callstats.io <http://www.callstats.io/>
> 
> Interested in networking, media quality, and diagnostics.
> We are hiring!: www.callstats.io/jobs/ <http://www.callstats.io/jobs/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email