Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get active)
Fu Jiantao <fuji246@gmail.com> Tue, 05 March 2013 09:17 UTC
Return-Path: <fuji246@gmail.com>
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 8A4C321F887F for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 01:17:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 4zzCSKutG0HC for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 01:17:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D03E21F8873 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 01:17:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id fq13so5812099lab.7 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:17:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=tQ1ojEFcg1za15EmfxEHeULzDRtAMy/nfoP/dpE+CP4=; b=cGYCUpd3uGIyWOic0iQGqvE5e2jpYHzYaUU04Yn/+TZA/qKTLcwwxiREtHQNhzyJUB l30qR0q+VJBvn8GQYz73vvBF1Li7UWM+skNREiOCZOTAA4fgQD+/tYSdN7W1hDTquwIP heE2mD1Rlov6wOzyz4phP9E95+vUraFd77m11OcCW7PAleJfOpzGklzJpEUlU7RBBX34 3oWwzHkYVXRAGhiOZLNd/YI3071QUEh4ND115tU6dSJSARpawxWRiadT7GgWVCAAjWWE la6FWLgfEGq5tXt8DlqRB5LL8FxDNWrv1GJu1BsEjW3stD67KLTwzKOWG9PQR2sBkssV CUrw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.110.6 with SMTP id hw6mr20873907lab.43.1362475069172; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.25.231 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 01:17:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <023D88F2-1A6E-47C2-91B2-8B56DEEC70B1@g11.org.uk>
References: <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F768E66@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <CAH56bmDCaQB3fQLq4UyiEWY2_qEhHXzp7aoyqde5K=rMZcLKvg@mail.gmail.com> <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F7690F6@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <023D88F2-1A6E-47C2-91B2-8B56DEEC70B1@g11.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:17:49 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKmxLjWpEfD+iHdnczMSEymyu-N4=3kegqUOQU0MUFbw61280A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fu Jiantao <fuji246@gmail.com>
To: rmcat WG <rmcat@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec54b48d083754e04d729f2c2"
Subject: Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get active)
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:17:51 -0000
Another concern for the requirement There maybe sometimes UDP is blocked, and ICE may use TCP connection(see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4571 for how to use rtp/rtcp on TCP), this is a practical user scenario, is there any consideration for this case? I'm not sure whether this is in the scope of rmcat. Thanks! Jeromy 2013/2/28 ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> > well, perhaps I can get the ball rolling in terms of a headache to chew on > :-) > > The second requirement in draft-jesup-rmcat-reqs-01.txt is... > > 2. The algorithm must be fair to other flows, both realtime flows > (such as other instances of itself), and TCP flows, both long- > lived and bursts such as the traffic generated by a typical web > browsing session. Note that 'fair' is a rather hard-to-define > term. > > A. The algorithm must not overreact to short-term bursts (such > as web-browsing) which can quickly saturate a local- > bottleneck router or link, but also clear quickly, and > should recover quickly when the burst ends. > > B. We will need make some evaluation of fairness, but deciding > what is "fair" is a tough question and likely to be > partially subjective, but we should specify some of the > inputs needed in order to select among algorithms and > tunings presented as options. > > however, the document does not have a definition of the term "fair" or > "fairness". And while the document points us to terminology in another > draft (draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-06.txt), this other draft doesn't even > mention "fair" or fairness". I think one nit is that the RMCAT > requirements draft needs its own terminology section instead of pointing to > another draft. > > And more importantly, I think we need to bite the bullet and decide what > is "fair" / "fairness". It just doesn't seem possible for us to say that > the algorithms *must* be fair, but then punt in defining what is (or > perhaps, what is not) fair. And I'm definitely not meaning to beat up on > the author, but rather ourselves. > > As a starting point, and in the context of real time apps, I don't think > we need to be fair to a continual series of parallel short transaction > flows. Rather, I would prefer to be fair, or focus our attention, to > longer transaction flows. > > thoughts? Have I missed something? > > -ken > > > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 1:37 PM, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:35, Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com> wrote: > >> Did we perhaps address all of the hard problems in the charter process, > so > >> now there is nothing to controversial to chew on? > > > > I wish... > > > > Lars > >
- [rmcat] time to get active Eggert, Lars
- Re: [rmcat] time to get active Matt Mathis
- Re: [rmcat] time to get active Eggert, Lars
- [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get active) ken carlberg
- Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get act… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get act… Piers O'Hanlon
- Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get act… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get act… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get act… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get act… Fu Jiantao