IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rmcat] Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-01

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Sun, 19 July 2015 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9986B1B2CD4 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 4h5TZKXKdJ23 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) (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 CA5591A898B for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ZGvs2-0001LR-Ua; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:11:38 +0200
Received: from [130.129.233.50] by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ZGvs2-0005Z0-GD; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:11:38 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <E0F7A68B07B53F4FBD12DABD61CBA90E129ACF5C@ESESSMB307.ericsson.se>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:11:37 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3FBB57EE-E11A-4AB9-8CF8-4AD206C3E001@ifi.uio.no>
References: <559FB533.5090105@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <81564C0D7D4D2A4B9A86C8C7404A13DA34B3AE0B@ESESSMB205.ericsson.se> <55A4CD90.4020905@ericsson.com> <, > <17a463d7eb4dddb627d9d52d0e6ceb2d@mail.gmail.com> <pqd7y09y2g7ct1c7xah2lp1e.1436904929881@email.android.com> <456f0d239cbead1c87a3d639688f7495@mail.gmail.com> <E0F7A68B07B53F4FBD12DABD61CBA90E129ACF5C@ESESSMB307.ericsson.se>
To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 5 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 9 sum msgs/h 4 total rcpts 31158 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 41D4490A01271D130C346BB55509E2E97AB268E9
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 130.129.233.50 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 9 max/h 4 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/IDXloORWuY75ga-HmjWUjVXtOo4>
Cc: "Karen E. E. Nielsen" <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-01
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:11:42 -0000

Hi,

snip:


>> I suppose that it should be up to implementations how they want to implement
>> coupled cc and if they want a leveled approach as the one just described or a
>> more "direct" approach where each RTP flows is handled individually from a CC
>> perspective and the coupled via coupled cc (wezlz).
> [Zaheduzzaman Sarker] I believe for implementers do have a choice. However, if they decided to implement SCReAM they have an easy alternative for coupled-cc as Michael W himself says.

I don't think I said that (actually I'm not sure I even understand this sentence). What did you mean I said?

Cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email