Re: [rmcat] RMCAT, quo vadis?
Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Mon, 13 November 2017 09:03 UTC
Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 5822D126CC4 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 01:03:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 VgkbCrcLbEqr for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 01:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9600012426E for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 01:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2001:67c:370:128:6944:b75a:342:f80c] (port=61687) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1eEAeC-0000TA-NN; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:03:17 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <440EBA4E-CD3E-4434-A475-C880D9DFD815@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:03:10 +0800
Cc: rmcat@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AD9BAD2A-80F9-40BC-9135-B6C8A58EC7D5@csperkins.org>
References: <440EBA4E-CD3E-4434-A475-C880D9DFD815@ifi.uio.no>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 14
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/bFPZbU9Vus1WFpMlKH9CHBedN9U>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] RMCAT, quo vadis?
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 09:03:20 -0000
> On 13 Nov 2017, at 16:47, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > I’m getting the impression that rmcat is ignored in WebRTC, and I don’t think that’s a good development. The rtcweb overview draft ( draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-19.txt ) has just been approved as a Proposed Standard, but it doesn’t mention RMCAT at all. Will people find our documents? Are we going to be ignored by design? It’s an intentional choice, since the WebRTC work is significantly ahead of the RMCAT drafts in the process. Section 7 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26 discusses a little, and is normative for WebRTC implementations. > There’s also this interesting sentence towards the end of the SIGCOMM 2017 paper on QUIC: > "Third, we are working on using QUIC for WebRTC [4] and intend to explore avenues for better supporting real-time payloads.” > > What do people think about these matters? Some thoughts in draft-rtpfolks-quic-rtp-over-quic-01 and draft-aboba-avtcore-quic-multiplexing-01 (the latter is being discussed this week). -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/
- [rmcat] RMCAT, quo vadis? Michael Welzl
- Re: [rmcat] RMCAT, quo vadis? Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] RMCAT, quo vadis? Michael Welzl