Re: [rmcat] RMCAT, quo vadis?
Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Mon, 13 November 2017 09:11 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 02085126B6E for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 01:11:11 -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 OoWUhBucF8Cl for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 01:11:08 -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 5C7D3129483 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 01:11:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx04.uio.no ([129.240.10.25]) by mail-out02.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1eEAlm-0002ln-Pq; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:11:06 +0100
Received: from dhcp-82c4.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.130.196]) by mail-mx04.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 1eEAll-0004OF-LY; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:11:06 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <AD9BAD2A-80F9-40BC-9135-B6C8A58EC7D5@csperkins.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:11:01 +0800
Cc: rmcat@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F712C1DE-A4A2-4854-ADBB-787E89E8FE75@ifi.uio.no>
References: <440EBA4E-CD3E-4434-A475-C880D9DFD815@ifi.uio.no> <AD9BAD2A-80F9-40BC-9135-B6C8A58EC7D5@csperkins.org>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx04.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=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, AWL=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 15E139E7A9D35968B78F96373445FEDE106C17FF
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/uHEcwEgFMI5pW1c1dsPZ-auR8G4>
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 09:11:11 -0000
This is all very enlightening, thanks!! > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> wrote: > >> 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