IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Mon, 20 July 2015 08:03 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 F23EF1A01FC for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 01:03:06 -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 cx3tALFMXeTS for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 01:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.uio.no (mail-out4.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::15]) (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 8EA4E1A0158 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 01:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by mail-out4.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ZH62P-0000wn-Mo; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:03:01 +0200
Received: from dhcp-9ad4.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.154.212]) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ZH62P-00047v-6A; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:03:01 +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: <07529396e89526f834a8816d1d2502c7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:02:59 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35276229-26A3-4E8F-ACFB-253A9B6FF26A@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> <07529396e89526f834a8816d1d2502c7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.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 7 sum msgs/h 2 total rcpts 31176 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: 868A91A6C6A23E5140E743AFE6EE28CBAC65AE98
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 31.133.154.212 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 3 max/h 2 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/zI8T1yfIhQ1xCwXaF4lc0C8ceSM>
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, rmcat@ietf.org, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:03:07 -0000

> On 20. jul. 2015, at 07.32, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com> wrote:
> 
> HI,
> 
> Yes - there is the possibility to implement coupled congestion control with
> scheduling priorities,
> There is no doubt about that :-), Indeed SCTP does it and scream does it.
> But it is not so well-described in the
> scream draft how exactly the prioritization works and which means an
> application has to define different priorities.
> (For information then for SCTP a number of different scheduling
> possibilities is described in
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata/.)
> 
> Then for RMCAT coupled congestion control  we have the Wezlz, Safiqul
> proposal where the coupled is done
> in-between per flow-CC contexts by prioritization on manipulation of the
> cwnd.
> And the we also have, a not so detailed proposal/description, on how the
> same can be achieved via scheduling (scream).
> It should be ok to allow for different ways to implement coupling, but we
> should then eventually have one document that describes both
> solutions. Shouldn't we ?

I think so. There is already (short, because it's so simple) text about scheduling in coupled-cc and we can extend that and make it stand out more clearly (now it's in the intro I think).

Cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email