Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-13.txt

.... and my suggestions below are still not addressed.

Cheers,
Michael

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-12.txt
> Date: 23 Mar 2016 09:40:44 CET
> To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Resent-From: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
> 
> 
>> On 22 Mar 2016, at 16:14, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you - yes, it was lost.
>> 
>> I've filed this suggestion as
>> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/rtcweb-transport/issues/16
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
>> My queries are of course:
>> 
>> - Is the reference to [coupled] normative or informative?
> 
> Seeing that you made I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos a normative reference, I'd say this one should be normative too. For streams that are known to share a bottleneck (e.g. between the same hosts and multiplexed), this *always* works, not only when routers on your path happen to support it.
> 
> 
>> - What is the expected timeline for emission of [coupled]?
> 
> I think we're quite close to the finish line. (I'll follow up with a private email)
> 
> 
>> I see that RFC 7657 got published with [coupled] as an informative
>> reference.
>> The "e.g." in your first suggestion might be loose enough to warrant an
>> informative reference.
> 
> Well, I find it strange for I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos to be normative and [coupled] to be informative.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Den 22. mars 2016 15:45, skrev Michael Welzl:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> On 26 February, I sent an email to rtcweb in which I made some suggestions to this document. I see that these have not been incorporated, and my email has also never been answered (except that I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp was replaced by RFC 7657, but that may not have been due to my email). I can understand that: probably my prior email just drowned in the WebRTC Audio Codec related thread. However I do think that these comments would be good to address, so I'm copying in the email again below.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Overall, I like this document a lot - it makes for a very good read!
>>> 
>>> - but I think it would make sense for section 4.1 to explicitly point to draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc (the next version of which is going to explain how weights much be set to adhere to the priority levels that are described in this section; it's easy, we just didn't have this text in there yet).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> To be concrete, I suggest the following two changes:
>>> 
>>> ***
>>> When an WebRTC implementation has packets to send on multiple streams
>>> that are congestion-controlled under the same congestion controller,
>>> the WebRTC implementation SHOULD cause data to be emitted in such a
>>> way that each stream at each level of priority is being given
>>> approximately twice the transmission capacity (measured in payload
>>> bytes) of the level below.
>>> ***
>>> 
>>> should be:
>>> 
>>> ***
>>> When a WebRTC implementation has packets to send on multiple streams
>>> that are congestion-controlled under the same congestion controller
>>> or multiple coupled congestion controllers (e.g. using the mechanism in
>>> [draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc]),
>>> the WebRTC implementation SHOULD cause data to be emitted in such a
>>> way that each stream at each level of priority is being given
>>> approximately twice the transmission capacity (measured in payload
>>> bytes) of the level below.
>>> ***
>>> 
>>> (note a fixed nit in there: the second word is "a" instead of "an")
>>> 
>>> 
>>> and, perhaps even more importantly, a small change in section 4.2:
>>> 
>>> ***
>>> More advice on the use of DSCP code points with RTP is given in
>>> [I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp].
>>> ***
>>> 
>>> should be:
>>> 
>>> ***
>>> More advice on the use of DSCP code points with RTP as well as coupled
>>> congestion control is given in [I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp].
>>> ***
>>> 
>>> and in fact I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp should now be RFC 7657.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Michael
>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb