Re: [rtcweb] Prioritization

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Wed, 30 April 2014 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 533BD1A063B for <>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.152
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dYdbHw4-9wvg for <>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172161A0852 for <>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1180; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398892160; x=1400101760; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=aGLQdhEq1Wv3wBlhQebhgdcmgb3unS3jH7MjhAMHqp4=; b=FhcoJsyM1mrmU+cBlmGCyY1hebXdRDVdzfcGsVINTJfU9cLAr3nbHdyQ Kx+kIGOweFX0ZCcJxlAB87XmzDdjGDvtH2E3P3E3zd7D1tid1B6l1Ppcx aREpxFpWbNolNS4JhfghhPAh8noIcVu1IApsZVaiRtlYNogvuTNZsjvjs s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,960,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="321359069"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2014 21:09:20 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3UL9KeY009425 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:09:20 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:09:20 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Matthew Kaufman <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Prioritization
Thread-Index: AQHPZLhzZTpDzprP00KkioeC3psNOg==
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:09:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Prioritization
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:09:24 -0000

On Apr 25, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <> wrote:

> If a "lower priority" packet is dispatched before a "higher priority" packet in order to "prevent starvation", then what does "higher priority" mean?

I think the labels reflect what "might" happen on average and not for any particular packet. I say "might" because in some deployments it possible the values will have no effect at all and it is possible to construct bizarre environments where you could get the opposite of the desired behavior in some cases. None of that bothers me as the label still seem like the closest to helping developers request the desired treatment. With all things qos like, the best we can for is desired outcome and not what will necessarily happen on internet. 

priority might be better called "desired priority" and the values of "very low, low, med, high" might better be called "broccoli, apple, orange, cherry" - they are really just some labels that describe how the packets *might* be queued by systems they pass through.  I think the fruit labels would be more confusing to web programmers.