[rtcweb] [tram] The way to "Interfacing to QoS", A level 3-5 IP/IETF/WebRTC-thing how to inface to lower level's QoS-stuff

"Karl Stahl" <karl.stahl@intertex.se> Wed, 26 February 2014 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <karl.stahl@intertex.se>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076EC1A066E; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:48:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.801
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FIILXOMzJZY8; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:48:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.it-norr.com (smtp.it-norr.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03741A01EF; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:47:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by smtp.it-norr.com (Telecom3 SMTP service) with ASMTP id 201402261647536755; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:47:53 +0100
From: Karl Stahl <karl.stahl@intertex.se>
To: "'Yoakum, John H (John)'" <yoakum@avaya.com>, 'Oleg Moskalenko' <mom040267@gmail.com>, 'Alan Johnston' <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
References: <20140214030712.30321.21888.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKhHsXGzA=ZTFGTK7ht9hQbfG70iqKrDtxrZCdQNNMzBYZCk8A@mail.gmail.com> <530604ea.c5bf440a.5cfd.ffffde18SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAKhHsXGsp6ma6Ko9op+YFRqSGM_Ex-jFo_fjz69rN0SEHfNK2A@mail.gmail.com> <CALDtMrKb3_38Rs0vaGnpEvNvTYz8YUTo89STvLJNXfkfdipDSQ@mail.gmail.com> <93BEDDC39A54294B9E78C7860516FA4724AA4422@AZ-US1EXMB06.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <93BEDDC39A54294B9E78C7860516FA4724AA4422@AZ-US1EXMB06.global.avaya.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:47:50 +0100
Message-ID: <06f801cf330a$1aca7880$505f6980$@stahl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_06F9_01CF3312.7C8EE080"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHPLmMlcJtLqkuUgEmVgUSRCLyaepq+efWAgARzPGA=
Content-Language: sv
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/4B23Q9xTcCoRRO6sqJI0877CPik
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, tram@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] [tram] The way to "Interfacing to QoS", A level 3-5 IP/IETF/WebRTC-thing how to inface to lower level's QoS-stuff
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:48:08 -0000

(After having typed this up; I see today’s charter discussion etc. that I
haven’t read yet, but it will hopefully will be clearer by pointing at this


Hi John, and 

Collin, Pål, Magnus, Charles,  Simon,


In my step A) B) and D) efforts in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00275.html for the
“mission to bring quality to real-time traffic over our best effort Internet
is a huge mission, I am convinced it not a huge task – We just have to be a
bit clever here :). I only see these few standard steps required, before it
can happen!”


To accomplish these (1), (2), (3)-things for:

(1) *all* protocols using IETF RTP/SRTP and/or IETF TURN/STU/ICE (in
addition to WebRTC: e.g. SIP, Skype and Facetime, and most VoIP variants) to
quickly allow us to finally enjoy the high quality and connectivity
(NAT/firewall traversal) of real-time communication services now possible,

(2) *all* WebRTC browsers *and* dedicated clients (not using WebRTC), under
*all* OSs, and *all* current and future IP networks 

(3) *without* having to be forced into application specific networks (PSTN,
IMS) instead of the Internet (including OTT).


There are a lot of Mission Impossible, Pointers, Good arguments and other
things to consider in the mails from you guys that I have not (yet)


Allow me to come back to those under THIS THREAD/Subject after having
figured out how to do it in a structured way, with the aim of collecting the
summary in a new "Interfacing to QoS" thread, that only will relate to how
IP/IETF/WebRTC level 3-5 – *can interface* to the QoS-stuff (whether within
IETF, in the telephony world or elsewhere e.g. IEEE Ethernet, mainly
relating to lower level).


I think this is doable *without* ending up in any of the (i), (ii),

(i) will *not allow* ISP’s to use already available and currently deployable
quality IP pipes for real-time traffic to also be used for WebRTC generated
real-time traffic.

(ii) will *not allow* some network types (e.g. Cable Networks and Mobile
OTT) to borrow bandwidth from data traffic and QoS insensitive streaming
video and file sharing. That all networks *will be inhibited* from the very
common and used method of simply providing an extra IP pipe (often provided
over the same wire but level-2 separated) dedicated for real-time usage

(*by resisting TRAM implementation of step B*)

*while* newer, fiber only type of networks, still can borrow bandwidth at no
extra cost, *by proprietary usage* of RFC 5285 by browsers. 

(iii) will leave most ISPs to *only use* raw bandwidth capacity increase
that may have to be 10-folded to reach sufficient QoE when WebRTC usage
becomes popular (if at all possible, since unmanaged IP pipes intermittently
are filled, whatever bandwidth is available).

(?) and possible other Evil -things.


I refer to http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11548.html
for these “-things” and further.



John, Alan, Henry (Sinnreich), Henning, Richard, Cullen, Jörgen (Björkner),
Lars (Berggren) and other good friends since the early SIP age (before SIP
was “hijacked” into application specific network and proprietary usage and
nowadays rarely is used the IETF-way): 


I want to point out how “confusing” the QoS-issue has been and as hard as I
will the fight Mission Impossible attitude, I will also fight the “it is all
about bandwidth” and “it will go away with time” attitude…  (also in the
above http reference)


I agree with parts of what John says below but the remedy to achieve the
Good (1), (2), (3)-things instead of the Evil (i), (ii), (iii)-things, is
NOT to ignore QoS-things – It is the opposite! 


For you having more and relevant input – That has not been said, and that
you think I will not address anyway – in this "Interfacing to QoS" path,
please provide, but I will not be able to process much more than already
have been said – and I will use http back-pointers for what has already been
discussed in more detail.


If you want to point out QoS-stuff Requiring More Input-from/Feedback-to the
level 3 and above stuff IN ADDITION to what already has been discussed here

Please also point out WHAT and WHY that can/or cannot be handled by the
methods proposed here and whether other existing methods can be used to
achieve the mission of "Interfacing to QoS" from IP = level 3 to lower


I will do some thinking about what LISTs different things shall be brought
to and then split the [TRAM] [WEBRTC] and advice regarding involving other
list will be considered. Such will probably show up and happen during this



Another thing from
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00275.html: What name 

Footnote **[Karl]* For similar reasons I have started to say things like
“the box containing the TURN server”. We should not change the TURN server
spec into including specific QoS methods to apply (like reservation,
changing DSCP bits or applying traffic shaping mechanism). What is happening
here is that we share the traffic information that the TURN server gets hold
of, with a QoS applying function (that will be different for different
networks) in “the same box”. With “the same box” I mean that we for now
don’t care about the interface/commands for sharing information between the
TURN server and the QoS applying function. There may be a future need to
specify/standardize this, but if we start doing that now and in TRAM, we
risk ending up in a 10-year process before having something in place (which
without a spec automatically will happen in vendor’s product development, by
putting the TURN server into already available “QoS applying function” boxes
(like firewalls or the mobile DPI/PCRF combination).
*What we need to consider and specify, is only what traffic info is required
(to be provided by the application/browser) for “QoS applying functions” in
different networks (including the very common reservation types) to do job
(i.e. giving us good QoE for real-time applications).*


And Henry, I will have to continue to use the S(BC)-word and the I(MS)-word,
since you did not succeed to “eradicate” them ;-)  Let’s hope we find a word
for the above box (quite undefined on the QoS-side – It is only the TURN
side and traffic info we are up to designing here) that does not need to be
“eradicated”. So no WebRTC-SBC I guess (hopefully it will not even be
WebRTC-specific), and ICE-SBC sounds crazy (since ICE was developed to
remove the need of SIP SBCs), the same applies to TURN-SBC (which implies
that this box hopefully is not even ICE-specific). TURN-QoS-Interface box is
relevant but long… 




PS: To avoid being stopped by the “to many recipients” spam filter, the Guys
(including Mary) from 


and the ones mentioned in the email are copied separately.



Från: Yoakum, John H (John) [mailto:yoakum@avaya.com] 
Skickat: den 20 februari 2014 19:56
Till: Oleg Moskalenko; Alan Johnston
Kopia: Karl Stahl; tram@ietf.org
Ämne: RE: [tram] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-thomson-tram-turn-bandwidth-00.txt


I fully agree with the comments that QOS should be a low priority for the
initial focus of the TRAM efforts.  There are other groups doing QOS work
and frankly I engage in WebRTC multimedia interactions daily over the
Internet, enterprise VPNs, and various combinations and seldom suffer
egregious quality issues.  I am more concerned about carriers doing things
to regulate or degrade WebRTC flows than a failure of existing Internet
mechanisms to enable them.


Significant focus on QOS before we better enable TURN to be easily used in a
browser environment taking advantage or normal web characteristics (as
opposed to historic telephony constructs) would seem to be highly
distracting at this point.







From: tram [mailto:tram-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Oleg Moskalenko
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 12:43 PM
To: Alan Johnston
Cc: Karl Stahl; tram@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tram] Fwd: I-D Action:



On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>


Personally, I am not sure how much QoS is actually in scope for TRAM. Have
you been following RMCAT where congestion avoidance for RTP is being
developed?  I see some overlap in your goals and the goals of that work.


I'd concentrate on the TURN application-level functionality, for now, and
I'd leave QoS for the future discussions.