[rtcweb] [RTCWEB] [TRAM] Protesting: Requesting TRAM Charter Clarification regardig Milestone 3: TURN server auto-discovery mechanism for enterprise and ISPs

"Karl Stahl" <karl.stahl@intertex.se> Mon, 24 February 2014 23:03 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FFA1A030A; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:03:12 -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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rp0hYZAXodU5; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.it-norr.com (smtp.it-norr.com [80.244.64.162]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602201A01CB; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([90.229.134.75]) by smtp.it-norr.com (Telecom3 SMTP service) with ASMTP id 201402250002595903; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:02:59 +0100
From: "Karl Stahl" <karl.stahl@intertex.se>
To: "'Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)'" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "'Magnus Westerlund'" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "'Simon Perreault'" <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "'Ted Hardie'" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "'Gonzalo Camarillo'" <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>, <tram@ietf.org>
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> <B7FA2629-6D48-4569-BB62-56395C3EE4BC@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B7FA2629-6D48-4569-BB62-56395C3EE4BC@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:02:57 +0100
Message-ID: <04ff01cf31b4$8eb73780$ac25a680$@stahl@intertex.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0500_01CF31BC.F07B9F80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHPLuh9NKjjBBbIvkuPAKYD51v6LZq/zpPA
Content-Language: sv
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/4OE4PaC-4DjtzOZdWN1w7eDoNL4
Cc: 'Spencer Dawkins' <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
Subject: [rtcweb] [RTCWEB] [TRAM] Protesting: Requesting TRAM Charter Clarification regardig Milestone 3: TURN server auto-discovery mechanism for enterprise and ISPs
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: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:03:12 -0000

To the TRAM WG and RTCWEB WG and ADs:

 

It must be a clear objective of the TRAM WG that ISPs/NSPs are allowed and
encouraged to route quality demanding WebRTC media into their IP pipes that
are capable of transporting real-time traffic without quality issues, using
TURN servers. 

 

The subject from the TRAM mailing initiation spells out:

*Milestone 3: TURN server auto-discovery mechanism for enterprise and ISPs*

The TRAM WG must assure that TURN servers offered by ISPs/NSPs can be used
for the above purpose.

(The objective of the TRAM WG milestone 3 is *not only* to resolve
restrictive enterprise NAT/firewall traversal problem using TURN servers.)

I request that this is explicitly clarified in the TRAM charter.

 

The QoS discussions that has appeared in this TRAM WG, resulting from 

draft-martinsen-tram-discuss-00.txt

and 

draft-thomson-tram-turn-bandwidth-00.txt 

has been confusing (to say the least), risking that the general QoS attitude
within IETF work “it is all about bandwidth” and “it will go away with
time”: 

(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).

 

Further explanations about QoS methods and their implementation were given a
few days ago in: 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00274.html 

 

(i), (ii) and (iii) risk *seriously delaying* usage of telepresence capable
and quality demanding WebRTC (bandwidth being around 30 times higher over
best effort Internet, than telephony over quality managed networks) and will
*vastly increase cost* for ISPs to offer WebRTC with good QoE.

 

I am therefore advising that draft-martinsen-tram-discuss-00.txt and
draft-thomson-tram-turn-bandwidth-00.txt 

are withdrawn from TRAM. draft-martinsen-tram-discuss-00.txt can be
reintroduced after clarification in the draft, that it is not about QoS as
clarified by
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00276.html.

 

There are further details about this in the email
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00303.html also copied
below.

 

It is therein explained that my repeated suggestion to RTCWEB WG
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11542.html from the
October discussions on the relevant [rtcweb] [avtext] [mmusic] lists
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09129.html to
introduce the QoS related usage of RFC 5285 into draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
in combinations with the Milestone 3 objectives of TRAM, immediately would
allow:

(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,
for  

(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).

 

The only activity required, is to call for ISPs’ review whether the traffic
information transferred by RFC 5285 is sufficient for the needs of their
networks.

 

WebRTC *can be* used for existing application specific IP networks (such as
IMS) for services existing on these networks, but with the introduction of
the TRAM objectives above and the proposed traffic information in every RTP
packet http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09129.html as
made possible by RFC 5285 available since 2008: 

(a) the same as well as other real-time services using IETF RTP traffic,
*can also (often much better) be* implemented over the Internet (including
OTT)

(b) also considering needs of QoS, media routing, control, quality
measurements, SLA implementation, usage, accounting, billing and SP-peering,


that so far has been attributed application specific networks, but in
practice and in reality have shown difficulties to implement (e.g. SP’s
peering of beyond POTS services, resulting in that the 50 year old, pre-AM
radio quality telephony service, still is the only truly global
communication service (and today often is used to initiate other better
proprietary communication services).

 

Application specific networks such as the IMS network have their own methods
of handling QoS, that not in anyway will be made less efficient by the
methods proposed here. Application specific networks *can use and will also
benefit* from the flow control and traffic requirement marking of RTP
streams proposed here.

 

WebRTC *will be* used over the Internet (including OTT) and *will probably
also be* used over the application specific IMS network for the services
existing there through a gateway function from the Internet. 

 

With RFC 5285 QoS usage and with TRAM milestone 3 in place (which I suggest
the WGs to expedite), 

market forces will drive ISPs and browser makers to implement just that,
without even having it MUST-established.

“Who does not want a “WebRTC-Ready” Internet access?” and

“Who wants to use Chrome, if Firefox, Internet Explorer or Safari comes with
much better QoE?” and vice versa.

 

The TRAM WG and RTCWEB WG chairs and ADs are advised to review whether IETF
standard work in these WGs by contributors having an interest in more than
one of current or emerging: ISPs, carrier equipment vendors or web browser
makers, may discriminate any with an interest only in one of these. The same
should apply to non-activity by WG contributors to remedy such
discrimination opened by allowed proprietary usage of RFCs such as RFC 5285.

 

One input for such review are responses directed to me in the September –
October discussion on the RTCWEB list and on the TRAM list from my entry
there February 8
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00132.html.

 

Please see just sent emails:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11542.html 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00303.html 

and further emails soon following this one, for details and history.

 

/Karl  

 

Charter charter-ietf-tram-01
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-tram/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-tram/ 

 

 

Från: Karl Stahl [mailto:karl.stahl@intertex.se] 
Skickat: den 24 februari 2014 23:22
Till: 'Pal Martinsen (palmarti)'; 'tram@ietf.org'.org'; 'rtcweb@ietf.org'
Kopia: 'Oleg Moskalenko'; 'Alan Johnston'; 'Yoakum, John H (John)'
Ämne: SV: [tram] [rtcweb] I-D Action:
draft-thomson-tram-turn-bandwidth-00.txt

 

Hi Pål,

 

You did not comment nor answer, in response to any of:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00275.html 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00273.html 

whether step D) can obsolete step C) (DISCUSS/MALICE) by allowing the
application/browser to transfer relevant real-time traffic information
(types and bandwidth) into every RTP package by using the already IETF
standardized RTP extension header RCF 5285, which could be used by any
current or future Internet (including OTT) network where WebRTC real-time
traffic may flow. It seems to have been standardized already 2008 to allow
such usage.

 

QoS related step C) draft-martinsen-tram-discuss can then be taken out of
TRAM, and step D) (that was never intended to be handled by TRAM anyway)
will be handled elsewhere.

 

I have repeated my suggestion to RTCWEB WG from the October discussions on
the relevant [rtcweb] [avtext] [mmusic] lists
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09129.html to
introduce the QoS related step D) into draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
suggesting usage of RFC 5285, where traffic information in RTP packets
simply would be filled by any browser under any OS.

 

Without step B), TRAM “Enforcing the real-time traffic through the
offered/discovered TURN servers”, the real-time traffic may happen through
the IP default gateways often congested by data traffic and QoS insensitive
streaming video and file sharing. Without specific QoS methods at those
points, the network raw bandwidth capacity may have to be 10-folded to
achieve sufficient QoE when WebRTC usage becomes popular. Methods like
DISCUSS addresses such things occurring when STUN instead TURN is used (by
allowing flows into such congestion points), but only provides direct
traffic info for outgoing (not incoming) real-time traffic and locally,
therefore are not even applicable to reservation type of networks like Cable
Networks and Mobile OTT. 

 

That would leave certain network types to investing in raw bandwidth
increase, instead of simply borrowing the bandwidth (from much larger data
traffic and QoS insensitive streaming video and file sharing at no adverse
effect) and making that borrowed no-cost bandwidth very valuable for the
carriers when delivering to their customers.

 

I know a few of you Cisco guys are among the ones that have been fighting
against the general “it is all about bandwidth” and “it will go away with
time”-attitude within IETF work, e.g. see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09031.html, but the
pointers given in the current QoS discussion within TRAM: 

 

(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. All networks will *also 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*)

Newer, fiber only type of networks, can still 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 has 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).

 

Further explanations about QoS methods and their implementation were given a
few days ago in: 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00274.html 

 

(i), (ii) and (iii) will *seriously delay* usage of telepresence capable and
quality demanding WebRTC (bandwidth being around 30 times higher over best
effort Internet, than telephony over quality managed networks) and will
*vastly increase cost* for ISPs to offer WebRTC with good QoE.

 

Below you are giving pointers saying “They are currently working on a
problem-statement draft and a use-case draft, any input to those would be
very helpful.” Those are unnecessary, risking leading to (i), (ii) and (iii)
above.

 

So are pointers such as: “RMCAT where congestion avoidance for RTP is being
developed”. TRAMs Milestone 3 is for the purpose of directing real-time
traffic where congestion control isn’t already in place. Using RFC 5285
available since 2008, to fill traffic information in RTP packets (step D))
is probably a necessity for most future “congestion control” discussed.

 

This chicken-and-egg circular also applies to RTCWEB direction of QoS issues
to: 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos 

focusing on DSCP-mapping without even mentioning RFC 5285 available since
2008, to fill traffic information in RTP packets where it  is a necessity
and will allow: 

(1) applications to directly convey QoS related real-time traffic info to
the network at points where RTP flow is directed to by TRAM Milstone 3, to
be used by *any network element implementing any suitable QoS methods for
the particular network* for 

(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 using the Internet (including OTT).

 

The only activity required, is to call for ISPs’ review whether the traffic
information transferred by RFC 5285 is sufficient for current and future
needs in their network as suggested in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09129.html

<snip>

…two parameters (e.g. two bytes each) are encoded into the RTP header
extension:

 

A) The maximum bandwidth requirement: Two bytes could contain everything
from some bps for real-time text to Gbps for future 3D supersize
telepresence… on a logarithmic scale.

 

B) The quality characteristics for the stream, with the highest bit set to
1, we could allocate a bit each for quality type e.g:

Best Effort, Audio, Video, Supplemental Video, Gaming, Data, Delay
Insensitive (e.g. video streaming), Minimum Delay, Reliable Delivery,
Prioritize X, Variation Y, that could be combined as required to describe
the stream.

 

And with highest bit set to 0, there could instead be a number for special
usage that does not fit the general description of the individual bits.

</snip>

 

Then this could be assigned numbers to have the RFC in place.

With TRAM milestone 3 also place, 

market forces will drive ISPs and browser makers to implement just that,
without even having it MUST-established.

“Who does not want a “WebRTC-Ready” Internet access?” and

“Who wants to use Chrome, if Firefox, Internet Explorer or Safari comes with
much better QoE?” and vice versa.

 

Please see further emails soon following this one, for details and history.

 

/Karl

 

Från: Pal Martinsen (palmarti) [mailto:palmarti@cisco.com] 
Skickat: den 21 februari 2014 10:37
Till: tram@ietf.org
Kopia: Oleg Moskalenko; Alan Johnston; Karl Stahl; Yoakum, John H (John)
Ämne: Re: [tram] I-D Action: draft-thomson-tram-turn-bandwidth-00.txt

 

Hi,

 

I agree the full QoS discussion should _not_ happen in TRAM. If you are
interested in helping out in that area I suggest you looking into the AEON
mailing list at: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aeon . They are
currently working on a problem-statement draft and a use-case draft, any
input to those would be very helpful.
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eckel-aeon-use-cases-01,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eckel-aeon-problem-statement-00).

 

That said, STUN have a few nice characteristics that makes it a perfect
candidate for transporting some of the QoS information.  IMHO that would be
extending the STUN spec and should be within the TRAM charter.  The main
goal of draft-martinsen-tram-discuss was to show how already existing QoS
mechanisms could be transported with STUN to provide more value, and to
start the discussion if TRAM is the appropriate place to have those on the
wire format discussions.

 

.-.

Pål-Erik

 

 

On 20 Feb 2014, at 19:55 pm, Yoakum, John H (John) <
<mailto:yoakum@avaya.com> yoakum@avaya.com> wrote:





+1

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.

 

 

Cheers,

John

 

AVAYA
1.919.425.8446

 

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:
draft-thomson-tram-turn-bandwidth-00.txt

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.




_______________________________________________
tram mailing list
tram@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram