[rtcweb] Local prioritization in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Fri, 26 February 2016 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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 38B4F1A90B3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 05:10:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] 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 2S6n_ld-pexb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 05:10:09 -0800 (PST)
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 051741A909C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 05:10:08 -0800 (PST)
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 1aZI9m-0005Bs-DZ for rtcweb@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:10:06 +0100
Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) 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 1aZI9l-00021y-VE for rtcweb@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:10:06 +0100
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A8ACF653-182F-4F36-A444-29055D21A679@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:10:05 +0100
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 1 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 3 sum msgs/h 1 total rcpts 38701 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-6.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.05, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: BBBF9B960FAE32DD9E7FEE6C4D55CA9A5B8A62AF
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.68.135 spam_score: -59 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 9280 max/h 17 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/7PeqosNZe_R2xmNfJzgMByomxH0>
Subject: [rtcweb] Local prioritization in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:10:11 -0000

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