Re: [rtcweb] Some language on "prioritization"

Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Mon, 31 March 2014 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
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 1EF021A089D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 mYbKPChelFyG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089D71A6F27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.103] (p508F0375.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.143.3.117]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0850B1C10467A; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:43:03 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVUHUx+3wY3Dsi=UvNkUw_Es1apeMSonq7DtEg_3UKRNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:42:59 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <FBA84C78-FE8E-4FEF-8AD3-CAF24C57E512@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <5339A120.3040909@alvestrand.no> <CABkgnnVUHUx+3wY3Dsi=UvNkUw_Es1apeMSonq7DtEg_3UKRNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Kc--dvAuD48qHbQchaDnmuyCeXA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Some language on "prioritization"
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, 31 Mar 2014 17:43:11 -0000

On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:38, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31 March 2014 10:08, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> -- TODO: Specify a relative priority scheme that makes sense with SCTP,
>> with an appropriate reference. [draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies]
>> specifies a priority policy, but it's about discarding packets, not
>> deciding which packets to send first, and it also makes it impossible to
>> specify time-bounded retransmission. --
> 
> 
> Why would SCTP need special treatment?  I can understand if there are
> particular time-sensitive control messages that need to be given
> higher priority, but this is all time-sensitive.
A single transport connection (in this case an SCTP association) can
only use a single DSCP. So it would be OK to use the same priority for
all data channels, but things get complicated when when some data channels
would have different priorities requiring different DSCP markings.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>