Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-07

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Fri, 08 June 2012 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7B821F88D2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 05:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dRT5O+6PcpAL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 05:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D48C21F88AA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 05:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=2198; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1339158197; x=1340367797; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ZlmG3Si/lCmQgzTq+lAo+o5GQ2a/r/8PV0Zr+kCJp/8=; b=FyNsvr9Wt5FuEZbcYDQMGEWcMb7nxfYAVJZM+u0yq/9OuqBPyjK3cFFD sJooqx7oajc9T6Im4it3n5n370//wMigJTSGVjAJ1YvdjeP6q5v9zYMIW V/Q2E3I3DPcrrZI256LT5nAFtp7MNxU585FIjz2cVKm5815F8rJlfAVXt A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EANXt0U+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbAA7CrROgQeCGAEBAQQSAWYMBAsRBAEBKAdGCQgGExsHh2iZNZ9xiyYQhRBgA5FCg1yFU4hCgWaCfA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,737,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="48178507"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jun 2012 12:23:17 +0000
Received: from [10.86.244.114] ([10.86.244.114]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q58CNFXU030957; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:23:16 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F3D4ABD6AB47084B84337CF4F3446A464B2F11B52E@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:23:15 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AAB6A6B6-BEC7-436C-B1EB-2C117596C7C6@cisco.com>
References: <5A2F246E-9D77-4B72-B3F1-681B00FA99FD@cisco.com> <F3D4ABD6AB47084B84337CF4F3446A464B2F11B52E@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se>
To: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-07
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:23:18 -0000

On May 30, 2012, at 5:06 , Göran Eriksson AP wrote:

>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org 
>> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
>> Sent: den 16 maj 2012 03:31
>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: [rtcweb] Comments on 
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-07
>> 
>> 
>> Like to add case where application has one two video streams 
>> but one is far more important than the other. Should be a way 
>> to make sure that preferential treatment is given the the 
>> important stream over the less important streams. 
> 
> I agree that this is a relevant area to address to secure that WebRTC is competitive compared to
> apps done in native OS's, especiallin in enterprise context.
> 
> The current use case document states something like "being able to use priority functions in network nodes".
> This is vague since it touches many matters such as whether to put audio and video on the same IP-flow or have them in different
> ones, which is essential when considering mapping on LTE radio channels; the potential use of DS to identify flows, which
> may be relevant in enterprise context, etc, how to cater for treament of stuff on the datagram channel, multihoming consequences, etc.
> 
> I am not sure however how far into such matters we should go in this WG, but given the importance of making a
> good solution working across OS's and browser vendors and access technologies, I am leaning towards support a discussions about such
> details in this WG for instance using the use case document.
> 
> What is Your take of this? 

I think we need to discuss it in the spec. Let's imagine the case where we want the brows to set one DSCP for audio and a different one for video. I don't think we can have setting the DSCP 100% under control of the JS App as that has security problems. But the browser should set the DSCP to something and if there are multiple video streams, I think it is important to be able to indicate some video streams are less important than others - only the JS app knows which one is less important.