Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 AEE9811E80F7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:38:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 LvCtGdOylQpP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:38:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8E411E8133 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id fb10so3131204wid.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:38:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=v/1aO780h5LQhZLFspvBbR7Hbzz9kMv3vhBiXLzU0VA=; b=BB2H+JB0HbpAZlxOGNpSsB5j3dTYBjZwnYhkqSi7vmJ3ZlR2zxwtKKsar5yGaDqrMa y5UtSm8Pm0eYkaW6pqpjX6vjTcPIF2vDdwGaW6FGhenymEAyVfcDgwHJyDCBbihRsD9f 32npXjuGMLSpiHZqoGvHQOVQdJKVD0Y+Xip6SYr+IQ4B583xa7a6ZBe0L6EIiKlrHm2+ 3oty9raPe6hzHhOyRaBsDRCzFOJEqPsWvZBzjwhRRsRAIeKl5OcgkVXfbs2uTu8YGSwe M8vnr6GsIyM78o5Rmk/bYQUS8OAkhpNr8tmPCaqV2AFxUd4GQZxAsJmd9n4NjhflP98X +syg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.240.129 with SMTP id wa1mr3292483wjc.31.1384454292253; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.205.131 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:38:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5285062F.9070204@mti-systems.com>
References: <5283DF61.9060807@alvestrand.no> <52848582.1070408@ericsson.com> <5285062F.9070204@mti-systems.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:38:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBTh06=Zegv0D7315sWMbe=t-2Ow2kEry-x7hMcMcC-Sw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1db24c34d204eb27623f
Cc: "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:38:26 -0000

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:

> On 11/14/2013 3:10 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> As for the current status, the document does not yet address
> core issues that have been pointed out.  See, for instance:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg/current/msg12042.html
>
> People interested should work on this in TSVWG.  There does not
> seem to be any reason for RTCWEB to be gated on it, as it has zero
> impact on interoperability or the protocol.  Having a normative
> reference to it is not correct and is easy to fix.
>
> --
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems
>


Hi Wes,

The issue raised isn't that there is an RTCWEB document gated on it, but
that shipping code does require this to be resolved.  The message you point
to above notes a core issue, which I assume is this:

That said, I think the interesting facet of this document is that
packets within the same flow (defined by 5-tuple of address-port
pairs and protocol number) are receiving different codepoints, and
the implications of that for a CC that may be on top of them need
to be delved into.


I think the authors may not have seen "interesting facet"
as a clear enough signal that they were blocked on this.
Can you restate this problem to them, so that they understand either
where in the document they should raise the issue or where there is
work they can reference
for incorporation?

You may want to include pointers on why having this situation,

versus multiple flows going between the same end points in

other contexts, is a problem.  I'm kind of concerned as well
that they will take the simple solution (use the most stringent

QoS), which is clear enough from a congestion control perspective

but bad from other perspectives.

regards,


Ted