Re: [rtcweb] Some language on "prioritization"

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Thu, 10 April 2014 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 2848A1A0159 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.465
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 X34fNKDCRVtb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBAF1A0320 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oCeo1n0070xGWP859F2e4j; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:02:38 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oF2e1n00G3ZTu2S3YF2eNX; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:02:38 +0000
Message-ID: <5346B28E.60408@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:02:38 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <5339A120.3040909@alvestrand.no> <CABkgnnVUHUx+3wY3Dsi=UvNkUw_Es1apeMSonq7DtEg_3UKRNg@mail.gmail.com> <FBA84C78-FE8E-4FEF-8AD3-CAF24C57E512@lurchi.franken.de>, <5339AA58.9070301@alvestrand.no> <834D5209-5EEA-4001-B8ED-3835FC4D05FB@skype.net> <00af01cf4f59$fa617b90$ef2472b0$@stahl@intertex.se>
In-Reply-To: <00af01cf4f59$fa617b90$ef2472b0$@stahl@intertex.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1397142158; bh=29lzw3dEegqqhpazSj5SD5O0PhUyk2LAxPqwvbgDo2E=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=s0vQ+i3tGVKJPUettikm1T6p2uxrkhh8ZtmNiZJ+HVRxsinJQ3a+sMm+nKaXTCNBh RcGM27BRKdAkzDCdIxPXaee3xNMnwHBfnhlU9RJTwhlzMEPm8ugs3SRlN2FJIsXgcv pONniSIPIMFP897skLtKv0o/PaUaMZDltD8myIzteMNZteXB1Js4gKYu55UqNWV1bl KqS8q/WXTH+ijpmm1KxrbhKDGSRi1lXsJrcB5ZAJ1gusn52EWv8KWGBvRfr8X6rXo2 cRsHOKi4Qrrg97pKHb+2R5iJblFJK9oR9hV5ma1/HhQEmBHK0ittXOpzDVhVA9DwjQ aJJOQT04eyjDA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/PHv2_WIUG1lnRU927Yx63AgMWwg
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: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:02:53 -0000

On 4/3/14 12:30 PM, Karl Stahl wrote:

> (B) Each rtcweb file transfer MUST use its own data channel (if
> combined they risk being regulated randomly/unfairly by SCTP itself
> and all files will have just have one single TCP-like flow at the
> network congestion point when sharing the available bandwidth with
> everyone else's flows at that congestion point - That would be
> "negative priority" compared to what we are used to in a browser.).

I presume you mean each *concurrent* file transfer must use its own 
channel. Right? Reusing the same channel to transfer a series of files 
should be fine.

	Thanks,
	Paul