Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-jennings-rtcweb-qos (Re: Call for adoption of QoS draft)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 10 September 2012 07:15, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:
> - Pointers to documentation on how browsers are expected to be able to set
> QCI and WiFI markings would be a good addition. Compared to those, DSCP
> codepoint setting is well understood.

I agree that this would be useful, if the draft really did make
implementation (and use) of those markings a "SHOULD".  See below.

> - I find it good that these 3 mechanisms are the only ones considered in the
> draft. I'm making the leap of faith that we intend to state that an
> implementation MUST implement DSCP codepoint marking, SHOULD implement QCI
> and WiFI markings when attached to appropriate interfaces, and that no other
> mechanism is going to get a MUST or SHOULD recommendation from the WG. If
> I'm right, can we make that explicit?

What do people think about NOT including QCI/WiFi markings?  Is it not
possible for a wireless interface to examine DSCP markings in order to
determine the markings for the link?  We should endeavour to maintain
the proper abstractions.

> - The restriction to 3 levels of priority seems to me like a reasonable
> simplification. Again, I want to make sure that this is an explicit and
> supported choice of the group.

Like Cullen, I don't see much room for a fourth priority.  Nor do I
see any particular advantage in having the fourth.  2 just doesn't
seem like enough though.