Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 01 March 2013 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@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 24BFA1F0D0C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:57:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i3fuhpR-GD2h for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CF51F0C74 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:57:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1811; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362164253; x=1363373853; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3oRL7IPD45SORQJZX5kZAXgbms/SszewUNRDxXNOSXg=; b=ccbwev07+MLht1R4IikQNT+VELChpNKf847DX0/7c0cTq5Qy8dcO5CFy PClFiNX21NIpZBGmFTbJf9yZvJ59CZ9meKyHNk/spj66PROBjr3MWHgbP b9FFvGoEoLNfXHUDJ2Uky+55hsTL1oia5vLqFEAcdPXpA2hKTy5Vi7Lsi c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAHX4MFGrRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABEwjt/FnOCHwEBAQQIAjA/DAEDAgkRBAEBKAcZLQkIAgQTCwWIAg3BHY8SCwcGgzoDiGuFLogqgR6PTYMp
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,762,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="73830350"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2013 18:57:33 +0000
Received: from DWINGWS01 ([10.32.240.197]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21IvWc9013761; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:57:32 GMT
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Dale R. Worley'" <worley@ariadne.com>, "'Ejzak, Richard P \(Richard\)'" <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <CA+9kkMALouyyzN4dcGdF92TO2HGcBHbHR6fvHg7QC-x5ndCGjw@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B10B717@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F36EA7EAB@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <201303011558.r21FwfGb2830347@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <201303011558.r21FwfGb2830347@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:57:32 -0800
Message-ID: <112a01ce16ae$a1720d90$e45628b0$@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQImnlC61bFZQAa/2xpYNbQQY7seZQGhch3qATZkPdIB+mfzDJe5jbUw
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB
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, 01 Mar 2013 18:57:34 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Dale R. Worley
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 7:59 AM
> To: Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB
> 
> > From: "Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com>
> >
> > Since multiplexing of the data channel with RTP media has been shown
> > as a desirable feature of BUNDLE (and most of its variants), I would
> > suggest that this be treated as a significant advantage for BUNDLE
> > (and similarly capable variants) over any proposal without it.
> > Cullen's "Plan A" is preferred over Plan B precisely because it has an
> > incremental muxing advantage.
> 
> As far as I can tell from my analysis
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-worley-sdp-bundle-04#section-8),
> SCTP-over-DTLS can be demuxed from RTP and STUN quite easily.  (This
> comes from RFC 5764 section 5.1.2.)  And SCTP can be demuxed from the
> rest as long as you control the range of SCTP ports used.  (And since
> the ports aren't actually to route the packets to the receiver (the
> underlying UDP does that), you have freedom in choosing SCTP ports.)
> 
> So I don't see anything blocking Plan A as compared to Plan B.  Of
> course, we have to *do* a bundle technique, but we've got a large
> library of possibilities now and can look at the fundamental design
> questions in context.

The analysis should also examine impact of port-based QoS on 
multiplexing data over the same port as audio.  Even audio and
video often prefer different drop precedence.  I know the general
consensus is to just supply more bandwidth, yet we consume all 
available bandwidth much like disk space, memory, and CPU/GPU 
cycles.

-d