Re: [rtcweb] Some language on "prioritization"

Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Fri, 04 April 2014 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
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 A01391A010E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 03:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Xnel5Z-7qHLi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 03:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D731A0090 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 03:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.103] (p508F0F22.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.143.15.34]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300B21C103E45; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 12:48:35 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <533E729F.4000302@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 12:48:32 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3E33D629-994C-49A9-A28B-72EE8B5EC10C@lurchi.franken.de>
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> <CB16B8F0-DDC2-4404-A81F-1B3101647DE9@lurchi.franken.de> <533E729F.4000302@alvestrand.no>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/aBeib9OAMhHfyh5ljhHg3aUkbtk
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
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: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:48:46 -0000

On 04 Apr 2014, at 10:51, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> I assume this is the scheduler envisioned in -ndata:
> 
> 
>       SCTP_SS_PRIORITY:  Scheduling with different priorities is used.
>          Streams having a higher priority will be scheduled first and
>          when multiple streams have the same priority, the default
>          scheduling should be used for them.  The priority can be
>          assigned with the sctp_stream_value struct.  The higher the
>          assigned value, the lower the priority, that is the default
>          value 0 is the highest priority and therefore the default
>          scheduling will be used if no priorities have been assigned.
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like a "strict" scheduler, in that higher priority queues will starve out lower priority ones completely. I remember having the discussion at an IETF meeting about whether we wanted a "strict" scheduler or a "weighted round robin" scheduler for this, but I wouldn't trust my memory with what the conclusion was.
It is.
> 
> Was the conclusion that we should do "strict" scheduling? If so, it may be best to make that consistent across the board - I had written in a "weighted" scheduler for media into the prioritization text that I started this thread with, but I think there's value to consistency.
No, in an IETF WG meeting we discussed this a while ago and the result was a non-strict
priority, weighted fair queueing. This scheduling discipline in not there yet.
> 
> (Note: -ndata has SS_PRIORITY in one place and SS_PRIO / SS_PRIO_INTER in another place. Is there a subtlety here I'm not seeing?)
Yes, there is a difference. It is about interleaving. You can use SS_PRIO
with or without NDATA, SS_PRIO_INTER only with NDATA.
This document still needs some work... Even the constant names might change...

Best regards
Michael
> 
> 
>