Re: [rtcweb] [tsvwg] Fall-back to DSCP 0 in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos ?

Hi, all,

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:

> Magnus,
>
> I think that's a fine suggestion.   I think the next step is:
>
> > 3. The natural place to indicate the need/recommendation for
> > implementing this functionality would be in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports
> > (Currently in IETF LC). However, here I think we need to have a
> > discussion if RTCWEB WG wants to only place a suitable warning about the
> > need, and indicate future forthcoming specification or if we hold this
> > document up until this solution is available?
>
> I'll attend the Thu RTCWEB session in Berlin to see how this comes out,
> after which it should be straightforward for the draft authors and yours
> truly to write the sentence or two that draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos will
> need.

I'm just following up on this because we have draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports
on the telechat agenda this week, and I didn't see a discussion on this
topic in the RTCWeb agenda (or in poking around for minutes, jabber,
etherpad, etc).

Did it happen? Was there a resolution?

Thanks,

Spencer

> Thanks, --David
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:53 AM
> > To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy); Black, David
> > Cc: RTCWeb IETF; Michael Welzl; tsvwg@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [rtcweb] Fall-back to DSCP 0 in
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos ?
> >
> > Den 2016-07-12 kl. 18:19, skrev Cullen Jennings (fluffy):
> > >
> > > short answer here but as David suggested …  some implementation use
> > > the STUN packets in ICE  or just  in WebRTC style liveness tests to
> > > do the tests of if a given DSCP works or not. In general ICE is a
> > > good tool to take a bunch of possible paths, test which work, and
> > > select the best.
> >
> > I do agree that how you do the path checks when setting DSCP values != 0
> > is dependent on the context. For the WebRTC I do agree doing checks
> > using ICE is quite reasonable.
> >
> > We already have similar path testing usages of ICE in the ECN for RTP
> > specification (RFC6679), see Section 7.2.1. I will note that taking this
> > as blueprint for DSCP testing, what is needed clearly requires a new
> > separate specification. The components needs are: 1) A new STUN
> > parameter to request the ICE peer to echo the DSCP field value received.
> > 2) A ICE capability parameter to be used in signalling negotiations to
> > determine capability for this feature. 3) Behaviour specification on how
> > to test values and interpret responses. This include things like if one
> > should actually establish multiple candidate pairs one with DSCP testing
> > and one without?
> >
> > So the question here is how to proceed with this issue. So I would
> > suggest the following way forward.
> >
> > 1. draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos identifies the issue and recommends the
> > user to apply path verification methods but don't specify them.
> >
> > 2. Someone takes on the task to write a DSCP path verification extension
> > to ICE.
> >
> > 3. The natural place to indicate the need/recommendation for
> > implementing this functionality would be in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports
> > (Currently in IETF LC). However, here I think we need to have a
> > discussion if RTCWEB WG wants to only place a suitable warning about the
> > need, and indicate future forthcoming specification or if we hold this
> > document up until this solution is available?
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Magnus Westerlund
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> > Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>