Return-Path: 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 2DFB21A00B4 for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 11:17:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 6zgsf4zQGlVY for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 11:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x22b.google.com (mail-pd0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB931A00C2 for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 11:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r10so2600912pdi.16 for ; Thu, 08 May 2014 11:17:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=dkfOjqOVy2PUPwGqsPk82JLKY+ru+rey+aO3Kh219J8=; b=lEsxw0J3kl62dXcZOTf1iOcy5Pcu+1vKrBrJvw76H05czh51C5R+AoQK6JoeGO4r6g baLn/e0dLG3vECwMA4im6aX6/XJRv9Pw73zl86GYDkwphxsTqb7LRLDO51iqTui5b7Zz akxFs5x7bYQwxKnJQCOAAnWZc4HfLW/uN12DoBm/n30Snq4/bfIL3yM32UtcF8XzJE+O oNbS6sIM/RDzt30ncQ+9X+BKBnFV63W5zW7e39CbefJ0Efixj2VPNU0K3gsDCi30dDu+ 6I9c78XtolIcgu31NgleXihErae52YODq+ZgQsQKtoT3V9E7b+OSgF0yiNeRI9fneIZY YUmQ== X-Received: by 10.66.122.1 with SMTP id lo1mr10619085pab.118.1399573056107; Thu, 08 May 2014 11:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.81.8.153] ([166.170.42.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gz11sm3259287pbd.1.2014.05.08.11.17.33 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 08 May 2014 11:17:34 -0700 (PDT) References:

<2CE99351-87F9-4815-913A-092C1B703D8A@csperkins.org> <536BB52B.50102@jitsi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <536BB52B.50102@jitsi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D201) From: Bernard Aboba Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 11:17:30 -0700 To: Emil Ivov Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/eDmvo7xRGhzOKFR8jH8jxZXk1h4 Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" , Colin Perkins Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 18:17:45 -0000 > On May 8, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Emil Ivov wrote: >>=20 >> The circuit breaker is a mechanism of last resort. If we've designed >> it correctly, it will only stop sessions that are otherwise unusable. [BA] Unusable at a given moment could change to usable later, either as a re= sult of congestion control support and/or changing conditions. So it is one t= hing to stop sending for some period and indicate to the user that difficult= ies are being experienced then try again after backing down the send Bw, and= another to stop and require a redial.=20 >=20 > This is another part that bothers me with circuit breakers. If there's a r= easonable chance that a "redial" would succeed then why did we break the ses= sion? If not then why are we encouraging it? [BA] As specified, circuit breakers is vulnerable to routing transients. Oth= er transports such as TCP are explicitly designed to survive this, but circu= it breakers will not. So we need to ask ourselves why TCP never needed (or c= onsidered) such a mechanism.=20=