Re: [rtcweb] Consent for fate-sharing connections (Do we need text in draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness ?)
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 27 March 2014 17:15 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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 529671A06F7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:15:33 -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 vdB7Z74XlQck for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3171A0709 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p61so2027488wes.27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=b/EkVz9gS2MnVKoFaUoB2i7US7AWpAmB7EjecnOHR6U=; b=FP5L4jW6myxZKW4FjsrET3aAV4nv3PGL7fuVku5Eh+s1fh3grQjBYzGs63d8eiF0Qd tYCqli0kX6msHRfQFWPXTTrtm+mk72Ko+M9eqSesfu31eYJxwXkWucheUFZvvez2Jhc2 9D3/FyLmZ7qrpDJfG5dg+OSSX9YDulBKex//cKlF/rIpwHllg5X+hO6o+siC/KDtud49 uKYruv2HB0cFTGP6z0/afs764sqAMkP36WZjqvPvwOa+fNLk/9RWJfOo49gklN98BWpd SlAPSb69/OKrQDEL6BEYRJGtVf5A3IyoX+PZwzVRIV8C8pSumyxh1V+czvCENUrA1BHZ Z2VA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.181.13.11 with SMTP id eu11mr41316024wid.30.1395940528801; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.147.10 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5334324C.8070004@ericsson.com>
References: <CF579BF9.85AEA%rmohanr@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMCgFVWi96iqRsee5V3UMBmY0eK=S0mLnde52tUs3Xnddw@mail.gmail.com> <CF5824EF.85B9A%rmohanr@cisco.com> <CF5828FE.85BC2%rmohanr@cisco.com> <5334324C.8070004@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:15:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVB7ydWL0xW=e8qVaowTQG+jm0ghrjKGSJN-UeDuXin7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/eOY8jQWjSSkLKXCrP4MgKxOQk6Y
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consent for fate-sharing connections (Do we need text in draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness ?)
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: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:15:33 -0000
On 27 March 2014 07:14, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote: > I do think RTP MUST be fate shared with its RTCP. Because revoking > consent for RTCP should not be a way of turning off congestion control. > Thus, no RTCP should mean no RTP either as you get no feedback on how it > behaves. I would hope that a congestion control algorithm for RTP would a) use RTCP as its feedback mechanism, and b) react fairly harshly if RTCP suddenly disappeared. Such that loss of consent on RTCP would essentially cut bandwidth to zero, or close to. I remember having this issue with Lync: we were dropping RTCP and the video quality was absolutely appalling. Turns out, Lync was doing both a and b.
- [rtcweb] Consent for fate-sharing connections (Do… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [rtcweb] Consent for fate-sharing connections… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Consent for fate-sharing connections… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Consent for fate-sharing connections… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [rtcweb] Consent for fate-sharing connections… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Consent for fate-sharing connections… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Consent for fate-sharing connections… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Consent for fate-sharing connections… Magnus Westerlund