Re: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14: (with DISCUSS)
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 04 August 2016 13:51 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 E92EC12D91D; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=EiKHDOpQ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=bMe/1I/2
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 hQMscUg-arGU; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A99DF12D901; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008D320719; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:51:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 04 Aug 2016 09:51:04 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=11ygT BHGTBA9rcIdxTVqoUrherU=; b=EiKHDOpQnFCH5zqdl2/SDNIy7j7oRYkmkEGP3 lzdqBysC+gINkNAhTI+15MkFk2gY8bFVr4/MXjpAGDnDKk5EzOK6HXoZerUcA/K5 AUMV0Fbv0ttbNODSd+tEPE1wzq1ANXwBXRt6oCorS0VcyqYyGpDb78nt5tRmNrrV 1thnrI=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=11ygTBHGTBA9rcIdxTVqoUrherU=; b=bMe/1 I/2US/2njMRGIHbOTgxVMZZHLL3IPAZPj587NTkvNx45tZYjjfAIOoDhghH34hIX ZnvQCCIRfGN8Fdvo2J2aLv/oseh2xdRuVZ0KoJYnb5veUmW8FZYSoH3CDd/n8k90 OFNVpaC48/Gimc8IH8Rf527wZDCWym+Fcpo4gw=
X-Sasl-enc: 6qB4avcZZRzCb15ihrJA36py2yOtdiYyFFKHTHxI1b/F 1470318663
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8816.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.178]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E9D17F29D9; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:51:02 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F7223A3E-C85E-4087-BE90-6BF9B0E1D6BC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <20160804091953.15852.31672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 06:51:01 -0700
Message-Id: <D9D177B3-FD2C-4301-8A77-F0BFEC85A942@cooperw.in>
References: <20160804091953.15852.31672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/lHsKenht1ZZje_0rXZ6ZrFKz2O8>
Cc: rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 Aug 2016 13:51:07 -0000
> On Aug 4, 2016, at 2:19 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks, I think this is a very useful and well written document. Sorry > for my late discuss but I don't think this is anything complicated to > address. > Based on the TSV review I agree that this document should say more about > congestion control. While the TSV reviewer (Thanks Allison!) only > proposes to refer draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-17 and > draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09, I would even prefer to have a > normative sentence that says that congestion control MUST be implemented > for all traffic flows. > Please also provide the update on DSCP black-holing (in the middle of a > flow) as mentioned by David Black. The new text about this is: A particularly hard problem is when one media transport uses multiple DSCP code points, where one may be blocked and another may be allowed. This is allowed even within a single media flow for video in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-15#ref-I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos>]. Implementations need to diagnose this scenario; one possible implementation is to send initial ICE probes with DSCP 0, and send ICE probes on all the DSCP code points that are intended to be used once a candidate pair has been selected. If one or more of the DSCP-marked probes fail, the sender will switch the media type to using DSCP 0. This can be carried out simultaneously with the initial media traffic; on failure, the initial data may need to be resent. This switch will of course invalidate any congestion information gathered up to that point. Failures can also start happening during the lifetime of the call; this case is expected to be rarer, and can be handled by the normal mechanisms for transport failure, which may involve an ICE restart. Note that when a DSCP code point causes non-delivery, one has to switch the whole media flow to DSCP 0, since all traffic for a single media flow needs to be on the same queue for congestion control purposes. Other flows on the same transport, using different DSCP code points, don't need to change. Alissa > > > >
- Re: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… Alissa Cooper
- [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Mirja Kuehlewind