Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

On 08.05.14, 14:54, Colin Perkins wrote:
> On 8 May 2014, at 13:43, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>>> On May 8, 2014, at 3:45, Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote: The fix here is to delete “In the absence of a concrete
>>> congestion control algorithm, all”, leaving the text as “WebRTC
>>> implementations MUST implement the RTP circuit breaker…” since as
>>> you note, we want the circuit breaker even if there is congestion
>>> control.
>>
>> [BA] The question I have is whether this would be widely
>> implemented. The Circuit Breaker algorithm pauses sessions, but has
>> no mechanism to resume them, so it increases brittleness.
>
> The circuit breaker is a mechanism of last resort. If we've designed
> it correctly, it will only stop sessions that are otherwise unusable.

Shouldn't we have the "if" cleared before making this a MUST? It is not 
clear to me that we've managed to avoid excessive false positives for 
example.

> The resume mechanism is the redial button on the user interface. With
> a reasonable congestion control algorithm, the circuit breaker should
> never be triggered.

This is another part that bothers me with circuit breakers. If there's a 
reasonable chance that a "redial" would succeed then why did we break 
the session? If not then why are we encouraging it?

I am not saying that this can never make sense but it feels like there's 
too much application logic in there for this to be a MUST for WebRTC stacks.

Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org