Re: [rtcweb] Some language on "prioritization"

"Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <> Fri, 04 April 2014 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5681A0159 for <>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 04:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.51 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aETQtxGRHABF for <>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE031A0150 for <>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5140; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1396612553; x=1397822153; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Je8mcw7zBUrGBn4dx4YgekYjWptGPntHeRle9J/wMcI=; b=fpgquRvlv51sudB4hcwBFKVZx3RNM08XNiURrg4Femaq380Jsscmhnfk hG287e77PpfE35c8X4NLLpPLr3bpDj/jOM/UMr1wvgEMnZVUt64UEZnni +PYRB3Zlnd7+IEnL5/xl6gcsduRTZcdGKvMQbUv6LHwKxtMO4d/TBW2PW c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,794,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="32873017"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2014 11:55:52 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s34BtqD0005374 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:55:52 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 06:55:52 -0500
From: "Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Some language on "prioritization"
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 11:55:50 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>, <> <> <00af01cf4f59$fa617b90$ef2472b0$> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CC8CDB3B530D40FAA3F491177C64A6BFciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Some language on "prioritization"
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: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 11:56:01 -0000

Do we really want the default (lazy coder) behavior to be highest priority in this case?

I assume the priority is browser-wide and so this could disrupt other app's streams?


On Apr 4, 2014, at 4:52 AM, "Harald Alvestrand" <<>> wrote:

I assume this is the scheduler envisioned in -ndata:

      SCTP_SS_PRIORITY:  Scheduling with different priorities is used.
         Streams having a higher priority will be scheduled first and
         when multiple streams have the same priority, the default
         scheduling should be used for them.  The priority can be
         assigned with the sctp_stream_value struct.  The higher the
         assigned value, the lower the priority, that is the default
         value 0 is the highest priority and therefore the default
         scheduling will be used if no priorities have been assigned.

This sounds like a "strict" scheduler, in that higher priority queues will starve out lower priority ones completely. I remember having the discussion at an IETF meeting about whether we wanted a "strict" scheduler or a "weighted round robin" scheduler for this, but I wouldn't trust my memory with what the conclusion was.

Was the conclusion that we should do "strict" scheduling? If so, it may be best to make that consistent across the board - I had written in a "weighted" scheduler for media into the prioritization text that I started this thread with, but I think there's value to consistency.

(Note: -ndata has SS_PRIORITY in one place and SS_PRIO / SS_PRIO_INTER in another place. Is there a subtlety here I'm not seeing?)

rtcweb mailing list<>