[rtcweb] Comments on draft-jennings-rtcweb-qos (Re: Call for adoption of QoS draft)

Since this draft is mercifully short, I did a quick review.

Notes:

- Pointers to documentation on how browsers are expected to be able to 
set QCI and WiFI markings would be a good addition. Compared to those, 
DSCP codepoint setting is well understood.

- I find it good that these 3 mechanisms are the only ones considered in 
the draft. I'm making the leap of faith that we intend to state that an 
implementation MUST implement DSCP codepoint marking, SHOULD implement 
QCI and WiFI markings when attached to appropriate interfaces, and that 
no other mechanism is going to get a MUST or SHOULD recommendation from 
the WG. If I'm right, can we make that explicit?

- The restriction to 3 levels of priority seems to me like a reasonable 
simplification. Again, I want to make sure that this is an explicit and 
supported choice of the group.

                Harald

On 09/07/2012 05:27 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Based on the feedback at the last working group meeting, the chairs
> believe that there is general support for creating a document that
> describes the QoS issues relating to RTCWEB.  We would like to call
> for adoption of draft-jennings-rtcweb-qos-00 as the input draft.  Dan
> Druta has agreed to serve as the WG document editor, should this
> document move forward.
>
> Please send comments to the list by  September 16, 2012
>
> Ted and Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb