Re: [rtcweb] RTP usage: supporting RTP ECN?

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@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 BF71C1A0574 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 C_PayXVJmgPN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5351A04AE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id b13so3486954wgh.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=tJV3tCjZxrtRiHeFgNPY02OrpdZPPa2VxWfeMG4alqQ=; b=FXD3fh3v9wt+ZmRRpTWD7Iil0NYuZdOM6ZxwnatMmdnkJhCtvPSUbQWyLz97CcPgU0 hfADd0y/VQI4WQq0H9YRIRYVGFMTlmmcGvUy1mHlxL4BSe0qS7j+DP2YkYN8frcADUlO ahKqZSg/4qT5+TNxk1r+iKjfpEP8h93diQF33nW1O/g/jf+yYdnMEMw4wB8vvaesZus+ KpvaQB0DpIy89FjB3eWeZDIa1GIpAqFseWerzKo1Sin2evcvr3fXPXoLlkRmv6kdDDqQ oqZCbN+m4b/VDr6v9j58XGuaGaWCIGgx6DqNoSN/UHPZlRQzjbSk7K4RAYZM8jej7qgd C7Jg==
X-Received: by 10.180.87.9 with SMTP id t9mr1263312wiz.36.1394512458739; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.217.161.66 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <531DDA05.5050707@ericsson.com>
References: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB861952E2@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <531DDA05.5050707@ericsson.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:33:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dvJvGp+ZGBkaNFLTC9689DmMK+-YJ4nc8Te-6iPZyF9ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444eb67bcf47a04f44d3b7c
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/tFCArxHx39Nv8vS9vyETVNtq_vA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTP usage: supporting RTP ECN?
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: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:34:30 -0000

+1 to what Magnus said.  ECN for RTP isn't mature enough to make this a
WebRTC requirement at this time.


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> On 2014-03-06 10:56, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 doesn't have any description regarding to
> > RTP ECN RFC6679. I'm wondering why. But from my point of view, it's
> > worth some discussion. The usage of ECN is a trend though it is not
> > universal in current network. Supporting it in browsers for RTP media
> > transport may be good for future.
> >
>
> Hi Rachel,
> (as individual/author)
>
> We did consider ECN for RTP and it was discussed a bit at the Stockholm
> interim meeting in June 2012. My recollection of this is that the
> complexity trade-off versus the potential gains and the risk for it
> causing negative impact resulted in that we did not included it at this
> stage.
>
> I do think adding ECN would be a good thing, but we do need to know that
> it is working reasonably well and provide a benefit sufficiently often.
> I think the importance of AQM will enable more deployment of ECN also.
> Thus enabling improved performance for real-time applications like
> WebRTC based ones.
>
> I would suggest that we revisit this question after the core set of
> specifications have been done.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>