Re: [tram] A note from your (so far) friendly AD ...

[James Polk <[e-mail]>]

But that didn't happen here. Only Certain ADs and 
certain WG chairs were cc'd. You surely don't have a problem with that...?

James

At 11:59 AM 2/25/2014, Mary Barnes wrote:
>It would also be extremely helpful in cases 
>where it's not entirely clear whether the 
>discussion belongs in TRAM, RTCWEB, etc. to 
>please avoid cross-posting.  Please check with 
>the chairs about what list they think is most 
>appropriate and then just send a note to other 
>lists that might care that the discussion is 
>happening on a specific mailing list.  It's 
>extremely confusing for those of us on multiple 
>lists that try to sort and follow threads by working groups.
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Spencer 
>Dawkins 
><<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> wrote:
>Dear TRAMsters,
>
>If I might offer a couple of suggestions to a new working group ...
>
>The TSV area diverts QoS discussions to the 
>TSVWG working group, because that's where the QoS DSCP expertise lives.
>
>RTCWeb and TSVWG are having a robust and so-far 
>productive discussion about QoS for RTCWeb now 
>(by "robust", I mean "involving chairs and ADs 
>for both working groups"). That discussion is 
>more likely to be productive if RTCWeb QoS 
>topics don't start popping up on other working 
>group mailing lists, like this one.
>
>I'll let your working group chairs actually run 
>the working group, but I note as more than an 
>interested observer that the TRAM agenda at 
><https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/89/agenda/tram/>https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/89/agenda/tram/ 
>is really tight, and I would really be happier 
>if the working group focuses on the currently 
>chartered milestones and demonstrates that you 
>can deliver what you're already signed up to 
>deliver, before adding more milestones. The rest 
>of the IESG would be happier as well.
>
>Thanks, and see you in London.
>
>Spencer, as your responsible AD
>
>On 02/18/2014 03:33 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
>Le 2014-02-18 16:12, Oleg Moskalenko a écrit :
>How to handle the DS and ECN fields is a part of TURN server RFC (see
>the section 12):
>
><http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5766#section-12>http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5766#section-12
>
>And a good TURN server is supposed to implement that.
>
>Well, the RFC just says that the TURN server should copy the DSCP from
>one side to the other when doing en/de-capsulation. It doesn't say that
>the server should actually do QoS based on the DSCP. My point is that
>there's nothing preventing the server from actually doing it.
>
>Anyway, I was expecting responses along the lines of "DiffServ doesn't
>work on the Internet in general." To which I would have replied: "then
>couldn't we define a STUN attribute for transporting the DSCP in the
>payload?" Instead of inventing a new taxonomy (audio, video, slides,
>etc.), why not reuse DSCP?
>
>Simon
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>tram mailing list
><mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>