Re: [tram] Question about scope of TRAM

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

Le 2014-04-23 08:33, Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
> On the RTCWEB list, the following claim was made:
> 
>> Here, in TRAM we want to go beyond Level 4 QoS (already available and
>> working as good as it can on the Internet), to give quality demanding
>> WebRTC
>> real-time traffic better QoE by:
>> a. Forcing real-time traffic into IP-pipes having Level 2 QoS (using
>> auto-discovered TURN servers)
>> or
>> b. Forcing real-time traffic into IP-pipes having Level 3 QoS (using
>> auto-discovered TURN servers). Here we must have traffic shaping
>> mechanisms
>> working, and with correct and sufficient information to do the job.
>> This is
>> why we in TRAM discuss DISCUSS/MALICE,
>> draft-thomson-tram-turn-bandwidth-00.txt attributes and recreating the
>> payload type (PT) idea/intent in RTP packets (by now conveying
>> bandwidth and
>> traffic type in the RTP extension header
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09129.html.
>>
> 
> Before reacting to that, I want to check:
> 
> Is it the opinion of the TRAM chairs that this is a fair description of
> a subject that is being actively discussed in the TRAM WG?

QoS is out of TRAM's scope.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca