Re: [tram] Question about scope of TRAM

Please disregard my TRAM-references. I missed to delete them when copying
this technical text from early March into the rtcweb discussion now. Sorry.
/Karl 

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: tram [mailto:tram-bounces@ietf.org] För Simon Perreault
Skickat: den 23 april 2014 15:10
Till: tram@ietf.org
Ämne: Re: [tram] Question about scope of TRAM

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

_______________________________________________
tram mailing list
tram@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram