Re: [tram] I-D Action: draft-thomson-tram-turn-bandwidth-00.txt

Hi,

I agree the full QoS discussion should _not_ happen in TRAM. If you are interested in helping out in that area I suggest you looking into the AEON mailing list at: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aeon . They are currently working on a problem-statement draft and a use-case draft, any input to those would be very helpful. (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eckel-aeon-use-cases-01, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eckel-aeon-problem-statement-00).

That said, STUN have a few nice characteristics that makes it a perfect candidate for transporting some of the QoS information.  IMHO that would be extending the STUN spec and should be within the TRAM charter.  The main goal of draft-martinsen-tram-discuss was to show how already existing QoS mechanisms could be transported with STUN to provide more value, and to start the discussion if TRAM is the appropriate place to have those on the wire format discussions.

.-.
Pål-Erik

On 20 Feb 2014, at 19:55 pm, Yoakum, John H (John) <yoakum@avaya.com<mailto:yoakum@avaya.com>> wrote:

+1
I fully agree with the comments that QOS should be a low priority for the initial focus of the TRAM efforts.  There are other groups doing QOS work and frankly I engage in WebRTC multimedia interactions daily over the Internet, enterprise VPNs, and various combinations and seldom suffer egregious quality issues.  I am more concerned about carriers doing things to regulate or degrade WebRTC flows than a failure of existing Internet mechanisms to enable them.

Significant focus on QOS before we better enable TURN to be easily used in a browser environment taking advantage or normal web characteristics (as opposed to historic telephony constructs) would seem to be highly distracting at this point.

Cheers,
John

AVAYA
1.919.425.8446

From: tram [mailto:tram-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Oleg Moskalenko
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 12:43 PM
To: Alan Johnston
Cc: Karl Stahl; tram@ietf.org<mailto:tram@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tram] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-thomson-tram-turn-bandwidth-00.txt

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com<mailto:alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>> wrote:

Personally, I am not sure how much QoS is actually in scope for TRAM. Have you been following RMCAT where congestion avoidance for RTP is being developed?  I see some overlap in your goals and the goals of that work.
-

I'd concentrate on the TURN application-level functionality, for now, and I'd leave QoS for the future discussions.

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