IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] draft-dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos

"Subha Dhesikan (sdhesika)" <sdhesika@cisco.com> Sun, 14 July 2013 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <sdhesika@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DDD21F9974 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IXBlZAtZdgyl for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A291B21F9943 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1946; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373835365; x=1375044965; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=6bVWfpUoyTnNgeIq7v0JnDJPdfY2Ggt3BV1PLu1CX4A=; b=OEaxGw4FOkAboTVtX9DH/yLHvkuIgl5tpj5Ho6YJZuJuvxul9zxUav5r wRaZ7ir5mH6gWWXNGU4Mmjsl5y/sm1x1DtVHMfOHaqpQpTG4snz6IkQDO FsXFsDlckBe3ynSt3IvMZqkyvSfol5rlUokq3jtch5PosaU9dM+fvO7xD 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FAPAP41GtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABQCoMGgQODBr5IF3UWdIIjAQEBAQMjET4HDAQCAQgRBAEBAwIGHQMCAgIfERQBCAgCBA4FCId2Aw+kaId2DYhegSaLVIEugQsWGwcGglIzbQOUBYFujhCFJoMSgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,664,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="234506693"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2013 20:56:05 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6EKu57v016202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 14 Jul 2013 20:56:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.5.98]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:56:04 -0500
From: "Subha Dhesikan (sdhesika)" <sdhesika@cisco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] draft-dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos
Thread-Index: AQHOfDPkDNpbXj+NgEGu2r18jaM2u5lcUQSAgAAdRYCACBjFMIAAcAyA//+2JnA=
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 20:56:03 +0000
Message-ID: <AAD74A5C56B6A249AA8C0D3B41F869901543640D@xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com>
References: <32AE7F11-A06E-40C1-A73C-5C69F252DAF9@iii.ca> <51DBC3D3.3000300@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CAA_e5Z71M-WWhDUdCOH+L2Ur+-YHYDoOhd2c50zwwM=RpfQZWQ@mail.gmail.com> <AAD74A5C56B6A249AA8C0D3B41F86990154362F4@xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com> <51E30523.2090805@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51E30523.2090805@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.24.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Andrew McGregor <andrewmcgr@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 20:56:12 -0000

Brian,

What I mean by inequality and priority  is merely using words to describe the relationship described by Andrew.  The point is that if I mark something as EF I am expecting strict priority, a PHB that is not delivered by the AF class. Also, I don't expect that a packet marked with EF PHB to get a AF2x PHB.  Hence, perhaps, a poor choice of words but the essence refers to the behavior of what has been described as popularly deployed. 

This is why I have sought to understand from Andrew how this is being handled today.

Regards,
Subha



-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 1:08 PM
To: Subha Dhesikan (sdhesika)
Cc: Andrew McGregor; gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk; tsvwg
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos

On 15/07/2013 06:46, Subha Dhesikan (sdhesika) wrote:
...
> The other challenge I see is with the relative position of the values being different from what is traditionally known for DSCP where EF> AF4x >AF3x>... How have you handled it so far in a non-web rtc environment?

I don't track rtcweb and have no intention of doing so, but what on earth do you mean by writing an inequality for DSCPs? DSCPs do not specify a priority order; they identify (locally) a PHB, which is essentially a queuing disciplime.
Suggesting that EF is "greater" than an AF behaviour is just wrong.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email