IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 14 July 2013 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 A378821F9AF3 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.219, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 PsbUJ9PAnMhu for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x233.google.com (mail-pd0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E178221F9133 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id q10so10049090pdj.38 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yjrz7Lv8F3FJZj/e5RpLWuKYpSioLAhFljltboIwSg4=; b=lUMsOwRwI5jV7w5DhXL/agqXHExS6edsfUbsVflg02Z5n6eJQQV5co4rbXMT+WHSJM wCLJ6FTsJ2+vynxK4XwHduoVYevyXZnmmxtg5E1XNief1ssB50BWSK3p80dDM7YGFauZ GLS9LGqoZDppo1lPDIIIxLhpZL2blg2mv5zXFXXBO8+8rJLJpuTaeHNPIkYU3wjbJ/MX Jvzmek/yj5MActJt5nlxXPFPduZhAOrJB67c85HKD5wLbrjEAdKrj90QQmt5HZRvMy9b 4jnjKcCb6g3VB2dKLG+30v4sb3R2md9iSgTMQ7+p7TYZlG3VwnMnjKmhg5Z96wpIc+cj 1aPA==
X-Received: by 10.66.160.74 with SMTP id xi10mr53026618pab.8.1373832491860; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (163.194.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.194.163]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p2sm60259456pag.22.2013.07.14.13.08.09 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51E30523.2090805@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:08:03 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Subha Dhesikan (sdhesika)" <sdhesika@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>
In-Reply-To: <AAD74A5C56B6A249AA8C0D3B41F86990154362F4@xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 20:08:14 -0000

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