W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2017

Re: "Priority and QoS model"

From: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:30:22 +0000
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D58FD4BF.3E90D%goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>

On 2017-06-18, 08:39, "Stefan Håkansson LK"
<stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

>the section "Priority and QoS model" [1] basically gives the JS
>application the options "very-low", "low", "medium" and "high" and then
>references RTCWEB-TRANSPORT section 4 and TSVWG-RTCWEB-QOS.
>RTCWEB-TRANSPORT section 4 in turn describes "local prioritization" and
>use of DSCP (with references to TSVWG-RTCWEB-QOS for the later).
>Both "local prioritization" and DSCP use are phrased as "SHOULD". This
>means that there may be no local prioritization and/or no DSCP marking
>made even though a specific priority is requested, and the application
>would not know.

Having done some experiments with the some of the UA¹s, as a developer I
would like to 1) have a feedback on whether the UA supports the setting or
not, and 2) that the UA expose the marking set for debugging up and

Œ1¹ would imply UA has/will applied/y the setting of the Œlocal
prioritisation¹ and setting of DSCP upstream packets while Œ2¹ is useful
for the purpose of debugging downstream.

A UA that does not support Œ1¹ (for whatever reason not limited to OS
capabilities) should provide such a feedback.

This was my 5 cent, :-).

Be Well!
Received on Saturday, 15 July 2017 12:30:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:34 UTC