- 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>
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 downstream. 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! Göran
Received on Saturday, 15 July 2017 12:30:54 UTC