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

Re: "Priority and QoS model"

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:40:38 -0600
Cc: Stefan Håkansson <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D6443512-4AAB-4BA2-AD6A-B0275B1EE8B5@iii.ca>
To: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>

> On Jul 15, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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, :-).

100% agree - this would be really helpful. I wonder if there is a way to put the sent and received DHCP values in stats ?
Received on Friday, 28 July 2017 14:41:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:51 UTC