Re: "Priority and QoS model"

This was brought up before. https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-stats/issues/133
and https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-stats/issues/135. Any ideas on how to
represent this info?
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 at 17.42, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

>
> > 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 ?
>
>
>
>
> --
Founder, CEO, callstats.io
http://www.callstats.io

Interested in networking, media quality, and diagnostics.
We are hiring!: www.callstats.io/jobs/