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 12:51:23 -0600
Cc: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FAAD6FCB-D986-4E2C-A9D0-6B80B8E15AA5@iii.ca>
To: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>
Just as a stab in the dark on how to do this ... 

Perhaps a table that had many packet where received for each DSCP that had been received in the last second. And a separate table for sent packets.

Would something like that work ?



> On Jul 28, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io> wrote:
> 
> 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/
Received on Friday, 28 July 2017 18:51:48 UTC

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