W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2018

Re: Towards a new charter for the WebRTC Working Group

From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 20:35:47 +0100
Cc: Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "thp@westhawk.co.uk" <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, "martin.thomson@gmail.com" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "dom@w3.org" <dom@w3.org>
Message-Id: <57E8838C-D1E0-4342-948B-0D89B7234A21@lurchi.franken.de>
To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
> On 6. Jan 2018, at 20:05, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Lennart said: 
> "Just saying "QUIC is better than SCTP over DTLS" is
> obviously not enough. I think there needs to be a document clarifying
> these questions in detail available to everyone...  Is there a
> specific use case? Or is it just because the status quo of data channels
> is pretty 'meh'?'
> [BA] I have worked with developers currently using the SCTP data channel
> successfully in our UWP SDKs and have also received requests for QUIC support
> as well.
> So far, most of the SCTP data channel usage I see involves unreliable messages
> at relatively low bandwidth (e.g. in games).  The QUIC requests so far have involved
> a different use case - high bandwidth, reliable transferssimultaneous with audio/video sessions. 
> The file transfer use case has the potential to work better with QUIC than the SCTP data
> channel, assuming that the QUIC implementation supports pluggable congestion
> control so that the QUIC file transfer can use a delay-based algorithm rather
> than the loss-based algorithm used in SCTP implementations. This choice could
> potentially avoid building queues at the bottleneck (assuming that there were no
> other competing TCP/SCTP flows). 
> However, since discussion of these use cases would require getting into protocol 
> and transport issues (such as congestion control and loss recovery algorithms), it is
> probably better suited to an IETF WG (such as RMCAT) than the W3C. 
When specifying a CC for QUIC, it should be easy to specify it in a way it can
also be used in the context of SCTP. Possibly even for TCP. Thinking of BBR, for
The SCTP stack of FreeBSD and the userland stack usrsctp already support multiple
congestion controls via a simple interface function call based interface.

Best regards
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2018 19:36:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 6 January 2018 19:36:28 UTC