Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Adopting new work on RTP Congestion Circuit Breakers

From: Piers O'Hanlon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:14:59 +0100

I support adoption by the WG - it would be useful to have such circuit breakers available sooner than later.

Piers O'Hanlon

On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:25, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> WG,
> 
> At the IETF 83 there was a presentation in the AVTCORE and also in the
> ICCRG of "RTP Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast Sessions"
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-perkins-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers/
> 
> This was well received and there was support for adopting this as WG
> item. Thus I would like to confirm on the mailing list that we should
> adopt a WG item that works on providing RTP congestion control circuit
> breakers for unicast transport flows.
> 
> WG, please comment if you support or disagree of such adaptation. The WG
> chairs will call a consensus after Friday the 13th.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 16:00:23 +0200

On 2012-03-30 02:53, James M. Polk wrote:
> While I generally think this draft is 
> interesting, even the author admits it's awfully 
> drafty at this point (both in AVTCORE and 
> TSV-Dir). And I think perhaps too much so in this 
> version. In other words, I'd like to see more meat on them bones.

James, do you think the draft is so drafty that you don't understand the
intent on what is to be defined? I did ask for adoption of the WG item,
i.e. the task to provide a specific functionality rather than a specific
document. I do find it most likely that we adopt the referenced
document, but step one is to create a milestone.

cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:52:55 -0500

>document, but step one is to create a milestone.

I support the milestone.

I think the draft is going in the right 
direction, but needs a bit more meat on them 
bones before I support adoption of this draft to 
fulfill the milestone. In other words, I don't 
believe the authors will take a wrong turn when 
filling in the rest of the draft, but want to 
have some more there so we know one or more of 
the existing thin areas doesn't do just that. I 
believe Colin will do a good job.

Does this explain where I'm coming from?

James

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:27:16 +0200

> Does this explain where I'm coming from?

Yes, and I think it is a very valid opinion. My plan is if there is
sufficient support for the milestone to go ahead and create it. Then we
can do the adoption of the document at a somewhat later stage. However,
I do intended to be aggressive time wise on this item to ensure that we
have something sufficiently along the publication process that RTCWEB
will not hesitate to normatively reference it in their first set of RTP
usage specification. I do hope the authors will be diligent and
responsive on this draft to make fast progress.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:41:12 +0100

> responsive on this draft to make fast progress.

I'm hoping to...

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

---

From: "Bill Ver Steeg (versteb)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:11:23 -0500

Sorry for the tardy input, but I support the topic as a WG item. I do agree that the draft is a bit thin in some crucial areas, but it is a good start. I will try to find time to contribute to the process on this one, as it is quite important work.

In fact, circuit breakers are just the first requirement and we need to finish that up and address congestion control in all of its glory, IMHO. First things first, though.

Bill VerSteeg

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:26 AM
To: IETF AVTCore WG
Subject: [AVTCORE] Adopting new work on RTP Congestion Circuit Breakers

WG,

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Kevin Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:21:37 -0600

Congestion is a topic of interest for me. I will find time to review and
contribute.

Kevin Gross

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Bill Ver Steeg (versteb) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Sorry for the tardy input, but I support the topic as a WG item. I do
> agree that the draft is a bit thin in some crucial areas, but it is a good
> start. I will try to find time to contribute to the process on this one, as
> it is quite important work.
>
> In fact, circuit breakers are just the first requirement and we need to
> finish that up and address congestion control in all of its glory, IMHO.
> First things first, though.
>
> Bill VerSteeg
>