draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-00.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-01.txt 
Network Working Group S. Dhesikan Network Working Group S. Dhesikan
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft C. Jennings
Intended status: Standards Track D. Druta, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: October 4, 2014 ATT Expires: December 25, 2014 D. Druta, Ed.
ATT
P. Jones P. Jones
J. Polk J. Polk
Cisco Cisco
April 2, 2014 June 23, 2014
DSCP and other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS DSCP and other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-00 draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-01
Abstract Abstract
Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can
provide per packet treatments based on Differentiated Services Code provide per packet treatments based on Differentiated Services Code
Points (DSCP) on a per-hop basis. This document provides the Points (DSCP) on a per-hop basis. This document provides the
recommended DSCP values for browsers to use for various classes of recommended DSCP values for browsers to use for various classes of
traffic. traffic.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 4, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 25, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Relation to Other Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Relation to Other Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. DSCP Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. DSCP Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Differentiated Services Code Points (DSCP)[RFC2474] style packet Differentiated Services Code Points (DSCP)[RFC2474] style packet
marking can help provide QoS in some environments. There are many marking can help provide QoS in some environments. There are many
use cases where such marking does not help, but it seldom makes use cases where such marking does not help, but it seldom makes
things worse if packets are marked appropriately. In other words, if things worse if packets are marked appropriately. In other words, if
too many packets, say all audio or all audio and video, are marked too many packets, say all audio or all audio and video, are marked
for a given network condition then it can prevent desirable results. for a given network condition then it can prevent desirable results.
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
5. DSCP Mappings 5. DSCP Mappings
Below is a table of DSCP markings for each data type of interest to Below is a table of DSCP markings for each data type of interest to
RTCWeb. These DSCP values for each data type listed are a reasonable RTCWeb. These DSCP values for each data type listed are a reasonable
default set of code point values taken from [RFC4594]. A web browser default set of code point values taken from [RFC4594]. A web browser
SHOULD use these values to mark the appropriate media packets. More SHOULD use these values to mark the appropriate media packets. More
information on EF can be found in [RFC3246]. More information on AF information on EF can be found in [RFC3246]. More information on AF
can be found in [RFC2597]. can be found in [RFC2597].
+------------------------+-------+------+-------------+-------------+ +---------------------------+-------+------+------------+-----------+
| Data Type | Very | Low | Medium | High | | Data Type | Very | Low | Medium | High |
| | Low | | | | | | Low | | | |
+------------------------+-------+------+-------------+-------------+ +---------------------------+-------+------+------------+-----------+
| Audio | CS1 | BE | EF (46) | EF (46) | | Audio | CS1 | BE | EF (46) | EF (46) |
| | (8) | (0) | | | | | (8) | (0) | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Interactive Video with | CS1 | BE | AF42, AF43 | AF41, AF42 | | Interactive Video with or | CS1 | BE | AF42, AF43 | AF41, |
| or without audio | (8) | (0) | (36, 38) | (34, 36) | | without audio | (8) | (0) | (36, 38) | AF42 (34, |
| | | | | | | | | | | 36) |
| Non-Interactive Video | CS1 | BE | AF32, AF33 | AF31, AF32 | | | | | | |
| with or without audio | (8) | (0) | (28, 30) | (26, 28) | | Non-Interactive Video | CS1 | BE | AF32, AF33 | AF31, |
| | | | | | | with or without audio | (8) | (0) | (28, 30) | AF32 (26, |
| Data | CS1 | BE | AF1x (10, | AF2x (18, | | | | | | 28) |
| | (8) | (0) | 12, 14) | 20, 22) | | | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+------+-------------+-------------+ | Data | CS1 | BE | AF1x (10, | AF2x (18, |
| | (8) | (0) | 12, 14) | 20, 22) |
+---------------------------+-------+------+------------+-----------+
Table 1 Table 1
The columns "very low", "low", "Medium" and "high" are the priority The columns "very low", "low", "Medium" and "high" are the priority
levels. The browser SHOULD first select the data type of the media levels. The browser SHOULD first select the data type of the media
flow. Within the data type, the priority of the media flow SHOULD be flow. Within the data type, the priority of the media flow SHOULD be
selected. All packets within a media flow SHOULD have the same selected. All packets within a media flow SHOULD have the same
priority. In some cases, the selected cell may have multiple DSCP priority. In some cases, the selected cell may have multiple DSCP
values, such as AF41 and AF42. These offer different drop values, such as AF41 and AF42. These offer different drop
precedences. One may select difference drop precedences for the precedences. One may select difference drop precedences for the
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at page 7, line 25
Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002. Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Subha Dhesikan Subha Dhesikan
Cisco Cisco
Email: sdhesika@cisco.com Email: sdhesika@cisco.com
Cullen Jennings
Cisco
Email: fluffy@cisco.com
Dan Druta (editor) Dan Druta (editor)
ATT ATT
Email: dd5826@att.com Email: dd5826@att.com
Paul Jones Paul Jones
Cisco Cisco
Email: paulej@packetizer.com Email: paulej@packetizer.com
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
25 lines changed or deleted 33 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/