draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-13.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-14.txt 
Network Working Group P. Jones Network Working Group P. Jones
Internet-Draft S. Dhesikan Internet-Draft S. Dhesikan
Intended status: Standards Track C. Jennings Intended status: Standards Track C. Jennings
Expires: September 1, 2016 Cisco Systems Expires: September 11, 2016 Cisco Systems
D. Druta D. Druta
AT&T AT&T
February 29, 2016 March 10, 2016
DSCP and other packet markings for WebRTC QoS DSCP and other packet markings for WebRTC QoS
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-13 draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-14
Abstract Abstract
Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can
provide different forwarding treatments for individual packets based provide different forwarding treatments for individual packets based
on Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) values on a per-hop on Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) values on a per-hop
basis. This document provides the recommended DSCP values for web basis. This document provides the recommended DSCP values for web
browsers to use for various classes of WebRTC traffic. browsers to use for various classes of WebRTC traffic.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 September 1, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 24
5. DSCP Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. DSCP Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) [RFC2474] packet marking Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) [RFC2474] packet marking
can help provide QoS in some environments. This specification can help provide QoS in some environments. This specification
provides default packet marking for browsers that support WebRTC provides default packet marking for browsers that support WebRTC
applications, but does not change any advice or requirements in applications, but does not change any advice or requirements in
existing IETF RFCs. The contents of this specification are intended existing IETF RFCs. The contents of this specification are intended
to be a simple set of implementation recommendations based on the to be a simple set of implementation recommendations based on the
previous RFCs. previous RFCs.
skipping to change at page 5, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
Table 1: Recommended DSCP Values for WebRTC Applications Table 1: Recommended DSCP Values for WebRTC Applications
The application priority, indicated by the columns "very low", "low", The application priority, indicated by the columns "very low", "low",
"Medium", and "high", signifies the relative importance of the flow "Medium", and "high", signifies the relative importance of the flow
within the application. It is an input that the browser receives to within the application. It is an input that the browser receives to
assist in selecting the DSCP value and adjusting the network assist in selecting the DSCP value and adjusting the network
transport behavior. transport behavior.
The above table assumes that packets marked with CS1 are treated as The above table assumes that packets marked with CS1 are treated as
"less than best effort". However, the treatment of CS1 is "less than best effort", such as the LE behavior described in
implementation dependent. If an implementation treats CS1 as other [RFC3662]. However, the treatment of CS1 is implementation
than "less than best effort", then the actual priority (or, more dependent. If an implementation treats CS1 as other than "less than
precisely, the per-hop-behavior) of the packets may be changed from best effort", then the actual priority (or, more precisely, the per-
what is intended. It is common for CS1 to be treated the same as DF, hop-behavior) of the packets may be changed from what is intended.
so applications and browsers using CS1 cannot assume that CS1 will be It is common for CS1 to be treated the same as DF, so applications
treated differently than DF [RFC7657]. However, it is also possible and browsers using CS1 cannot assume that CS1 will be treated
per [RFC2474] for CS1 traffic to be given better treatment than DF, differently than DF [RFC7657]. However, it is also possible per
thus caution should be exercised when electing to use CS1.
[RFC2474] for CS1 traffic to be given better treatment than DF, thus
caution should be exercised when electing to use CS1.
Implementers should also note that excess EF traffic is dropped. Implementers should also note that excess EF traffic is dropped.
This could mean that a packet marked as EF may not get through as This could mean that a packet marked as EF may not get through as
opposed to a packet marked with a different DSCP value. This is not opposed to a packet marked with a different DSCP value. This is not
a flaw, but how excess EF traffic is intended to be treated. a flaw, but how excess EF traffic is intended to be treated.
The browser SHOULD first select the flow type of the flow. Within The browser SHOULD first select the flow type of the flow. Within
the flow type, the relative importance of the flow SHOULD be used to the flow type, the relative importance of the flow SHOULD be used to
select the appropriate DSCP value. select the appropriate DSCP value.
skipping to change at page 9, line 39 skipping to change at page 9, line 39
J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D. J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
Behavior)", RFC 3246, DOI 10.17487/RFC3246, March 2002, Behavior)", RFC 3246, DOI 10.17487/RFC3246, March 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3246>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3246>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>. July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3662] Bless, R., Nichols, K., and K. Wehrle, "A Lower Effort
Per-Domain Behavior (PDB) for Differentiated Services",
RFC 3662, DOI 10.17487/RFC3662, December 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3662>.
[W3C.REC-html5-20141028] [W3C.REC-html5-20141028]
Hickson, I., Berjon, R., Faulkner, S., Leithead, T., Hickson, I., Berjon, R., Faulkner, S., Leithead, T.,
Navara, E., O&#039;Connor, E., and S. Pfeiffer, "HTML5", Navara, E., O&#039;Connor, E., and S. Pfeiffer, "HTML5",
World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC- World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
html5-20141028, October 2014, html5-20141028, October 2014,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Paul E. Jones Paul E. Jones
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
14 lines changed or deleted 21 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.44. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/