Subject: [Dart] Two comments on draft-york-dscp-rtp

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:58:28 -0400

And I'll get a jump on tomorrow's session by passing along two comments from tsvwg discussion and an offline conversation today:

1) The SCTP language is insufficient.

The SCTP language should be strengthened to bluntly state that SCTP congestion control operates at the SCTP association (session) level, and *therefore* use of PHBs and DSCPs that cause reordering among streams (or anything else) within an SCTP association is a rather strong SHOULD NOT (modulo input tomorrow on whether to use RFC 2119 keywords in an Informational draft).

2) The reference to RFC 5764 on mux/demux of DTLS, RTP and STUN is also insufficient, as there are known problems w/that RFC.

The reference to RFC 5764 should be complemented by a reference to draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes:
	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes/

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dart [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:33 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Dart] Meeting Materials
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The slides for tomorrow's meeting are available at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/90/materials.html#wg-dart .
> 
> Also, we are still recruiting for a jabber scribe, and a backup note taker for
> the meeting. These are great opportunities for glory and admiration from your
> peers!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dart mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart