[R-C] Some high level requirements and discussion topics in draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-01

[abheek saha]

Hi,

In section 8.1, item 1) requires each stream to be congestion
controlled, but it does not say by who. 3) also does not specify the
congestion control point. Can we make any statement about sender side
vs receiver side congestion management i.e. is it acceptable to create
a webrtc sender which does not run a congestion control algo, but can
act on TMMBR commands on the other side. Should we have a way for the
sender and the receiver to negotiate who will run the congestion
control? Sorry if this has been already debated in the forum before, I
couldn't find much in the mailing list archive.

there are some spelling errors as well, "hetrogenous", "banwidth",
"indendently", "Limiations" (heading of section 8.2)

-thanks,
Abheek

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Magnus Westerlund
<magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We authors decided to put in some text in draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-01
> around congestion control. See section 8 of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage/
>
> We appreciate feedback if we are in error or if it is a good start that
> can be considered to have WG consensus and be extended upon.
>
> 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: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtp-congestion mailing list
> Rtp-congestion at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtp-congestion
>