[R-C] [ledbat] LEDBAT vs RTCWeb

[Matt Mathis]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Jim Gettys <jg at freedesktop.org> wrote:
> But espousing it in my mail was going to obscure the point I was really
> trying to drive home: that the queueing delays are so huge, that even
> when *ignoring* all the rest of the latency budget, that we really have
> to fix the queueing delays, as they by themselves are badly
> unacceptable.  We have to do away with the uncontrolled, fixed (usually
> grossly bloated) sized, single queued, edge devices currently in the
> Internet.  And that implies both fancy queuing and AQM that can handle
> (often hugely variable) bandwidths we now see in the edge.

Exactly my earlier point.   In the above "we" means the IETF and the
rest of the Internet community.   We (RTPweb) can't fix this problem
because it is way out of scope for the WG.

There are some paths that don't have excess delay or jitter, either
because they are under loaded or because "fancy queuing" is present
and properly configured.    RTCweb must define it's scope to deliver
the best possible quality over these healthy links.   For links with
excess delay and or delay jitter, the best we can do is report the
problem, and choose a rate that doesn't make the suckage too much
worse.  But in a fundamental way we (RTPweb) can't directly fix the
problem.

To the extent that RTCweb based applications diagnose delay and jitter
problems, they will bring market pressure to bear on the bigger
problem, so that perhaps it will get fixed.

 Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay