The IESG has approved the following document: - 'DSCP Packet Markings for WebRTC QoS' (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-18.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Transport Area Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Mirja Kühlewind and Spencer Dawkins. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos/ Technical Summary Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can provide different forwarding treatments for individual packets based on Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) values on a per-hop basis. This document provides the recommended DSCP values for web browsers to use for various classes of WebRTC traffic. Working Group Summary The Transport Area WG (TSVWG) is a collection of people with varied interests that don't individually justify their own working groups. This draft is supported by the portion of the tsvwg working group that is familiar with and interested in Diffserv. The draft has received significant review and critique from a number of Diffserv experts, including the draft shepherd, and has undergone significant modification as a result. There has been significant interaction with the rtcweb WG - e.g., coordinated text changes have been made to both this draft and the rtcweb-transports draft to align functionality and terminology. Work on this draft originally began in the rtcweb working group; this draft was transferred to the tsvwg working group as it is primarily a Diffserv draft that would be better handled in tsvwg, where other Diffserv work is done. The draft spent several years in the tsvwg working group due in part to intermittent author attention, but more importantly because (in 20/20 hindsight) completion of this draft turned out to depend on sorting out some deeper issues around the interaction of Diffserv and real-time communication. That sorting out was accomplished by the DART WG resulting in RFC 7657, whose completion cleared the way for progress on this draft. The resulting WG discussion on this draft was active; there is no significant disagreement with the outcomes, although there are multiple aspirations for future protocol enhancements to remove limits specified in this draft (e.g., SCTP is currently limited to one PHB and DSCP per association). This draft is part of the much larger set of WebRTC specifications, primarily in the rtcweb working group at IETF and at W3C. Multiple WebRTC implementations exist and are being worked on as the drafts mature. Document Quality The IESG should note that this draft is far from a stand-alone document; as noted above, it is part of the much larger set of WebRTC specs and uses Diffserv, which is specified in another significant set of RFCs (including RFC 4594 and RFC 7657). IETF LC discussion resulted in minor edits and resolution of one issue. The issue arose when Magnus Westerlund asked the (seemingly simple) question of how a browser determines whether WebRTC video is interactive. The answer turns out to be that the browser doesn't do that - all WebRTC video (and actually all media) is interactive for a WebRTC application running in a browser because the WebRTC browser API can't specify that video (or media) is non-interactive. In addition to explaining that in this draft, the next version (-13) of the WebRTC transports draft (draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports) will state that all WebRTC media is interactive. Personnel Document Shepherd: David Black Responsible AD: Spencer Dawkins
