| rfc8837v5.txt | rfc8837.txt | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| skipping to change at line 322 ¶ | skipping to change at line 322 ¶ | |||
| discouraged, as this would defeat any attempts at effectively | discouraged, as this would defeat any attempts at effectively | |||
| managing congestion. It should also be noted that any change in DSCP | managing congestion. It should also be noted that any change in DSCP | |||
| value that results in a reset of the congestion controller puts the | value that results in a reset of the congestion controller puts the | |||
| SCTP association back into slow start, which may have undesirable | SCTP association back into slow start, which may have undesirable | |||
| effects on application performance. | effects on application performance. | |||
| For the data channel traffic multiplexed over an SCTP association, it | For the data channel traffic multiplexed over an SCTP association, it | |||
| is RECOMMENDED that the DSCP value selected be the one associated | is RECOMMENDED that the DSCP value selected be the one associated | |||
| with the highest priority requested for all data channels multiplexed | with the highest priority requested for all data channels multiplexed | |||
| over the SCTP association. Likewise, when multiplexing multiple | over the SCTP association. Likewise, when multiplexing multiple | |||
| flows over a TCP connection, the DCSP value selected SHOULD be the | flows over a TCP connection, the DSCP value selected SHOULD be the | |||
| one associated with the highest priority requested for all | one associated with the highest priority requested for all | |||
| multiplexed flows. | multiplexed flows. | |||
| If a packet enters a network that has no support for a flow-type- | If a packet enters a network that has no support for a flow-type- | |||
| application priority combination specified in Table 1, then the | application priority combination specified in Table 1, then the | |||
| network node at the edge will remark the DSCP value based on | network node at the edge will remark the DSCP value based on | |||
| policies. This could result in the flow not getting the network | policies. This could result in the flow not getting the network | |||
| treatment it expects based on the original DSCP value in the packet. | treatment it expects based on the original DSCP value in the packet. | |||
| Subsequently, if the packet enters a network that supports a larger | Subsequently, if the packet enters a network that supports a larger | |||
| number of these combinations, there may not be sufficient information | number of these combinations, there may not be sufficient information | |||
| skipping to change at line 423 ¶ | skipping to change at line 423 ¶ | |||
| and Use of RTP in WebRTC", RFC 8834, DOI 10.17487/RFC8834, | and Use of RTP in WebRTC", RFC 8834, DOI 10.17487/RFC8834, | |||
| January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8834>. | January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8834>. | |||
| [RFC8835] Alvestrand, H., "Transports for WebRTC", RFC 8835, | [RFC8835] Alvestrand, H., "Transports for WebRTC", RFC 8835, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC8835, January 2021, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8835, January 2021, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8835>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8835>. | |||
| 9.2. Informative References | 9.2. Informative References | |||
| [G.1010] ITU-T, "End-user multimedia QoS categories", ITU-T | [G.1010] ITU-T, "End-user multimedia QoS categories", ITU-T | |||
| Recommendation G.1010, November 2001. | Recommendation G.1010, November 2001, | |||
| <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.1010-200111-I/en>. | ||||
| [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, | [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, | |||
| "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS | "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS | |||
| Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, | Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>. | |||
| [RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski, | [RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski, | |||
| "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, | "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2597, June 1999, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2597, June 1999, | |||
| End of changes. 2 change blocks. | ||||
| 2 lines changed or deleted | 3 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||