DiffServ Applied to Real-time Transports                    D. York, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                          Internet Society
Intended status: Standards Track                           D. Black, Ed.
Expires: December 8, 2014                                            EMC
                                                             C. Jennings
                                                                P. Jones
                                                            June 6, 2014

     Differentiated Services (DiffServ) and Real-time Communication


   This document describes the interaction between Differentiated
   Services (DiffServ) network quality of service (QoS) functionality
   and real-time network communication, including communication based on
   the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP).  DiffServ is based on network
   nodes applying different forwarding treatments to packets whose IP
   headers are marked with different DiffServ Code Points (DSCPs).  As a
   result, use of different DSCPs within a single traffic flow may cause
   transport protocol interactions (e.g., due to reordering).  In
   addition, DSCP markings may be changed or removed between the traffic
   source and destination.  This document covers the implications of
   these DiffServ aspects for real-time network communication, including

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 8, 2014.

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Differentiated Services (DiffServ)  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Diffserv PHBs (Per-Hop Behaviors) . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  DiffServ and Transport Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.4.  Traffic Classifiers and DSCP Remarking  . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  RTP Multiplexing Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  RTCWEB Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   This document describes the interactions between Differentiated
   Services (DiffServ) network quality of service (QoS) functionality
   [RFC2475] and real-time network communication, including
   communication based on the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
   [RFC3550].  DiffServ is based on network nodes applying different
   forwarding treatments to packets whose IP headers are marked with
   different DiffServ Code Points (DSCPs)[RFC2474].  As a result use of
   different DSCPs within a single traffic stream may cause transport
   protocol interactions (e.g., due to reordering).  In addition, DSCP
   markings may be changed or removed between the traffic's source and
   destination.  This document covers the implications of these DiffServ

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

   aspects for real-time network communication, including RTCWEB traffic

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Background

   Real-time communications enables communication in real-time over an
   IP network using communication modalities, such as voice, video,
   text, content sharing, etc.  It is possible to utilize any one or
   more modalities in parallel in order to provide for a richer
   communication experience.

   A simple example of real-time communications is a voice call placed
   over the Internet wherein an audio flow is transmitted in each
   direction between two users.  A more complex example is an immersive
   videoconferencing system that has multiple video screens, multiple
   cameras, multiple microphones, and some means of sharing content.
   For such complex systems, there may be multiple media flows that may
   be transmitted via a single IP address and port or via multiple IP
   addresses and ports.

   The most common protocol used for real time media is the Real-Time
   Transport Protocol (RTP)[RFC3550].  RTP defines the mechanism by
   which real-time data is transmitted between hosts on the Internet.
   With most applications, a single media type (e.g., audio) is
   transmitted within a single RTP session.  However, it is possible to
   transmit multiple, distinct media flows over the same RTP session as
   individual RTP packet streams.  This is referred to as RTP

   For the purposes of this draft, the term "media flow" refers to a
   sequence of packets that is transmitted as a single RTP packet

   Other transport protocols may also be used to transmit real-time data
   or near-real-time data.  For example, SCTP might be utilized to carry
   application sharing or whiteboarding information as part of an
   overall interaction that includes real time media flows.  These
   additional transport protocols can be multiplexed with one or more
   RTP sessions via UDP encapsulation, thereby using a single pair of
   UDP ports.  The RTCWEB protocol suite [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports]
   employs two layers of multiplexing:

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

   1.  Individual media flows are carried in individual RTP packet
       streams that can multiplexed into a single RTP session (for
       RTCWEB,an individual media flow is a MediaStreamTrack, and a
       MediaStream may contain multiple MediaStreamTracks
       [W3C.WD-mediacapture-streams-20130903]); and

   2.  One or more RTP session(s) multiplexed could be multiplexed with
       other transport protocols via UDP encapsulation over a common
       pair of UDP ports.  The resulting unidirectional UDP flow is
       uniquely identified by a 5-tuple, i.e., a combination of two IP
       addresses (source and destination), two UDP ports (source and
       destination), and the use of the UDP protocol.

   For more information on use of RTP in RTCWEB, see .

   The number of media and other transport flows in an overall real-time
   interaction can be surprisingly large.  In addition to a voice flow
   and a video flow, there could be separate media flows for each of the
   cameras or microphones on a videoconferencing system.  For each of
   those video flows, and especially for layered video codecs, there
   might be flows that carry spatial and temporal data separately from
   the base layer.  There might also be a separate flow that provides
   protection to a media flow, using techniques such as Forward Error
   Correction or redundancy.  Still another example is simulcast
   transmission, where a video flow can be transmitted at high
   resolution and low resolution at the same time.  In this case, a
   media processing function might choose to send one or both flows
   downstream to a receiver based on bandwidth availability or who the
   active speaker is in a multipoint conference.  Lastly, a transmitter
   might send a the same media content concurrently as two media flows
   using different encodings (e.g., VP8 in parallel with H.264) to allow
   a media processing function to select a media encoding that best
   matches the capabilities of the receiver.

2.1.  Differentiated Services (DiffServ)

   The DiffServ architecture is intended to enable scalable service
   discrimination in the Internet without requiring per-flow state and
   signaling at every network node.  The services may be end-to-end or
   within a network; they include both those that can satisfy
   quantitative performance requirements (e.g., peak bandwidth) and
   those based on relative performance (e.g., "class" differentiation).
   Services can be constructed by a combination of well-defined building
   blocks deployed in network nodes that:

   o  classify traffic and setting bits in an IP header field at network
      boundaries or hosts,

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

   o  use those bits to determine how packets are forwarded by the nodes
      inside the network, and

   o  condition the marked packets (e.g., meter, mark, shape, police) at
      network boundaries in accordance with the requirements or rules of
      each service.

   A network node that supports DiffServ includes a classifier that
   selects packets based on the value of the DS field in IP headers,
   along with buffer management and packet scheduling mechanisms capable
   of delivering the specific packet forwarding treatment indicated by
   the DS field value.  Setting of the DS field and fine-grain
   conditioning of marked packets need only be performed at network
   boundaries; internal network nodes operate on traffic aggregates that
   share a DS field value, or in some cases, a small set of related

   The DiffServ architecture[RFC2475] maintains distinctions among:

   o  the service provided to a traffic aggregate,

   o  the conditioning functions and per-hop behaviors (PHBs) used to
      realize services,

   o  the DS field value (DS codepoint, or DSCP) used to mark packets to
      select a per-hop behavior, and

   o  the particular implementation mechanisms that realize a per-hop

   This document focuses on PHBs and the usage of DSCPs to obtain those
   behaviors.  In a network node's forwarding path, the DSCP in a field
   in the IP packet header is mapped to a particular forwarding
   treatment, or per-hop behavior (PHB) that specifies the forwarding

   A per-hop behavior (PHB) is a description of the externally
   observable forwarding behavior of a network node for network traffic
   marked with a DSCP that selects that PHB.  In this context,
   "forwarding behavior" is a general - for example, if only one DSCP is
   used for all traffic on a link, the observable forwarding behavior
   (e.g., loss, delay, jitter) will often depend only on the relative
   loading of the link.  To obtain useful behavioral
   differentiation,multiple traffic subsets are marked with different
   DSCPs for different PHBs for which node resources such as buffer
   space and bandwidth are allocated.  PHBs provide the framework for a
   DiffServ network node to allocates resources to traffic subsets, with

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

   network-scope differentiated services constructed on top of this
   basic hop-by-hop (per-node) resource allocation mechanism.

   The codepoints (DCSPs) may be chosen from a set of mandatory values
   (the class selector codepoints), or may be chosen from a set of
   recommended values defined in PHB specifications, or may be values
   may have purely local meaning to the network.

   The mandatory DSCPs are the class selector code points as specified
   in [RFC2474].  The class selector codepoints (CS0-CS7) extend the
   deprecated concept of IP Precedence in the IPv4 header; three bits
   are added, so that the class selector DSCPs are of the form 'xxx000'.
   The all-zero DSCP ('00000') designates a Default PHB that provides
   best-effort forwarding behavior and the remaining class selector code
   points were originally specified to provide relatively better per-
   hop-forwarding behavior in increasing numerical order, but:

   o  There is no requirement that any two adjacent class selector
      codepoints select different PHBs; adjacent class selector
      codepoints may use the same pool of resources on each network node
      in some networks.

   o  CS1 ('001000') was subsequently recommended for "less than best
      effort" service when such a service is offered by a network
      [RFC3662].  Not all networks offer such a service.

   Applications and traffic sources in general cannot rely upon
   different class selector codepoints providing differentiated services
   or upon the presence of a "less than best effort" service that is
   selected by the CS1 DSCP.

2.2.  Diffserv PHBs (Per-Hop Behaviors)

   Although Differentiated Services is a general architecture that may
   be used to implement a variety of services, three fundamental
   forwarding behaviors (PHBs) have been defined and characterized for
   general use.  These are:

   1.  Default Forwarding (DF) for elastic traffic [RFC2474].  The
       Default PHB is always selected by the all-zero DSCP.

   2.  Assured Forwarding (AF) [RFC2597] to provide differentiated
       service to elastic traffic.  Each instance of the AF behavior
       consists of three PHBs that differ only in drop precedence, e.g.,
       AF11, AF12 and AF13; such a set of three AF PHBs is referred to
       as an AF class, e.g., AF1x.  There are four defined AF classes,
       AF1x through AF4x.

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

   3.  Expedited Forwarding (EF) [RFC3246]intended for inelastic
       traffic.  Beyond the basic EF PHB, the VOICE-ADMIT PHB [RFC5865]
       is an admission controlled variant of the EF PHB.

2.3.  DiffServ and Transport Protocols

   [Editor's note: This section and the recommendations in Section 4 are
   centered on TCP, UDP, and SCTP.  They could use generalization to
   include other transport protocols - DCCP is a likely one to include,
   although it is not necessary to include every known transport

   Transport protocols provide data communication behaviors beyond those
   possible at the IP layer.  An important example is that TCP provides
   reliable in-order delivery of a data stream with congestion control.
   SCTP provides additional properties such as preservation of message
   boundaries, and the ability to avoid head-of-line blocking that may
   occur with TCP.  In contrast, UDP is a basic unreliable datagram
   protocol whose primary functionality is port-based multiplexing and
   demultiplexing on top of IP.

   Transport protocols that provide reliable delivery (e.g., TCP, SCTP)
   are sensitive to network reordering of traffic.  When a protocol that
   provides reliable delivery receives a packet other than the next
   expected packet for an ordered connection or stream, it usually
   assumes that the expected packet has been lost and respond with a
   retransmission request for that packet.  In addition, congestion
   control functionality in transport protocols usually infers
   congestion when packets are lost, creating an additional sensitivity
   to significant reordering - such reordering may be (mis-)interpreted
   as indicating congestion-caused packet loss, causing a reduction in
   transmission rate.  This remains true even when ECN [RFC3168] is in
   use, as receivers continue to treat missing packets as potential
   indications of congestion because extreme congestion conditions may
   cause ECN-capable network nodes to drop packets and ECN traffic may
   transit network nodes that do not support ECN.  Congestion control is
   an important aspect of the Internet architecture, see [RFC2914] for
   further discussion.

   In general, marking traffic with different DSCPs results in different
   PHBs being applied at network nodes, making reordering possible due
   to use of different pools of forwarding resources for each PHB.  The
   primary exception is that reordering is prohibited within each AF
   class (e.g., AF1x), as the three PHBs in an AF class differ solely in
   drop precedence.  Reordering within a PHB or AF class may occur for
   other transient reasons (e.g., route flap).

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

   UDP is the primary transport protocol that is not sensitive to
   reordering in the network, because it does not provide reliable
   delivery or congestion control.

2.4.  Traffic Classifiers and DSCP Remarking

   DSCP markings are not end-to-end in general.  Each network is free to
   make its own decisions about what PHBs to use and which DSCP
   corresponds to each PHB.  While every PHB specification includes a
   recommended DSCP, and RFC 4594 [RFC4594] recommends their end-to-end
   usage, there is no requirement that every network support any PHBs or
   use any DSCPs, with the exception of the requirements for the class
   selector codepoints in RFC 2474 [RFC2474].  When DiffServ is used,
   the edge or boundary nodes of a network are responsible for ensuring
   that all traffic entering that network conforms to that network's
   policies for DSCP and PHB usage, and such nodes remark traffic
   (change the DSCP marking as part of traffic conditioning)
   accordingly.  As a result, DSCP remarking is possible at any network
   boundary, including the first network node that traffic sent by a
   host encounters.  Remarking is also possible within a network, e.g.,
   for traffic shaping.

   DSCP remarking is part of traffic conditioning; the traffic
   conditioning functionality applied to packets at a network node is
   determined by a traffic classifier [RFC2475].  BA (Behavioral
   Aggregate) traffic classifiers are usually used by network nodes
   within a DiffServ network; they classify traffic based solely on
   DSCPs.  MF (Multi-Field) classifiers are usually used by network
   nodes at the edges of a DiffServ network, but may also be used for
   finer grain traffic conditioning within a DiffServ network; they
   classify based on selected header fields, but typical implementations
   do not look beyond the traffic's 5-tuple in the IP and transport
   protocol headers.  As a result, when multiple DSCPs are used for
   network traffic that shares a 5-tuple, remarking at a network
   boundary (or within a network) may result in all of the traffic being
   forwarded with a single DSCP, removing any differentiation within the
   5-tuple beyond the point at which this remarking occurs.

   In addition, remarking may remove application-level distinctions in
   forwarding behavior - e.g., if multiple PHBs within an AF class are
   used to distinguish different types of frames within a video flow,
   token-bucket-based remarkers operating in Color-Blind mode (see
   [RFC2697] and [RFC2698] for examples) may remark solely based on flow
   rate and burst behavior, removing the drop precedence distinctions
   specified by the source.

   Backbone and other carrier networks may employ a small number of
   DSCPs (e.g., less than half a dozen) in order to manage a small

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

   number of traffic aggregates; hosts that use a larger number of DSCPs
   may find that much of the intended differentiation is removed by such

3.  RTP Multiplexing Background

   Section2 explains how media flows can be multiplexed over RTP
   sessions which can in turn be multiplexed over UDP with other RTP
   sessions as well as flows generated by other transport protocols.
   This section provides background on why this level of media flow
   multiplexing is desirable.  The rationale in this section applies
   both to multiplexing of media flows in RTP sessions and multiplexing
   of one or more RTP sessions with traffic from other transport
   protocols via UDP encapsulation.

   Multiplexing reduces the number of ports utilized for real-time and
   related communication in an overall interaction.  While a single
   endpoint might have plenty of ports available for communication,
   these media flows are often traverse points in the network that are
   constrained on the number of available ports.  A good example is a
   NAT/FW device sitting at the network edge.  As the number of
   simultaneous protocol sessions increases, so does the burden placed
   on these devices in order to provide port mapping.

   Another reason for multiplexing is to help reduce the time required
   to establish bi-directional traffic flows.  Since any two
   communicating users might be situated behind different NAT/FW
   devices, it is necessary to employ techniques like STUN/ICE/TURN in
   order to get traffic to flow between the two devices
   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports].  Performing the tasks required of
   STUN/ICE/TURN take time and requiring an endpoint to perform these
   tasks for several flows can increase the time required.  While tasks
   for different flows can be performed in parallel, it is nonetheless
   necessary for applications to wait for all flows to be opened before
   communication between to users can begin.  Reducing the number of
   STUN/ICE/TURN steps reduces the probability of losing a packet and
   introducing delay in setting up a communication session.  Further,
   reducing the number of STUN/ICE/TURN tasks means that there is a
   lower burden placed on the STUN and TURN servers.

   Multiplexing may reduce the complexity and resulting load on an
   endpoint.  A single instance of STUN/ICE/TURN is simpler to execute
   and manage than multiple instances STUN/ICE/TURN operations happening
   in parallel, as the latter require synchronization and create more
   complex failure situations that have to be cleaned up by additional

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

4.  Recommendations

   The only use of multiple standardized PHBs and DSCPs that does not
   allow network reordering among packets marked with different DSCPs is
   the use of PHBs from a single AF class.  All other uses of multiple
   PHBs and/or the class selector DSCPs allow network reordering of
   packets that are marked with different DSCPs.

   [Editor's note: The following are preliminary and subject to change.
   Please keep in mind that this is a -00 draft] Summary - Applications
   and other traffic sources:

   o  SHOULD NOT use different PHBs and DSCPs that may cause reordering
      within a single media flow.  If this is not done, significant
      network reordering may overwhelm implementation assumptions about
      limits on reordering (e.g., available buffering) resulting in poor
      user experiences and the like.

   o  SHOULD NOT use different PHBs and DSCPs that may cause reordering
      within an ordered session for a reliable transport protocol (e.g.,
      TCP, SCTP) , Receivers for such protocols interpret reordering as
      indicating loss of out-of-order packets causing undesired
      retransmission requests, and will infer congestion from
      significant reordering, causing throughput reduction.

   o  MAY use different PHBs and DSCPs that cause reordering within a
      single UDP 5-tuple, subject to the above constraints.  The service
      differentiation provided by such usage is unreliable, as it may be
      removed at network boundaries for the reasons described in
      Section 2.4 above.

   o  SHOULD NOT rely on end-to-end preservation of DSCPs or of drop
      precedence distinctions within an AF class (e.g., different DCSPs
      applied to different types of video frames), as network node
      remarking can change DSCPs and remove drop precedence distinctions
      see Section 2.4 above.

   o  SHOULD use the CS1 codepoint only for traffic that is acceptable
      to forward as best effort traffic, as network support for use of
      CS1 to select a "less than best effort" PHB is inconsistent.
      Further, some networks may treat CS1 as providing "better than
      best effort" forwarding behavior.

5.  RTCWEB Examples

   [Editor's Note: This section will provide examples of DiffServ/DSCP
   application to RTCWEB and related limitations.]

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

6.  Acknowledgements

   This document is the result of many conversations that have occurred
   within multiple RAI and TRANSPORT area working groups.  Thanks for
   review and input from James Polk.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document includes no request to IANA.

8.  Security Considerations

   [Editor's Note: There are security considerations, start by pointing
   to security considerations in the relevant references.  Multiplexing
   multiple transport protocols onto a single UDP 5-tuple has firewall
   configuration and traffic inspection/monitoring implications.]

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

9.2.  Informative References

              Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-
              based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-09 (work
              in progress), February 2014.

              Perkins, C., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "Web Real-Time
              Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP",
              draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15 (work in progress), May

              Alvestrand, H., "Transports for RTCWEB", draft-ietf-
              rtcweb-transports-04 (work in progress), April 2014.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC2597]  Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
              "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.

   [RFC2697]  Heinanen, J. and R. Guerin, "A Single Rate Three Color
              Marker", RFC 2697, September 1999.

   [RFC2698]  Heinanen, J. and R. Guerin, "A Two Rate Three Color
              Marker", RFC 2698, September 1999.

   [RFC2914]  Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
              2914, September 2000.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC
              3168, September 2001.

   [RFC3246]  Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
              J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
              Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
              Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3662]  Bless, R., Nichols, K., and K. Wehrle, "A Lower Effort
              Per-Domain Behavior (PDB) for Differentiated Services",
              RFC 3662, December 2003.

   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, August

   [RFC5865]  Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "A Differentiated
              Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic",
              RFC 5865, May 2010.

              Burnett, D., Bergkvist, A., Jennings, C., and A.
              Narayanan, "Media Capture and Streams", World Wide Web
              Consortium WD WD-mediacapture-streams-20130903, September
              2013, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        DiffServ and RT Communication            June 2014

Authors' Addresses

   Dan York (editor)
   Internet Society
   Keene, N.H.

   Phone: +1-802-735-1624
   Email: dyork@lodestar2.com

   David Black (editor)
   176 South Street
   Hopkinton, MA  01748

   Phone: +1 508 293-7953
   Email: david.black@emc.com

   Cullen Jennings
   170 West Tasman Drive
   MS: SJC-21/2
   San Jose, CA  95134

   Phone: +1 408 421-9990
   Email: fluffy@cisco.com

   Paul Jones

York, et al.            Expires December 8, 2014               [Page 13]