draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03.txt   draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04.txt 
RMCAT WG V. Singh RMCAT WG V. Singh
Internet-Draft J. Ott Internet-Draft callstats.io
Intended status: Informational Aalto University Intended status: Informational J. Ott
Expires: September 11, 2015 March 10, 2015 Expires: April 22, 2016 Aalto University
October 20, 2015
Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04
Abstract Abstract
The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in
telephony and video conferencing applications. This document telephony and video conferencing applications. This document
describes the guidelines to evaluate new congestion control describes the guidelines to evaluate new congestion control
algorithms for interactive point-to-point real-time media. algorithms for interactive point-to-point real-time media.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. RTP Log Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. RTP Log Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. List of Network Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Avoiding Congestion Collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. One-way Propagation Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. End-to-end Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Media Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. DropTail Router Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Start-up Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4. Loss generation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. Diverse Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.5. Jitter models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6. Varying Path Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.7. Reacting to Transient Events or Interruptions . . . . . . 7 4.5.2. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded
4.8. Fairness With Similar Cross-Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . 7 PDV (NR-RPVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.9. Impact on Cross-Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. WiFi or Cellular Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.10. Extensions to RTP/RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Traffic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. List of Network Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. TCP taffic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. One-way Propagation Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. End-to-end Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. DropTail Router Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Loss generation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Jitter models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5.2. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
PDV (NR-RPVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Traffic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. TCP taffic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 12
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 13
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 13
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.6. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 13
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 14
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 14
B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 14
B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 15
B.5. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 15
B.6. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 15
B.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 15
B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This memo describes the guidelines to help with evaluating new This memo describes the guidelines to help with evaluating new
congestion control algorithms for interactive point-to-point real congestion control algorithms for interactive point-to-point real
time media. The requirements for the congestion control algorithm time media. The requirements for the congestion control algorithm
are outlined in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]). This document are outlined in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]). This document
builds upon previous work at the IETF: Specifying New Congestion builds upon previous work at the IETF: Specifying New Congestion
Control Algorithms [RFC5033] and Metrics for the Evaluation of Control Algorithms [RFC5033] and Metrics for the Evaluation of
Congestion Control Algorithms [RFC5166]. Congestion Control Algorithms [RFC5166].
skipping to change at page 5, line 23 skipping to change at page 5, line 18
RTP sequence no RTP sequence no
RTP timestamp RTP timestamp
marker bit marker bit
payload size payload size
If the congestion control implements, retransmissions or FEC, the If the congestion control implements, retransmissions or FEC, the
evaluation should report both packet loss (before applying error- evaluation should report both packet loss (before applying error-
resilience) and residual packet loss (after applying error- resilience) and residual packet loss (after applying error-
resilience). resilience).
4. Guidelines 4. List of Network Parameters
A congestion control algorithm should be tested in simulation or a
testbed environment, and the experiments should be repeated multiple
times to infer statistical significance. The following guidelines
are considered for evaluation:
4.1. Avoiding Congestion Collapse
The congestion control algorithm is expected to take an action, such
as reducing the sending rate, when it detects congestion. Typically,
it should intervene before the circuit breaker
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers] is engaged.
Does the congestion control propose any changes to (or diverge from)
the circuit breaker conditions defined in
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers].
4.2. Stability
The congestion control should be assessed for its stability when the
path characteristics do not change over time. Changing the media
encoding rate estimate too often or by too much may adversely affect
the application layer performance.
4.3. Media Traffic
The congestion control algorithm should be assessed with different
types of media behavior, i.e., the media should contain idle and
data-limited periods. For example, periods of silence for audio,
varying amount of motion for video, or bursty nature of I-frames.
The evaluation may be done in two stages. In the first stage, the
endpoint generates traffic at the rate calculated by the congestion
controller. In the second stage, real codecs or models of video
codecs are used to mimic application-limited data periods and varying
video frame sizes.
4.4. Start-up Behaviour
The congestion control algorithm should be assessed with different
start-rates. The main reason is to observe the behavior of the
congestion control in different test scenarios, such as when
competing with varying amount of cross-traffic or how quickly does
the congestion control algorithm achieve a stable sending rate.
4.5. Diverse Environments
The congestion control algorithm should be assessed in heterogeneous
environments, containing both wired and wireless paths. Examples of
wireless access technologies are: 802.11, GPRS, HSPA, or LTE. One of
the main challenges of the wireless environments for the congestion
control algorithm is to distinguish between congestion induced loss
and transmission (bit-error) loss. Congestion control algorithms may
incorrectly identify transmission loss as congestion loss and reduce
the media encoding rate by too much, which may cause oscillatory
behavior and deteriorate the users' quality of experience.
Furthermore, packet loss may induce additional delay in networks with
wireless paths due to link-layer retransmissions.
4.6. Varying Path Characteristics
The congestion control algorithm should be evaluated for a range of
path characteristics such as, different end-to-end capacity and
latency, varying amount of cross traffic on a bottleneck link and a
router's queue length. For the moment, only DropTail queues are
used. However, if new Active Queue Management (AQM) schemes become
available, the performance of the congestion control algorithm should
be again evaluated.
In an experiment, if the media only flows in a single direction, the
feedback path should also be tested with varying amounts of
impairments.
The main motivation for the previous and current criteria is to
identify situations in which the proposed congestion control is less
performant.
4.7. Reacting to Transient Events or Interruptions
The congestion control algorithm should be able to handle changes in
end-to-end capacity and latency. Latency may change due to route
updates, link failures, handovers etc. In mobile environment the
end-to-end capacity may vary due to the interference, fading,
handovers, etc. In wired networks the end-to-end capacity may vary
due to changes in resource reservation.
4.8. Fairness With Similar Cross-Traffic
The congestion control algorithm should be evaluated when competing
with other RTP flows using the same or another candidate congestion
control algorithm. The proposal should highlight the bottleneck
capacity share of each RTP flow.
4.9. Impact on Cross-Traffic
The congestion control algorithm should be evaluated when competing
with standard TCP. Short TCP flows may be considered as transient
events and the RTP flow may give way to the short TCP flow to
complete quickly. However, long-lived TCP flows may starve out the
RTP flow depending on router queue length.
The proposal should also measure the impact on varied number of
cross-traffic sources, i.e., few and many competing flows, or mixing
various amounts of TCP and similar cross-traffic.
4.10. Extensions to RTP/RTCP
The congestion control algorithm should indicate if any protocol
extensions are required to implement it and should carefully describe
the impact of the extension.
5. List of Network Parameters
The implementors initially are encouraged to choose evaluation The implementors initially are encouraged to choose evaluation
settings from the following values: settings from the following values:
5.1. One-way Propagation Delay 4.1. One-way Propagation Delay
Experiments are expected to verify that the congestion control is Experiments are expected to verify that the congestion control is
able to work in challenging situations, for example over trans- able to work in challenging situations, for example over trans-
continental and/or satellite links. Typical values are: continental and/or satellite links. Typical values are:
1. Very low latency: 0-1ms 1. Very low latency: 0-1ms
2. Low latency: 50ms 2. Low latency: 50ms
3. High latency: 150ms 3. High latency: 150ms
4. Extreme latency: 300ms 4. Extreme latency: 300ms
5.2. End-to-end Loss 4.2. End-to-end Loss
To model lossy links, the experiments can choose one of the following To model lossy links, the experiments can choose one of the following
loss rates, the fractional loss is the ratio of packets lost and loss rates, the fractional loss is the ratio of packets lost and
packets sent. packets sent.
1. no loss: 0% 1. no loss: 0%
2. 1% 2. 1%
3. 5% 3. 5%
4. 10% 4. 10%
5. 20% 5. 20%
5.3. DropTail Router Queue Length 4.3. DropTail Router Queue Length
The router queue length is measured as the time taken to drain the The router queue length is measured as the time taken to drain the
FIFO queue. It has been noted in various discussions that the queue FIFO queue. It has been noted in various discussions that the queue
length in the current deployed Internet varies significantly. While length in the current deployed Internet varies significantly. While
the core backbone network has very short queue length, the home the core backbone network has very short queue length, the home
gateways usually have larger queue length. Those various queue gateways usually have larger queue length. Those various queue
lengths can be categorized in the following way: lengths can be categorized in the following way:
1. QoS-aware (or short): 70ms 1. QoS-aware (or short): 70ms
2. Nominal: 300-500ms 2. Nominal: 300-500ms
3. Buffer-bloated: 1000-2000ms 3. Buffer-bloated: 1000-2000ms
Here the size of the queue is measured in bytes or packets and to Here the size of the queue is measured in bytes or packets and to
convert the queue length measured in seconds to queue length in convert the queue length measured in seconds to queue length in
bytes: bytes:
QueueSize (in bytes) = QueueSize (in sec) x Throughput (in bps)/8 QueueSize (in bytes) = QueueSize (in sec) x Throughput (in bps)/8
5.4. Loss generation model 4.4. Loss generation model
[Editor's note : Describes the model for generating packet losses, [Editor's note : Describes the model for generating packet losses,
for example, losses can be generated using traces, or using the for example, losses can be generated using traces, or using the
Gilbert-Elliot model, or randomly (uncorrelated loss).] Gilbert-Elliot model, or randomly (uncorrelated loss).]
5.5. Jitter models 4.5. Jitter models
This section defines jitter model for the purposes of this document. This section defines jitter model for the purposes of this document.
When jitter is to be applied to both the RMCAT flow and any competing When jitter is to be applied to both the RMCAT flow and any competing
flow (such as a TCP competing flow), the competing flow will use the flow (such as a TCP competing flow), the competing flow will use the
jitter definition below that does not allow for re-ordering of jitter definition below that does not allow for re-ordering of
packets on the competing flow (see NR-RBPDV definition below). packets on the competing flow (see NR-RBPDV definition below).
Jitter is an overloaded term in communications. Its meaning is Jitter is an overloaded term in communications. Its meaning is
typically associated with the variation of a metric (e.g., delay) typically associated with the variation of a metric (e.g., delay)
with respect to some reference metric (e.g., average delay or minimum with respect to some reference metric (e.g., average delay or minimum
skipping to change at page 9, line 43 skipping to change at page 7, line 21
minimum delay, and then a minority of the packets transits the minimum delay, and then a minority of the packets transits the
network with delays higher than the median or average transit time network with delays higher than the median or average transit time
(these are outliers). Although infrequent, outliers can cause (these are outliers). Although infrequent, outliers can cause
significant deleterious operation in adaptive systems and should be significant deleterious operation in adaptive systems and should be
considered in RMCAT adaptation designs. considered in RMCAT adaptation designs.
In this section we define two different bounded PDV characteristics, In this section we define two different bounded PDV characteristics,
1) Random Bounded PDV and 2) Approximately Random Subject to No- 1) Random Bounded PDV and 2) Approximately Random Subject to No-
Reordering Bounded PDV. Reordering Bounded PDV.
5.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) 4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV)
The RBPDV probability distribution function (pdf) is specified to be The RBPDV probability distribution function (pdf) is specified to be
of some mathematically describable function which includes some of some mathematically describable function which includes some
practical minimum and maximum discrete values suitable for testing. practical minimum and maximum discrete values suitable for testing.
For example, the minimum value, x_min, might be specified as the For example, the minimum value, x_min, might be specified as the
minimum transit time packet and the maximum value, x_max, might be minimum transit time packet and the maximum value, x_max, might be
idefined to be two standard deviations higher than the mean. idefined to be two standard deviations higher than the mean.
Since we are typically interested in the distribution relative to the Since we are typically interested in the distribution relative to the
mean delay packet, we define the zero mean PVD sample, z(n), to be mean delay packet, we define the zero mean PVD sample, z(n), to be
skipping to change at page 10, line 32 skipping to change at page 8, line 8
become re-ordered such as in load balancing topologies and during become re-ordered such as in load balancing topologies and during
route changes. However, for the vast majority of cases there is no route changes. However, for the vast majority of cases there is no
packet re-ordering because most of the time packets follow the same packet re-ordering because most of the time packets follow the same
path. Due to this, if a packet becomes overly delayed, the packets path. Due to this, if a packet becomes overly delayed, the packets
after it on that flow are also delayed. This is especially true for after it on that flow are also delayed. This is especially true for
mobile wireless links where there are per-flow queues prior to base mobile wireless links where there are per-flow queues prior to base
station scheduling. Owing to this important use case, we define station scheduling. Owing to this important use case, we define
another PDV profile similar to the above, but one that does not allow another PDV profile similar to the above, but one that does not allow
for re-ordering within a flow. for re-ordering within a flow.
5.5.2. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded PDV (NR- 4.5.2. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded PDV (NR-
RPVD) RPVD)
No Reordering RPDV, NR-RPVD, is defined similarly to the above with No Reordering RPDV, NR-RPVD, is defined similarly to the above with
one important exception. Let serial(n) be defined as the one important exception. Let serial(n) be defined as the
serialization delay of packet n at the lowest bottleneck link rate serialization delay of packet n at the lowest bottleneck link rate
(or other appropriate rate) in a given test. Then we produce all the (or other appropriate rate) in a given test. Then we produce all the
post-jitter values for j(n) for n = 1, 2, ... N, where N is the post-jitter values for j(n) for n = 1, 2, ... N, where N is the
length of the source sequence s to be offset-ed. The exception can length of the source sequence s to be offset-ed. The exception can
be stated as follows: We revisit all j(n) beginning from index n=2, be stated as follows: We revisit all j(n) beginning from index n=2,
and if j(n) is determined to be less than [j(n-1)+serial(n-1)], we and if j(n) is determined to be less than [j(n-1)+serial(n-1)], we
skipping to change at page 11, line 22 skipping to change at page 8, line 47
development for RMCAT. development for RMCAT.
[Editor's Note: It may require to define test distributions as well. [Editor's Note: It may require to define test distributions as well.
Example test distribution may include- Example test distribution may include-
1 - Two-sided: Uniform PDV Distribution. Two quantities to define: 1 - Two-sided: Uniform PDV Distribution. Two quantities to define:
x_min and x_max. x_min and x_max.
2 - Two-sided: Truncated Gaussian PDV Distribution. Four quantities 2 - Two-sided: Truncated Gaussian PDV Distribution. Four quantities
to define: the appropriate x_min and x_max for test (e.g., +/- two to define: the appropriate x_min and x_max for test (e.g., +/- two
sigma values), the standard deviation and the mean. sigma values), the standard deviation, and the mean.
3 - One Sided: TBD] 3 - One Sided: Truncated Gaussian PDV Distribution. Quantities to
define: three sigma value, the standard deviation, and the mean]
5. WiFi or Cellular Links
[I-D.fu-rmcat-wifi-test-case] describes methods to evaluate the
congestion control in WiFi network, alternatively
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests] describes mechanisms to emulate and
simulate cellular networks.
6. Traffic Models 6. Traffic Models
6.1. TCP taffic model 6.1. TCP taffic model
Long-lived TCP flows will download data throughout the session and Long-lived TCP flows will download data throughout the session and
are expected to have infinite amount of data to send or receive. are expected to have infinite amount of data to send or receive. For
example, to
Each short TCP flow is modeled as a sequence of file downloads Each short TCP flow is modeled as a sequence of file downloads
interleaved with idle periods. Not all short TCPs start at the same interleaved with idle periods. Not all short TCPs start at the same
time, i.e., some start in the ON state while others start in the OFF time, i.e., some start in the ON state while others start in the OFF
state. state.
The short TCP flows can be modelled in two ways, 1) 100s of flows The short TCP flows can be modelled as follows: 30 connections start
fetching small (5-20 KB) amounts of data, or 2) 10s of flows fetching simultaneously fetching small (30-50 KB) amounts of data. This
slightly larger (100-1000KB) amounts of data. covers the case where the short TCP flows are not fetching a video
file.
The idle period is typically derived from an exponential distribution The idle period between bursts of starting a group of TCP flows is
with the mean value of 10 seconds. typically derived from an exponential distribution with the mean
value of 10 seconds.
[Open issue: short-lived/bursty TCP cross-traffic parameters are [These values were picked based on the data available at
still to be agreed upon]. http://httparchive.org/interesting.php as of October 2015].
6.2. RTP Video model 6.2. RTP Video model
[I-D.zhu-rmcat-video-traffic-source] describes two types of video [I-D.zhu-rmcat-video-traffic-source] describes two types of video
traffic models for evaluating RMCAT candidate algorithms. The first traffic models for evaluating RMCAT candidate algorithms. The first
model statistically characterizes the behavior of a video encoder. model statistically characterizes the behavior of a video encoder.
Whereas the second model uses video traces. Whereas the second model uses video traces.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
skipping to change at page 13, line 29 skipping to change at page 11, line 16
Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, "Congestion Control Requirements Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, "Congestion Control Requirements
for Interactive Real-Time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-cc- for Interactive Real-Time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-
requirements-09 (work in progress), December 2014. requirements-09 (work in progress), December 2014.
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers] [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]
Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control: Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", draft-ietf- Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", draft-ietf-
avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-09 (work in progress), March avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-09 (work in progress), March
2015. 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests]
Sarker, Z. and I. Johansson, "Evaluation Test Cases for
Interactive Real-Time Media over Wireless Networks",
draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-00 (work in progress),
June 2015.
[I-D.fu-rmcat-wifi-test-case]
Fu, J., Zhu, X., Ramalho, M., and W. Tan, "Evaluation Test
Cases for Interactive Real-Time Media over Wi-Fi
Networks", draft-fu-rmcat-wifi-test-case-01 (work in
progress), July 2015.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[RFC5033] Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion [RFC5033] Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion
Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033, August 2007. Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033, August 2007.
[RFC5166] Floyd, S., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion [RFC5166] Floyd, S., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion
Control Mechanisms", RFC 5166, March 2008. Control Mechanisms", RFC 5166, March 2008.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion [RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009. Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
skipping to change at page 14, line 33 skipping to change at page 12, line 33
currently an open issue. However, there is consensus that congestion currently an open issue. However, there is consensus that congestion
control algorithm should be able to show that it is useful for control algorithm should be able to show that it is useful for
interactive video by performing analysis using a real codec and video interactive video by performing analysis using a real codec and video
sequences. sequences.
Appendix B. Change Log Appendix B. Change Log
Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to
publication as an RFC. publication as an RFC.
B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04
o Removed the guidelines section, as most of the sections are now
covered: wireless tests, video model, etc.
o Improved Short TCP model based on the suggestion to use
httparchive.org.
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03
o Keep-alive version. o Keep-alive version.
o Moved link parameters and traffic models from eval-test o Moved link parameters and traffic models from eval-test
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02
o Incorporated fairness test as a working test. o Incorporated fairness test as a working test.
o Updated text on mimimum evaluation requirements. o Updated text on mimimum evaluation requirements.
B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01
o Removed Appendix B. o Removed Appendix B.
o Removed Section on Evaluation Parameters. o Removed Section on Evaluation Parameters.
B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00
o Updated references. o Updated references.
o Resubmitted as WG draft. o Resubmitted as WG draft.
B.5. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 B.6. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04
o Incorporate feedback from IETF 87, Berlin. o Incorporate feedback from IETF 87, Berlin.
o Clarified metrics: convergence time, bandwidth utilization. o Clarified metrics: convergence time, bandwidth utilization.
o Changed fairness criteria to fairness test. o Changed fairness criteria to fairness test.
o Added measuring pre- and post-repair loss. o Added measuring pre- and post-repair loss.
o Added open issue of measuring video quality to appendix. o Added open issue of measuring video quality to appendix.
o clarified use of DropTail and AQM. o clarified use of DropTail and AQM.
o Updated text in "Minimum Requirements for Evaluation" o Updated text in "Minimum Requirements for Evaluation"
B.6. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 B.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03
o Incorporate the discussion within the design team. o Incorporate the discussion within the design team.
o Added a section on evaluation parameters, it describes the flow o Added a section on evaluation parameters, it describes the flow
and network characteristics. and network characteristics.
o Added Appendix with self-fairness experiment. o Added Appendix with self-fairness experiment.
o Changed bottleneck parameters from a proposal to an example set. o Changed bottleneck parameters from a proposal to an example set.
o o
B.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02
o Added scenario descriptions. o Added scenario descriptions.
B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01
o Removed QoE metrics. o Removed QoE metrics.
o Changed stability to steady-state. o Changed stability to steady-state.
o Added measuring impact against few and many flows. o Added measuring impact against few and many flows.
o Added guideline for idle and data-limited periods. o Added guideline for idle and data-limited periods.
o Added reference to TCP evaluation suite in example evaluation o Added reference to TCP evaluation suite in example evaluation
scenarios. scenarios.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Varun Singh Varun Singh
Aalto University Nemu Dialogue Systems Oy
School of Electrical Engineering Runeberginkatu 4c A 4
Otakaari 5 A Helsinki 00100
Espoo, FIN 02150
Finland Finland
Email: varun@comnet.tkk.fi Email: varun@callstats.io
URI: http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/ URI: http://www.callstats.io/
Joerg Ott Joerg Ott
Aalto University Aalto University
School of Electrical Engineering School of Electrical Engineering
Otakaari 5 A Otakaari 5 A
Espoo, FIN 02150 Espoo, FIN 02150
Finland Finland
Email: jo@comnet.tkk.fi Email: jo@comnet.tkk.fi
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
193 lines changed or deleted 104 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/