draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04.txt   draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05.txt 
RMCAT WG V. Singh RMCAT WG V. Singh
Internet-Draft callstats.io Internet-Draft callstats.io
Intended status: Informational J. Ott Intended status: Informational J. Ott
Expires: April 22, 2016 Aalto University Expires: September 22, 2016 Technical University of Munich
October 20, 2015 S. Holmer
Google
March 21, 2016
Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05
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 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 April 22, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. RTP Log Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. RTP Log Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. List of Network Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. List of Network Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. One-way Propagation Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. One-way Propagation Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. End-to-end Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. End-to-end Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. DropTail Router Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. DropTail Router Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Loss generation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4. Loss generation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. Jitter models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.5. Jitter models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5.2. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded 4.5.2. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded
PDV (NR-RPVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 PDV (NR-RPVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. WiFi or Cellular Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. WiFi or Cellular Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Traffic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Traffic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. TCP taffic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. TCP taffic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 12 B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 13
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 12 B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 13
B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 12 B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 13
B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 13 B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 13
B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 13 B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 13
B.6. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 13 B.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 13
B.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 13 B.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 13
B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 13 B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 14
B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 14 B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 14
B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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
skipping to change at page 3, line 16 skipping to change at page 3, line 24
The guidelines proposed in the document are intended to help prevent The guidelines proposed in the document are intended to help prevent
a congestion collapse, promote fair capacity usage and optimize the a congestion collapse, promote fair capacity usage and optimize the
media flow's throughput. Furthermore, the proposed algorithms are media flow's throughput. Furthermore, the proposed algorithms are
expected to operate within the envelope of the circuit breakers expected to operate within the envelope of the circuit breakers
defined in [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]. defined in [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers].
This document only provides broad-level criteria for evaluating a new This document only provides broad-level criteria for evaluating a new
congestion control algorithm. The minimal requirement for RMCAT congestion control algorithm. The minimal requirement for RMCAT
proposals is to produce or present results for the test scenarios proposals is to produce or present results for the test scenarios
described in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] (Basic Test Cases). The described in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] (Basic Test Cases).
results of the evaluation are not expected to be included within the Additionally, proponents may produce evaluation results for the
internet-draft but should be cited in the document. wireless test scenarios [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The terminology defined in RTP [RFC3550], RTP Profile for Audio and The terminology defined in RTP [RFC3550], RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control [RFC3551], RTCP Extended Video Conferences with Minimal Control [RFC3551], RTCP Extended
Report (XR) [RFC3611], Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback Report (XR) [RFC3611], Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback
(RTP/AVPF) [RFC4585] and Support for Reduced-Size RTCP [RFC5506] (RTP/AVPF) [RFC4585] and Support for Reduced-Size RTCP [RFC5506]
apply. apply.
3. Metrics 3. Metrics
skipping to change at page 6, line 28 skipping to change at page 6, line 31
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
4.4. Loss generation model 4.4. Loss generation model
[Editor's note : Describes the model for generating packet losses, [Open Issue: Describes the model for generating packet losses, for
for example, losses can be generated using traces, or using the example, losses can be generated using traces, or using the Gilbert-
Gilbert-Elliot model, or randomly (uncorrelated loss).] Elliot model, or randomly (uncorrelated loss).]
4.5. 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 21 skipping to change at page 7, line 25
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.
[Open issue: which one is used in evaluations? Are both used?]
4.5.1. 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 7 skipping to change at page 9, line 14
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: Truncated Gaussian PDV Distribution. Quantities to 3 - One Sided: Truncated Gaussian PDV Distribution. Quantities to
define: three sigma value, the standard deviation, and the mean] define: three sigma value, the standard deviation, and the mean]
5. WiFi or Cellular Links 5. WiFi or Cellular Links
[I-D.fu-rmcat-wifi-test-case] describes methods to evaluate the [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests] describes the test cases to simulate
congestion control in WiFi network, alternatively networks with wireless links. The document describes mechanism to
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests] describes mechanisms to emulate and simulate both cellular and WiFi networks.
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. For are expected to have infinite amount of data to send or receive. For
example, to 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 39 skipping to change at page 9, line 45
The idle period between bursts of starting a group of TCP flows is The idle period between bursts of starting a group of TCP flows is
typically derived from an exponential distribution with the mean typically derived from an exponential distribution with the mean
value of 10 seconds. value of 10 seconds.
[These values were picked based on the data available at [These values were picked based on the data available at
http://httparchive.org/interesting.php as of October 2015]. 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.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model] 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.
For example, test sequences are available at: [xiph-seq] and
[HEVC-seq].
[Open issue: Which sequences are used? All? Some subset?]
6.3. Background UDP
[Open issue: Background UDP flow is modeled as a constant bit rate
(CBR) flow. It will download data at a particular CBR rate for the
complete session, or will change to particular CBR rate at predefined
intervals. They parameters are still TBD. e.g., packet size, packet
spacing interval, etc.]
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Security issues have not been discussed in this memo. Security issues have not been discussed in this memo.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA impacts in this memo. There are no IANA impacts in this memo.
9. Contributors 9. Contributors
skipping to change at page 10, line 32 skipping to change at page 10, line 50
valuable feedback on earlier versions of this draft. Additionally, valuable feedback on earlier versions of this draft. Additionally,
also thank the participants of the design team for their comments and also thank the participants of the design team for their comments and
discussion related to the evaluation criteria. discussion related to the evaluation criteria.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and [RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
July 2003. DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3551>.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC
2003. 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>.
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey, [RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, July Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, DOI
2006. 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.
[RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size [RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
and Consequences", RFC 5506, April 2009. and Consequences", RFC 5506, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]
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. Varun, "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-14 (work in progress), March
2015. 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests]
Sarker, Z. and I. Johansson, "Evaluation Test Cases for Sarker, Z., Johansson, I., Zhu, X., Fu, J., Tan, W., and
Interactive Real-Time Media over Wireless Networks", M. Ramalho, "Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real-
draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-00 (work in progress), Time Media over Wireless Networks", draft-ietf-rmcat-
June 2015. wireless-tests-01 (work in progress), November 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, DOI 10.17487/
RFC5033, August 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5033>.
[RFC5166] Floyd, S., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion [RFC5166] Floyd, S., Ed., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion
Control Mechanisms", RFC 5166, March 2008. Control Mechanisms", RFC 5166, DOI 10.17487/RFC5166, March
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5166>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test]
Sarker, Z., Singh, V., Zhu, X., and M. Ramalho, "Test Sarker, Z., Varun, V., Zhu, X., and M. Ramalho, "Test
Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals", draft-ietf-rmcat- Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals", draft-ietf-rmcat-
eval-test-00 (work in progress), August 2014. eval-test-03 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.zhu-rmcat-video-traffic-source] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model]
Zhu, X., Cruz, S., and Z. Sarker, "Modeling Video Traffic Zhu, X., Cruz, S., and Z. Sarker, "Modeling Video Traffic
Sources for RMCAT Evaluations", draft-zhu-rmcat-video- Sources for RMCAT Evaluations", draft-ietf-rmcat-video-
traffic-source-00 (work in progress), October 2014. traffic-model-00 (work in progress), January 2016.
[SA4-EVAL] [SA4-EVAL]
R1-081955, 3GPP., "LTE Link Level Throughput Data for SA4 R1-081955, 3GPP., "LTE Link Level Throughput Data for SA4
Evaluation Framework", 3GPP R1-081955, 5 2008. Evaluation Framework", 3GPP R1-081955, 5 2008.
[SA4-LR] S4-050560, 3GPP., "Error Patterns for MBMS Streaming over [SA4-LR] S4-050560, 3GPP., "Error Patterns for MBMS Streaming over
UTRAN and GERAN", 3GPP S4-050560, 5 2008. UTRAN and GERAN", 3GPP S4-050560, 5 2008.
[TCP-eval-suite] [TCP-eval-suite]
Lachlan, A., Marcondes, C., Floyd, S., Dunn, L., Guillier, Lachlan, A., Marcondes, C., Floyd, S., Dunn, L., Guillier,
R., Gang, W., Eggert, L., Ha, S., and I. Rhee, "Towards a R., Gang, W., Eggert, L., Ha, S., and I. Rhee, "Towards a
Common TCP Evaluation Suite", Proc. PFLDnet. 2008, August Common TCP Evaluation Suite", Proc. PFLDnet. 2008, August
2008. 2008.
[xiph-seq]
Xiph.org, , "Video Test Media",
http://media.xiph.org/video/derf/ , .
[HEVC-seq]
HEVC, , "Test Sequences",
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/test_sequences/ , .
Appendix A. Application Trade-off Appendix A. Application Trade-off
Application trade-off is yet to be defined. see RMCAT requirements Application trade-off is yet to be defined. see RMCAT requirements
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements] document. Perhaps each experiment [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements] document. Perhaps each experiment
should define the application's expectation or trade-off. should define the application's expectation or trade-off.
A.1. Measuring Quality A.1. Measuring Quality
No quality metric is defined for performance evaluation, it is No quality metric is defined for performance evaluation, it is
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-04 B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05
o Improved text surrounding wireless tests, video sequences, and
short-TCP model.
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04
o Removed the guidelines section, as most of the sections are now o Removed the guidelines section, as most of the sections are now
covered: wireless tests, video model, etc. covered: wireless tests, video model, etc.
o Improved Short TCP model based on the suggestion to use o Improved Short TCP model based on the suggestion to use
httparchive.org. httparchive.org.
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 B.3. 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.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 B.4. 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.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 B.5. 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.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 B.6. 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.6. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 B.7. 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.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 B.8. 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.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02
o Added scenario descriptions. o Added scenario descriptions.
B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 B.10. 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
skipping to change at page 14, line 19 skipping to change at page 15, line 4
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
Nemu Dialogue Systems Oy Nemu Dialogue Systems Oy
Runeberginkatu 4c A 4 Runeberginkatu 4c A 4
Helsinki 00100 Helsinki 00100
Finland Finland
Email: varun@callstats.io Email: varun.singh@iki.fi
URI: http://www.callstats.io/ URI: http://www.callstats.io/
Joerg Ott Joerg Ott
Aalto University Technical University of Munich
School of Electrical Engineering Faculty of Informatics
Otakaari 5 A Boltzmannstrasse 3
Espoo, FIN 02150 Garching bei Muenchen, DE 85748
Finland Germany
Email: jo@comnet.tkk.fi Email: ott@in.tum.de
Stefan Holmer
Google
Kungsbron 2
Stockholm 11122
Sweden
Email: holmer@google.com
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
76 lines changed or deleted 109 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.44. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/