--- 1/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04.txt 2016-03-21 10:20:40.981505235 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05.txt 2016-03-21 10:20:41.109508430 -0700 @@ -1,19 +1,21 @@ RMCAT WG V. Singh Internet-Draft callstats.io Intended status: Informational J. Ott -Expires: April 22, 2016 Aalto University - October 20, 2015 +Expires: September 22, 2016 Technical University of Munich + S. Holmer + Google + March 21, 2016 Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media - draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 + draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 Abstract The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in telephony and video conferencing applications. This document describes the guidelines to evaluate new congestion control algorithms for interactive point-to-point real-time media. Status of This Memo @@ -23,75 +25,77 @@ 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 April 22, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016. 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. 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3.1. RTP Log Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.1. RTP Log Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. List of Network Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. One-way Propagation Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. End-to-end Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. DropTail Router Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4. Loss generation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.5. Jitter models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.5.2. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded PDV (NR-RPVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. WiFi or Cellular Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Traffic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. TCP taffic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 6.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 12 - B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 12 - B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 12 - B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 13 - B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 13 - B.6. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 13 - B.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 13 - B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 13 - B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 14 + Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 13 + B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 13 + B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 13 + B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 13 + B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 13 + B.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 13 + B.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 13 + B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 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 1. Introduction This memo describes the guidelines to help with evaluating new congestion control algorithms for interactive point-to-point real time media. The requirements for the congestion control algorithm are outlined in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]). This document builds upon previous work at the IETF: Specifying New Congestion Control Algorithms [RFC5033] and Metrics for the Evaluation of @@ -99,23 +103,23 @@ The guidelines proposed in the document are intended to help prevent a congestion collapse, promote fair capacity usage and optimize the media flow's throughput. Furthermore, the proposed algorithms are expected to operate within the envelope of the circuit breakers defined in [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]. This document only provides broad-level criteria for evaluating a new congestion control algorithm. The minimal requirement for RMCAT proposals is to produce or present results for the test scenarios - described in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] (Basic Test Cases). The - results of the evaluation are not expected to be included within the - internet-draft but should be cited in the document. + described in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] (Basic Test Cases). + Additionally, proponents may produce evaluation results for the + wireless test scenarios [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests]. 2. Terminology The terminology defined in RTP [RFC3550], RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control [RFC3551], RTCP Extended Report (XR) [RFC3611], Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback (RTP/AVPF) [RFC4585] and Support for Reduced-Size RTCP [RFC5506] apply. 3. Metrics @@ -251,23 +253,23 @@ 3. Buffer-bloated: 1000-2000ms 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 bytes: QueueSize (in bytes) = QueueSize (in sec) x Throughput (in bps)/8 4.4. Loss generation model - [Editor's note : Describes the model for generating packet losses, - for example, losses can be generated using traces, or using the - Gilbert-Elliot model, or randomly (uncorrelated loss).] + [Open Issue: Describes the model for generating packet losses, for + example, losses can be generated using traces, or using the Gilbert- + Elliot model, or randomly (uncorrelated loss).] 4.5. Jitter models 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 flow (such as a TCP competing flow), the competing flow will use the jitter definition below that does not allow for re-ordering of packets on the competing flow (see NR-RBPDV definition below). Jitter is an overloaded term in communications. Its meaning is @@ -293,20 +295,22 @@ minimum delay, and then a minority of the packets transits the network with delays higher than the median or average transit time (these are outliers). Although infrequent, outliers can cause significant deleterious operation in adaptive systems and should be considered in RMCAT adaptation designs. In this section we define two different bounded PDV characteristics, 1) Random Bounded PDV and 2) Approximately Random Subject to No- Reordering Bounded PDV. + [Open issue: which one is used in evaluations? Are both used?] + 4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) The RBPDV probability distribution function (pdf) is specified to be of some mathematically describable function which includes some practical minimum and maximum discrete values suitable for testing. For example, the minimum value, x_min, might be specified as the minimum transit time packet and the maximum value, x_max, might be idefined to be two standard deviations higher than the mean. Since we are typically interested in the distribution relative to the @@ -375,24 +379,23 @@ 2 - Two-sided: Truncated Gaussian PDV Distribution. Four quantities to define: the appropriate x_min and x_max for test (e.g., +/- two sigma values), the standard deviation, and the mean. 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. + [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests] describes the test cases to simulate + networks with wireless links. The document describes mechanism to + simulate both cellular and WiFi networks. 6. Traffic Models 6.1. TCP taffic model Long-lived TCP flows will download data throughout the session and 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 @@ -407,25 +410,38 @@ The idle period between bursts of starting a group of TCP flows is typically derived from an exponential distribution with the mean value of 10 seconds. [These values were picked based on the data available at http://httparchive.org/interesting.php as of October 2015]. 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 model statistically characterizes the behavior of a video encoder. 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 Security issues have not been discussed in this memo. 8. IANA Considerations There are no IANA impacts in this memo. 9. Contributors @@ -447,181 +463,197 @@ valuable feedback on earlier versions of this draft. Additionally, also thank the participants of the design team for their comments and discussion related to the evaluation criteria. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. 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, . [RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, - July 2003. + DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003, + . - [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control - Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November - 2003. + [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed., + "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC + 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003, + . [RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey, "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control - Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, July - 2006. + Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, DOI + 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006, + . [RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities - and Consequences", RFC 5506, April 2009. + and Consequences", RFC 5506, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April + 2009, . [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements] Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, "Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-cc- requirements-09 (work in progress), December 2014. [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- - avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-09 (work in progress), March - 2015. + avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-14 (work in progress), March + 2016. [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. + Sarker, Z., Johansson, I., Zhu, X., Fu, J., Tan, W., and + M. Ramalho, "Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real- + Time Media over Wireless Networks", draft-ietf-rmcat- + wireless-tests-01 (work in progress), November 2015. 11.2. Informative References [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, + . - [RFC5166] Floyd, S., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion - Control Mechanisms", RFC 5166, March 2008. + [RFC5166] Floyd, S., Ed., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion + Control Mechanisms", RFC 5166, DOI 10.17487/RFC5166, March + 2008, . [RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion - Control", RFC 5681, September 2009. + Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009, + . [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- - 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 - Sources for RMCAT Evaluations", draft-zhu-rmcat-video- - traffic-source-00 (work in progress), October 2014. + Sources for RMCAT Evaluations", draft-ietf-rmcat-video- + traffic-model-00 (work in progress), January 2016. [SA4-EVAL] R1-081955, 3GPP., "LTE Link Level Throughput Data for SA4 Evaluation Framework", 3GPP R1-081955, 5 2008. [SA4-LR] S4-050560, 3GPP., "Error Patterns for MBMS Streaming over UTRAN and GERAN", 3GPP S4-050560, 5 2008. [TCP-eval-suite] Lachlan, A., Marcondes, C., Floyd, S., Dunn, L., Guillier, R., Gang, W., Eggert, L., Ha, S., and I. Rhee, "Towards a Common TCP Evaluation Suite", Proc. PFLDnet. 2008, August 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 Application trade-off is yet to be defined. see RMCAT requirements [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements] document. Perhaps each experiment should define the application's expectation or trade-off. A.1. Measuring Quality No quality metric is defined for performance evaluation, it is currently an open issue. However, there is consensus that congestion control algorithm should be able to show that it is useful for interactive video by performing analysis using a real codec and video sequences. Appendix B. Change Log Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to 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 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 +B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 o Keep-alive version. 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 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 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 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 Clarified metrics: convergence time, bandwidth utilization. o Changed fairness criteria to fairness test. o Added measuring pre- and post-repair loss. o Added open issue of measuring video quality to appendix. o clarified use of DropTail and AQM. 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 Added a section on evaluation parameters, it describes the flow and network characteristics. o Added Appendix with self-fairness experiment. o Changed bottleneck parameters from a proposal to an example set. 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. -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 Changed stability to steady-state. o Added measuring impact against few and many flows. o Added guideline for idle and data-limited periods. o Added reference to TCP evaluation suite in example evaluation @@ -621,28 +653,35 @@ o Changed stability to steady-state. o Added measuring impact against few and many flows. o Added guideline for idle and data-limited periods. o Added reference to TCP evaluation suite in example evaluation scenarios. Authors' Addresses - Varun Singh Nemu Dialogue Systems Oy Runeberginkatu 4c A 4 Helsinki 00100 Finland - Email: varun@callstats.io + Email: varun.singh@iki.fi URI: http://www.callstats.io/ Joerg Ott - Aalto University - School of Electrical Engineering - Otakaari 5 A - Espoo, FIN 02150 - Finland + Technical University of Munich + Faculty of Informatics + Boltzmannstrasse 3 + Garching bei Muenchen, DE 85748 + Germany - Email: jo@comnet.tkk.fi + Email: ott@in.tum.de + + Stefan Holmer + Google + Kungsbron 2 + Stockholm 11122 + Sweden + + Email: holmer@google.com