draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05.txt   draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06.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: September 22, 2016 Technical University of Munich Expires: March 26, 2017 Technical University of Munich
S. Holmer S. Holmer
Google Google
March 21, 2016 September 22, 2016
Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06
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 36 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 September 22, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 26, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
3.1. RTP Log Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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
4.5.3. Recommended distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 13 B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 13
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 13 B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 13
B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 13 B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 13
B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 13 B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 13
B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 13 B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 13
B.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 13 B.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 14
B.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 13 B.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 14
B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 14 B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 14
B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 14 B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 14
B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 14 B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
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 4, line 33 skipping to change at page 4, line 33
8. Convergence time: The time taken to reach a stable rate at 8. Convergence time: The time taken to reach a stable rate at
startup, after the available link capacity changes, or when new startup, after the available link capacity changes, or when new
flows get added to the bottleneck link. flows get added to the bottleneck link.
9. Instability or oscillation in the sending rate: The frequency or 9. Instability or oscillation in the sending rate: The frequency or
number of instances when the sending rate oscillates between an number of instances when the sending rate oscillates between an
high watermark level and a low watermark level, or vice-versa in high watermark level and a low watermark level, or vice-versa in
a defined time window. For example, the watermarks can be set a defined time window. For example, the watermarks can be set
at 4x interval: 500 Kbps, 2 Mbps, and a time window of 500ms. at 4x interval: 500 Kbps, 2 Mbps, and a time window of 500ms.
10. Bandwidth Utilization, defined as ratio of the instantaneous 10. [Editor's note: Section 3, in [I-D.ietf-netvc-testing] contains
objective Metrics for evaluating codecs.]
11. Bandwidth Utilization, defined as ratio of the instantaneous
sending rate to the instantaneous bottleneck capacity. This sending rate to the instantaneous bottleneck capacity. This
metric is useful only when an RMCAT flow is by itself or metric is useful only when an RMCAT flow is by itself or
competing with similar cross-traffic. competing with similar cross-traffic.
From the logs the statistical measures (min, max, mean, standard From the logs the statistical measures (min, max, mean, standard
deviation and variance) for the whole duration or any specific part deviation and variance) for the whole duration or any specific part
of the session can be calculated. Also the metrics (sending rate, of the session can be calculated. Also the metrics (sending rate,
receiver rate, goodput, latency) can be visualized in graphs as receiver rate, goodput, latency) can be visualized in graphs as
variation over time, the measurements in the plot are at 1 second variation over time, the measurements in the plot are at 1 second
intervals. Additionally, from the logs it is possible to plot the intervals. Additionally, from the logs it is possible to plot the
skipping to change at page 6, line 37 skipping to change at page 6, line 41
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
[Open Issue: Describes the model for generating packet losses, for [Open Issue: Describes the model for generating packet losses, for
example, losses can be generated using traces, or using the Gilbert- example, losses can be generated using traces, or using the 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 models 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
delay). For example, RFC 3550 jitter is a smoothed estimate of delay). For example, RFC 3550 jitter is a smoothed estimate of
jitter which is particularly meaningful if the underlying packet jitter which is particularly meaningful if the underlying packet
skipping to change at page 7, line 15 skipping to change at page 7, line 20
PDV in their documents (e.g., RFC 3393) and as the ITU-T SG16 has PDV in their documents (e.g., RFC 3393) and as the ITU-T SG16 has
defined IP Packet Delay Variation (IPDV) in their documents (e.g., defined IP Packet Delay Variation (IPDV) in their documents (e.g.,
Y.1540). Y.1540).
Most PDV distributions in packet network systems are one-sided Most PDV distributions in packet network systems are one-sided
distributions (the measurement of which with a finite number of distributions (the measurement of which with a finite number of
measurement samples result in one-sided histograms). In the usual measurement samples result in one-sided histograms). In the usual
packet network transport case there is typically one packet that packet network transport case there is typically one packet that
transited the network with the minimum delay, then a majority of transited the network with the minimum delay, then a majority of
packets also transit the system within some variation from this packets also transit the system within some variation from this
minimum delay, and then a minority of the packets transits the minimum delay, and then a minority of the packets transit the network
network with delays higher than the median or average transit time with delays higher than the median or average transit time (these are
(these are outliers). Although infrequent, outliers can cause outliers). Although infrequent, outliers can cause significant
significant deleterious operation in adaptive systems and should be deleterious operation in adaptive systems and should be considered in
considered in RMCAT adaptation designs. 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?] [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
mean delay packet, we define the zero mean PVD sample, z(n), to be mean delay packet, we define the zero mean PDV sample, z(n), to be
z(n) = x(n) - x_mean, where x(n) is a sample of the RBPDV random z(n) = x(n) - x_mean, where x(n) is a sample of the RBPDV random
variable x and x_mean is the mean of x. variable x and x_mean is the mean of x.
We assume here that s(n) is the original source time of packet n and We assume here that s(n) is the original source time of packet n and
the post-jitter induced emmission time, j(n), for packet n is j(n) = the post-jitter induced emmission time, j(n), for packet n is j(n) =
{[z(n) + x_mean] + s(n)}. It follows that the separation in the post- {[z(n) + x_mean] + s(n)}. It follows that the separation in the post-
jitter time of packets n and n+1 is {[s(n+1)-s(n)] - [z(n)-z(n+1)]}. jitter time of packets n and n+1 is {[s(n+1)-s(n)] - [z(n)-z(n+1)]}.
Since the first term is always a positive quantity, we note that Since the first term is always a positive quantity, we note that
packet reordering at the receiver is possible whenever the second packet reordering at the receiver is possible whenever the second
term is greater than the first. Said another way, whenever the term is greater than the first. Said another way, whenever the
skipping to change at page 8, line 47 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
multitude of software controlled elements common on end-to-end multitude of software controlled elements common on end-to-end
Internet paths (such as firewalls, ALGs and other middleboxes) which Internet paths (such as firewalls, ALGs and other middleboxes) which
stop processing packets while servicing other functions (e.g., stop processing packets while servicing other functions (e.g.,
garbage collection). Often these devices do not drop packets, but garbage collection). Often these devices do not drop packets, but
rather queue them for later processing and cause many of the rather queue them for later processing and cause many of the
outliers. Thus NR-RPVD models this particular use case (assuming outliers. Thus NR-RPVD models this particular use case (assuming
serial(n+1) is defined appropriately for the device causing the serial(n+1) is defined appropriately for the device causing the
outlier) and thus is believed to be important for adaptation outlier) and thus is believed to be important for adaptation
development for RMCAT. development for RMCAT.
[Editor's Note: It may require to define test distributions as well. 4.5.3. Recommended distribution
Example test distribution may include-
1 - Two-sided: Uniform PDV Distribution. Two quantities to define: It is recommended that z(n) is distributed according to a truncated
x_min and x_max. Gaussian:
2 - Two-sided: Truncated Gaussian PDV Distribution. Four quantities z(n) ~ |max(min(N(0, std^2), N_STD * std), -N_STD * std)|
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 where N(0, std^2) is the Gaussian distribution with zero mean and
define: three sigma value, the standard deviation, and the mean] standard deviation std. Recommended values:
o std = 5 ms
o N_STD = 3
5. WiFi or Cellular Links 5. WiFi or Cellular Links
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests] describes the test cases to simulate [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests] describes the test cases to simulate
networks with wireless links. The document describes mechanism to networks with wireless links. The document describes mechanism to
simulate both cellular and WiFi networks. simulate both cellular and WiFi networks.
6. Traffic Models 6. Traffic Models
6.1. TCP taffic model 6.1. TCP taffic model
skipping to change at page 9, line 51 skipping to change at page 10, line 13
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.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model] 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 For example, test sequences are available at: [xiph-seq] and
[HEVC-seq]. [HEVC-seq]. The currently chosen video streams are: Foreman and
FourPeople.
[Open issue: Which sequences are used? All? Some subset?]
6.3. Background UDP 6.3. Background UDP
[Open issue: Background UDP flow is modeled as a constant bit rate Background UDP flow is modeled as a constant bit rate (CBR) flow. It
(CBR) flow. It will download data at a particular CBR rate for the will download data at a particular CBR rate for the complete session,
complete session, or will change to particular CBR rate at predefined or will change to particular CBR rate at predefined intervals. The
intervals. They parameters are still TBD. e.g., packet size, packet inter packet interval is calculated based on the CBR and the packet
spacing interval, etc.] size (is typically set to the path MTU size, the default value can be
1500 bytes).
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 12, line 19 skipping to change at page 12, line 30
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test]
Sarker, Z., Varun, 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-03 (work in progress), March 2016. eval-test-03 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model] [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-ietf-rmcat-video- Sources for RMCAT Evaluations", draft-ietf-rmcat-video-
traffic-model-00 (work in progress), January 2016. traffic-model-00 (work in progress), January 2016.
[SA4-EVAL] [I-D.ietf-netvc-testing]
R1-081955, 3GPP., "LTE Link Level Throughput Data for SA4 Daede, T., Norkin, A., and I. Brailovskiy, "Video Codec
Evaluation Framework", 3GPP R1-081955, 5 2008. Testing and Quality Measurement", draft-ietf-netvc-
testing-03 (work in progress), July 2016.
[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-seq]
Xiph.org, , "Video Test Media", Daede, T., "Video Test Media Set",
http://media.xiph.org/video/derf/ , . https://people.xiph.org/~tdaede/sets/ , .
[HEVC-seq] [HEVC-seq]
HEVC, , "Test Sequences", HEVC, , "Test Sequences",
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/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.
skipping to change at page 13, line 10 skipping to change at page 13, line 24
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-05 B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06
o Updated Jitter.
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05
o Improved text surrounding wireless tests, video sequences, and o Improved text surrounding wireless tests, video sequences, and
short-TCP model. short-TCP model.
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 B.3. 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.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 B.4. 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.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 B.5. 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.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 B.6. 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.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 B.7. 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.7. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 B.8. 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.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 B.9. 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.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02
o Added scenario descriptions. o Added scenario descriptions.
B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 B.11. 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 15, line 4 skipping to change at page 15, line 19
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 CALLSTATS I/O Oy
Runeberginkatu 4c A 4 Runeberginkatu 4c A 4
Helsinki 00100 Helsinki 00100
Finland Finland
Email: varun.singh@iki.fi Email: varun@callstats.io
URI: http://www.callstats.io/ URI: https://www.callstats.io/about
Joerg Ott Joerg Ott
Technical University of Munich Technical University of Munich
Faculty of Informatics Faculty of Informatics
Boltzmannstrasse 3 Boltzmannstrasse 3
Garching bei Muenchen, DE 85748 Garching bei Muenchen, DE 85748
Germany Germany
Email: ott@in.tum.de Email: ott@in.tum.de
 End of changes. 33 change blocks. 
64 lines changed or deleted 76 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/