draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06.txt   draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07.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: March 26, 2017 Technical University of Munich Expires: November 2, 2018 Technical University of Munich
S. Holmer S. Holmer
Google Google
September 22, 2016 May 1, 2018
Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07
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 March 26, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 2, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 13 B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 . . . . . . 13
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 13 B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 13
B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 13 B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 14
B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 13 B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 14
B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 13 B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 14
B.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 14 B.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 14
B.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 14 B.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 14
B.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 14 B.8. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 14
B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 14 B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 14
B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 14 B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 15
B.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 15 B.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 15
B.12. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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].
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 RFC8083 [RFC8083].
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). described in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] (Basic Test Cases).
Additionally, proponents may produce evaluation results for the Additionally, proponents may produce evaluation results for the
wireless test scenarios [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests]. wireless test scenarios [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
skipping to change at page 4, line 9 skipping to change at page 4, line 9
2. Packets sent, Packets received 2. Packets sent, Packets received
3. Bytes sent, bytes received 3. Bytes sent, bytes received
4. Packet delay 4. Packet delay
5. Packets lost, Packets discarded (from the playout or de-jitter 5. Packets lost, Packets discarded (from the playout or de-jitter
buffer) buffer)
6. If using, retransmission or FEC: post-repair loss 6. If using, retransmission or FEC: post-repair loss
7. Fairness or Unfairness: Experiments testing the performance of 7. Self-Fairness and Fairness with respect to cross traffic:
an RMCAT proposal against any cross-traffic must define its Experiments testing a given RMCAT proposal must report on
expected criteria for fairness. The "unfairness" test guideline relative ratios of the average throughput (measured at coarser
(measured at 1s intervals) is: time intervals) obtained by each RMCAT stream. In the presence
1. Does not trigger the circuit breaker. of background cross-traffic such as TCP, the report must also
2. No RMCAT stream achieves more than 3 times the average include the relative ratio between average throughput of RMCAT
throughput of the RMCAT stream with the lowest average streams and cross-traffic streams.
throughput, for a case when the competing streams have similar During static periods of a test (i.e., when bottleneck bandwidth
RTTs. is constant and no arrival/departure of streams), these report
3. RTT should not grow by a factor of 3 for the existing flows on relative ratios serve as an indicator of how fair the RMCAT
when a new flow is added. streams share bandwidth amongst themselves and against cross-
For example, see the test scenarios described in traffic streams. The throughput measurement interval should be
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test]. set at a few values (for example, at 1s, 5s, and 20s) in order
to measure fairness across different time scales.
As a general guideline, the relative ratio between RMCAT flows
with the same priority level and similar path RTT should be
bounded between (0.333 and 3.) For example, see the test
scenarios described in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test].
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.
skipping to change at page 4, line 49 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
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
histogram or CDF of packet delay. histogram or CDF of packet delay.
[Open issue (1): Using Jain-fairness index (JFI) for measuring self-
fairness between RTP flows? measured at what intervals? visualized as
a CDF or a timeseries? Additionally: Use JFI for comparing fairness
between RTP and long TCP flows? ]
3.1. RTP Log Format 3.1. RTP Log Format
The log file is tab or comma separated containing the following The log file is tab or comma separated containing the following
details: details:
Send or receive timestamp (unix) Send or receive timestamp (unix)
RTP payload type RTP payload type
SSRC SSRC
RTP sequence no RTP sequence no
RTP timestamp RTP timestamp
skipping to change at page 6, line 35 skipping to change at page 6, line 35
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
[Open Issue: Describes the model for generating packet losses, for Many models for generating packet loss are available, some yield
example, losses can be generated using traces, or using the Gilbert- correlated, others independent losses; losses can also be extracted
Elliot model, or randomly (uncorrelated loss).] from packet traces. As a (simple) minimum loss model with minimal
parameterization (i.e., the loss rate), independent random losses
must be used in the evaluation.
It is known that independent loss models may reflect reality poorly
and hence more sophisticated loss models could be considered.
Suitable models for correlated losses includes the Gilbert-Elliot
model and losses generated by modeling a queue including its
(different) drop behaviors.
4.5. Jitter models 4.5. Jitter models
This section defines jitter models 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 7, line 37
minimum delay, and then a minority of the packets transit the network minimum delay, and then a minority of the packets transit the network
with delays higher than the median or average transit time (these are with delays higher than the median or average transit time (these are
outliers). Although infrequent, outliers can cause significant outliers). Although infrequent, outliers can cause significant
deleterious operation in adaptive systems and should be considered in deleterious operation in adaptive systems and should be 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?] The former, 1) Random Bounded PDV is presented for information only,
while the latte, 2) Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering
Bounded PDV, must be used in the evaluation.
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.
skipping to change at page 10, line 49 skipping to change at page 11, line 9
10. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
Much of this document is derived from previous work on congestion Much of this document is derived from previous work on congestion
control at the IETF. control at the IETF.
The authors would like to thank Harald Alvestrand, Anna Brunstrom, The authors would like to thank Harald Alvestrand, Anna Brunstrom,
Luca De Cicco, Wesley Eddy, Lars Eggert, Kevin Gross, Vinayak Hegde, Luca De Cicco, Wesley Eddy, Lars Eggert, Kevin Gross, Vinayak Hegde,
Stefan Holmer, Randell Jesup, Mirja Kuehlewind, Karen Nielsen, Piers Stefan Holmer, Randell Jesup, Mirja Kuehlewind, Karen Nielsen, Piers
O'Hanlon, Colin Perkins, Michael Ramalho, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, O'Hanlon, Colin Perkins, Michael Ramalho, Zaheduzzaman Sarker,
Timothy B. Terriberry, Michael Welzl, and Mo Zanaty for providing Timothy B. Terriberry, Michael Welzl, Mo Zanaty, and Xiaoqing Zhu
valuable feedback on earlier versions of this draft. Additionally, for providing valuable feedback on earlier versions of this draft.
also thank the participants of the design team for their comments and Additionally, also thank the participants of the design team for
discussion related to the evaluation criteria. their comments and discussion related to the evaluation criteria.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[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-rmcat-wireless-tests]
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-04 (work in progress), May 2017.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>. July 2003, <https://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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003, <https://www.rfc-
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3551>. editor.org/info/rfc3551>.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed., [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
"RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003, RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>. <https://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, DOI Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006, <https://www.rfc-
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>. 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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April and Consequences", RFC 5506, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>.
[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. Varun, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", draft-ietf-
avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-14 (work in progress), March
2016.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests] [RFC8083] Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
Sarker, Z., Johansson, I., Zhu, X., Fu, J., Tan, W., and Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", RFC 8083,
M. Ramalho, "Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real- DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017, <https://www.rfc-
Time Media over Wireless Networks", draft-ietf-rmcat- editor.org/info/rfc8083>.
wireless-tests-01 (work in progress), November 2015.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[RFC5033] Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion [HEVC-seq]
Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033, DOI 10.17487/ HEVC, "Test Sequences",
RFC5033, August 2007, http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/test_sequences/ .
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5033>.
[RFC5166] Floyd, S., Ed., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion
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 [I-D.ietf-netvc-testing]
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009, Daede, T., Norkin, A., and I. Brailovskiy, "Video Codec
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>. Testing and Quality Measurement", draft-ietf-netvc-
testing-06 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test]
Sarker, Z., Varun, V., Zhu, X., and M. Ramalho, "Test Sarker, Z., Singh, 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-05 (work in progress), April 2017.
[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-04 (work in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netvc-testing] [RFC5033] Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion
Daede, T., Norkin, A., and I. Brailovskiy, "Video Codec Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033,
Testing and Quality Measurement", draft-ietf-netvc- DOI 10.17487/RFC5033, August 2007, <https://www.rfc-
testing-03 (work in progress), July 2016. editor.org/info/rfc5033>.
[RFC5166] Floyd, S., Ed., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion
Control Mechanisms", RFC 5166, DOI 10.17487/RFC5166, March
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5166>.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[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]
Daede, T., "Video Test Media Set", Daede, T., "Video Test Media Set",
https://people.xiph.org/~tdaede/sets/ , . https://people.xiph.org/~tdaede/sets/ .
[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-06 B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07
Updated the draft according to the discussion at IETF-101.
o Updated the discussion on fairness. Thanks to Xiaoqing Zhu for
providing text.
o Fixed a simple loss model and provided pointers to more
sophisticated ones.
o Fixed the choice of the jitter model.
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06
o Updated Jitter. o Updated Jitter.
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 B.3. 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.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 B.4. 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.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 B.5. 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.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 B.6. 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.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 B.7. 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.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 B.8. 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.8. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 B.9. 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.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 B.10. 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.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 B.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02
o Added scenario descriptions. o Added scenario descriptions.
B.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 B.12. 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
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
103 lines changed or deleted 125 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/