draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-08.txt   draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-09.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: May 9, 2019 Technical University of Munich Expires: January 3, 2020 Technical University of Munich
S. Holmer S. Holmer
Google Google
November 5, 2018 July 2, 2019
Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-08 draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-09
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
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 https://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 May 9, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
skipping to change at page 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5.2. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded 4.5.2. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded
PDV (NR-RPVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 PDV (NR-RPVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5.3. Recommended distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.5.3. Recommended distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. WiFi or Cellular Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. WiFi or Cellular Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Traffic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Traffic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. TCP traffic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. TCP traffic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 . . . . . . 14 B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 . . . . . . 15
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 14 B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 15
B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 14 B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 15
B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 14 B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 15
B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 15 B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 15
B.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 15 B.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 15
B.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 15 B.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 15
B.8. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 15 B.8. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 16
B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 15 B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 16
B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 15 B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 16
B.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 16 B.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 16
B.12. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 16 B.12. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
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 11, line 24 skipping to change at page 11, line 24
Note that new transport protocols such as QUIC may use UDP but, due Note that new transport protocols such as QUIC may use UDP but, due
to their congestion control algorithms, will exhibit behavior to their congestion control algorithms, will exhibit behavior
conceptually similar in nature to TCP flows above and can thus be conceptually similar in nature to TCP flows above and can thus be
subsumed by the above, including the division into short- and long- subsumed by the above, including the division into short- and long-
lived flows. As QUIC evolves independently of TCP congestion control lived flows. As QUIC evolves independently of TCP congestion control
algorithms, its future congestion control SHOULD be considered as algorithms, its future congestion control SHOULD be considered as
competing traffic as appropriate. competing traffic as appropriate.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Security issues have not been discussed in this memo. This document specifies evaluation criteria and parameters for
assessing and comparing the performance of congestion control
protocola and algorithm for real-time communication. This memo
itself is thus not subject to security considerations but the
protocols and algorithms evaluated may be. In particular, successful
operation under all tests defined in this document may suffice for a
comparative evaluation but must not be interpreted that the protocol
is free of risks when deployed on the Internet as briefly described
in the following by example.
Such evaluations are expected to be carried out in controlled
environments for limited numbers of parallel flows. As such, these
evaluations are by definition limited and will not be able to
systematically consider possible interactions or very large groups of
communicating nodes under all possible circumstances, so that careful
protocol design is advised to avoid incidentally contributing traffic
that could lead to unstable networks, e.g., (local) congestion
collapse.
This specification focuses on assessing the regular operation of the
protocols and algorithms under considerations. It does not suggest
checks against malicious use of the protocols -- by the sender, the
receiver, or intermediate parties, e.g., through faked, dropped,
replicated, or modified congestion signals. It is up to the protocol
specifications themselves to ensure that authenticity, integrity,
and/or plausibility of received signals are checked and the
appropriate actions (or non-actions) are taken.
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
The content and concepts within this document are a product of the The content and concepts within this document are a product of the
discussion carried out in the Design Team. discussion carried out in the Design Team.
skipping to change at page 12, line 18 skipping to change at page 12, line 43
[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-rmcat-wireless-tests] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests]
Sarker, Z., Johansson, I., Zhu, X., Fu, J., Tan, W., and Sarker, Z., Johansson, I., Zhu, X., Fu, J., Tan, W., and
M. Ramalho, "Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real- M. Ramalho, "Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real-
Time Media over Wireless Networks", draft-ietf-rmcat- Time Media over Wireless Networks", draft-ietf-rmcat-
wireless-tests-05 (work in progress), June 2018. wireless-tests-07 (work in progress), July 2019.
[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, <https://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, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
editor.org/info/rfc3551>. <https://www.rfc-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)", "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003, RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003,
<https://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, Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
editor.org/info/rfc4585>. <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April and Consequences", RFC 5506, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>.
[RFC8083] Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control: [RFC8083] Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", RFC 8083, Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", RFC 8083,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017,
editor.org/info/rfc8083>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8083>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[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/ .
[I-D.ietf-netvc-testing] [I-D.ietf-netvc-testing]
Daede, T., Norkin, A., and I. Brailovskiy, "Video Codec Daede, T., Norkin, A., and I. Brailovskiy, "Video Codec
Testing and Quality Measurement", draft-ietf-netvc- Testing and Quality Measurement", draft-ietf-netvc-
testing-07 (work in progress), July 2018. testing-08 (work in progress), January 2019.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test]
Sarker, Z., Singh, 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-07 (work in progress), October 2018. eval-test-10 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model]
Zhu, X., Cruz, S., and Z. Sarker, "Video Traffic Models Zhu, X., Cruz, S., and Z. Sarker, "Video Traffic Models
for RTP Congestion Control Evaluations", draft-ietf-rmcat- for RTP Congestion Control Evaluations", draft-ietf-rmcat-
video-traffic-model-06 (work in progress), November 2018. video-traffic-model-07 (work in progress), February 2019.
[RFC5033] Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion [RFC5033] Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion
Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033, Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5033, August 2007, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC5033, August 2007,
editor.org/info/rfc5033>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5033>.
[RFC5166] Floyd, S., Ed., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion [RFC5166] Floyd, S., Ed., "Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion
Control Mechanisms", RFC 5166, DOI 10.17487/RFC5166, March Control Mechanisms", RFC 5166, DOI 10.17487/RFC5166, March
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5166>. 2008, <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009, Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>. <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
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
31 lines changed or deleted 57 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/