--- 1/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-08.txt 2019-07-02 10:13:03.613195590 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-09.txt 2019-07-02 10:13:03.649196499 -0700 @@ -1,54 +1,54 @@ RMCAT WG V. Singh Internet-Draft callstats.io Intended status: Informational J. Ott -Expires: May 9, 2019 Technical University of Munich +Expires: January 3, 2020 Technical University of Munich S. Holmer Google - November 5, 2018 + July 2, 2019 Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media - draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-08 + draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-09 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 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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/. + Drafts is at https://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 May 9, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2020. 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. 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 + (https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 @@ -64,42 +64,42 @@ 4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.5.2. Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded PDV (NR-RPVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.5.3. Recommended distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. WiFi or Cellular Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Traffic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. TCP traffic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 . . . . . . 14 - B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 14 - B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 14 - B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 14 + B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 . . . . . . 15 + B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 15 + B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 15 + B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 15 B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 15 B.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 15 B.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 15 - B.8. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 15 - B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 15 - B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 15 + B.8. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 16 + B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 16 + B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 16 B.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 16 B.12. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 16 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 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 Congestion Control Algorithms [RFC5166]. @@ -484,21 +484,47 @@ Note that new transport protocols such as QUIC may use UDP but, due to their congestion control algorithms, will exhibit behavior conceptually similar in nature to TCP flows above and can thus be subsumed by the above, including the division into short- and long- lived flows. As QUIC evolves independently of TCP congestion control algorithms, its future congestion control SHOULD be considered as competing traffic as appropriate. 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 There are no IANA impacts in this memo. 9. Contributors The content and concepts within this document are a product of the discussion carried out in the Design Team. @@ -524,78 +550,78 @@ [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-05 (work in progress), June 2018. + wireless-tests-07 (work in progress), July 2019. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time 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, - DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003, . + DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 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, - DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006, . + 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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April 2009, . [RFC8083] Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", RFC 8083, - DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017, . + DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017, + . 11.2. Informative References [HEVC-seq] HEVC, "Test Sequences", http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/test_sequences/ . [I-D.ietf-netvc-testing] Daede, T., Norkin, A., and I. Brailovskiy, "Video Codec 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] Sarker, Z., Singh, V., Zhu, X., and M. Ramalho, "Test 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] Zhu, X., Cruz, S., and Z. Sarker, "Video Traffic Models 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 Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033, - DOI 10.17487/RFC5033, August 2007, . + DOI 10.17487/RFC5033, August 2007, + . [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009, . [SA4-LR] S4-050560, 3GPP., "Error Patterns for MBMS Streaming over