--- 1/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-09.txt 2019-11-04 14:14:28.799054332 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-10.txt 2019-11-04 14:14:28.835055245 -0800 @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ RMCAT WG V. Singh Internet-Draft callstats.io Intended status: Informational J. Ott -Expires: January 3, 2020 Technical University of Munich +Expires: May 7, 2020 Technical University of Munich S. Holmer Google - July 2, 2019 + November 4, 2019 Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media - draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-09 + draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-10 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 @@ -25,21 +25,21 @@ 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 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 January 3, 2020. + This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2020. Copyright Notice 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -73,33 +73,33 @@ 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . 15 + B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 . . . . . . 14 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 . . . . . . 16 - B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 16 + 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 . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 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]. @@ -193,21 +193,21 @@ deviation and variance) for the whole duration or any specific part of the session can be calculated. Also the metrics (sending rate, receiver rate, goodput, latency) can be visualized in graphs as variation over time, the measurements in the plot are at 1 second intervals. Additionally, from the logs it is possible to plot the histogram or CDF of packet delay. 3.1. RTP Log Format Having a common log format simplifies running analyses across and - comparing different measurements. The log file SHOULD be tab or + comparing different measurements. The log file should be tab or comma separated containing the following details: Send or receive timestamp (unix) RTP payload type SSRC RTP sequence no RTP timestamp marker bit payload size @@ -254,21 +254,21 @@ 2. 1% 3. 5% 4. 10% 5. 20% 4.3. Drop Tail Router Queue Length - Routers SHOULD be configured to use Drop Trail queues in the + Routers should be configured to use Drop Trail queues in the experiments due to their (still) prevalent nature. Experimentation with AQM schemes is encouraged but not mandatory. The router queue length is measured as the time taken to drain the FIFO queue. It has been noted in various discussions that the queue length in the current deployed Internet varies significantly. While the core backbone network has very short queue length, the home gateways usually have larger queue length. Those various queue lengths can be categorized in the following way: @@ -450,50 +450,50 @@ The idle period between bursts of starting a group of TCP flows is typically derived from an exponential distribution with the mean value of 10 seconds. [These values were picked based on the data available at http://httparchive.org/interesting.php as of October 2015]. Many different TCP congestion control schemes are deployed today. Therefore, experimentation with a range of different schemes, - especially including CUBIC, is encouraged. Experiments MUST document + especially including CUBIC, is encouraged. Experiments must document in detail which congestion control schemes they tested against and which parameters were used. 6.2. RTP Video model - [I-D.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model] describes two types of video - traffic models for evaluating candidate algorithms for RTP congestion - control. The first model statistically characterizes the behavior of - a video encoder. Whereas the second model uses video traces. + [RFC8593] describes two types of video traffic models for evaluating + candidate algorithms for RTP congestion control. The first model + statistically characterizes the behavior of a video encoder. Whereas + the second model uses video traces. For example, test sequences are available at: [xiph-seq] and [HEVC-seq]. The currently chosen video streams are: Foreman and FourPeople. 6.3. Background UDP Background UDP flow is modeled as a constant bit rate (CBR) flow. It will download data at a particular CBR rate for the complete session, or will change to particular CBR rate at predefined intervals. The inter packet interval is calculated based on the CBR and the packet size (is typically set to the path MTU size, the default value can be 1500 bytes). 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 + algorithms, its future congestion control should be considered as competing traffic as appropriate. 7. Security Considerations 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 @@ -550,21 +550,21 @@ [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-07 (work in progress), July 2019. + wireless-tests-08 (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, . @@ -599,46 +599,33 @@ [I-D.ietf-netvc-testing] Daede, T., Norkin, A., and I. Brailovskiy, "Video Codec Testing and Quality Measurement", draft-ietf-netvc- 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-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-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, . [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 - UTRAN and GERAN", 3GPP S4-050560, 5 2008. - - [TCP-eval-suite] - Lachlan, A., Marcondes, C., Floyd, S., Dunn, L., Guillier, - R., Gang, W., Eggert, L., Ha, S., and I. Rhee, "Towards a - Common TCP Evaluation Suite", Proc. PFLDnet. 2008, August - 2008. + [RFC8593] Zhu, X., Mena, S., and Z. Sarker, "Video Traffic Models + for RTP Congestion Control Evaluations", RFC 8593, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8593, May 2019, + . [xiph-seq] Daede, T., "Video Test Media Set", https://people.xiph.org/~tdaede/sets/ . Appendix A. Application Trade-off Application trade-off is yet to be defined. see RMCAT requirements [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements] document. Perhaps each experiment should define the application's expectation or trade-off.