draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-11.txt   draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12.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: August 15, 2020 Technical University of Munich Expires: August 30, 2020 Technical University of Munich
S. Holmer S. Holmer
Google Google
February 12, 2020 February 27, 2020
Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-11 draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12
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 https://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 August 15, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. RTP Log Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. RTP Log Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. List of Network Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. List of Network Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. One-way Propagation Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. One-way Propagation Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. End-to-end Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. End-to-end Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Drop Tail Router Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Drop Tail Router Queue Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Loss generation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4. Loss generation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. Jitter models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.5. Jitter models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Traffic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Traffic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. TCP traffic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. TCP traffic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Application Trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Measuring Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 14
B.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 . . . . . . 14 A.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 15
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 14 A.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 15
B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 15 A.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 15
B.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 15 A.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 15
B.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 15 A.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 15
B.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 15 A.8. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 15
B.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 15 A.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 15
B.8. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 15 A.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 16
B.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 15 A.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 16
B.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 16 A.12. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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
skipping to change at page 3, line 25 skipping to change at page 3, line 25
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 RFC8083 [RFC8083]. defined in RFC8083 [RFC8083].
This document only provides the broad set of network parameters and This document only provides the broad set of network parameters and
and traffic models for evaluating a new congestion control algorithm. and traffic models for evaluating a new congestion control algorithm.
The minimal requirements for congestion control proposals is to The minimal requirements for congestion control proposals is to
produce or present results for the test scenarios described in produce or present results for the test scenarios described in
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] (Basic Test Cases), which also defines . [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] (Basic Test Cases), which also defines the
Additionally, proponents may produce evaluation results for the specifics for the test cases. Additionally, proponents may produce
wireless test scenarios [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests]. evaluation results for the wireless test scenarios
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests].
This document does not cover application-specific implications of
congestion control algorithms and how those could be evaluated.
Therefore, no quality metrics are defined for performance evaluation;
quality metrics and algorithms to infer those vary between media
types. Metrics and algorithms to assess, e.g., quality of experience
evolve continuously so that determining suitable choices is left for
future work. However, there is consensus that each congestion
control algorithm should be able to show that it is useful for
interactive video by performing analysis using a real codecs and
video sequences and state-of-the-art quality metrics.
Beyond optimizing individual metrics, real-time applications may have
further options to trade off performance, e.g., across multiple
media; refer to the RMCAT requirements
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements] document. Such trade-offs may be
defined in the future.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The terminology defined in RTP [RFC3550], RTP Profile for Audio and The terminology defined in RTP [RFC3550], RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control [RFC3551], RTCP Extended Video Conferences with Minimal Control [RFC3551], RTCP Extended
Report (XR) [RFC3611], Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback Report (XR) [RFC3611], Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback
(RTP/AVPF) [RFC4585] and Support for Reduced-Size RTCP [RFC5506] (RTP/AVPF) [RFC4585] and Support for Reduced-Size RTCP [RFC5506]
apply. apply.
3. Metrics 3. Metrics
skipping to change at page 7, line 28 skipping to change at page 7, line 47
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 congestion controlled RTP When jitter is to be applied to both the congestion controlled RTP
flow and any competing flow (such as a TCP competing flow), the flow and any competing flow (such as a TCP competing flow), the
competing flow will use the jitter definition below that does not competing flow will use the jitter definition below that does not
allow for re-ordering of packets on the competing flow (see NR-RBPDV allow for re-ordering of packets on the competing flow (see NR-RBPDV
definition below). definition below).
Jitter is an overloaded term in communications. Its meaning is Jitter is an overloaded term in communications. It is is typically
typically associated with the variation of a metric (e.g., delay) used to refer to the variation of a metric (e.g., delay) with respect
with respect to some reference metric (e.g., average delay or minimum to some reference metric (e.g., average delay or minimum delay). For
delay). For example, RFC 3550 jitter is a smoothed estimate of example, RFC 3550 jitter is computed as the smoothed difference in
jitter which is particularly meaningful if the underlying packet packet arrival times relative to their respective expected arrival
times, which is particularly meaningful if the underlying packet
delay variation was caused by a Gaussian random process. delay variation was caused by a Gaussian random process.
Because jitter is an overloaded term, we instead use the term Packet Because jitter is an overloaded term, we use the term Packet Delay
Delay Variation (PDV) to describe the variation of delay of Variation (PDV) instead to describe the variation of delay of
individual packets in the same sense as the IETF IPPM WG has defined individual packets in the same sense as the IETF IPPM WG has defined
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 results 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; a (large) number of
packets also transit the system within some variation from this packets transit the network within some (smaller) positive variation
minimum delay, and then a minority of the packets transit the network from this minimum delay, and a (small) number of the packets transit
with delays higher than the median or average transit time (these are the network with delays higher than the median or average transit
outliers). Although infrequent, outliers can cause significant time (these are outliers). Although infrequent, outliers can cause
deleterious operation in adaptive systems and should be considered in significant deleterious operation in adaptive systems and should be
rate adaptation designs for RTP congestion control. considered in rate adaptation designs for RTP congestion control.
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.
The former, 1) Random Bounded PDV is presented for information only, The former, 1) Random Bounded PDV is presented for information only,
while the latter, 2) Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering while the latter, 2) Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering
Bounded PDV, must be used in the evaluation. Bounded PDV, must be used in the evaluation.
4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV) 4.5.1. Random Bounded PDV (RBPDV)
skipping to change at page 8, line 28 skipping to change at page 8, line 49
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
defined to be two standard deviations higher than the mean. defined 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 PDV 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 emission time, j(n), for packet n is j(n) = the post-jitter induced emission time, j(n), for packet n is:
{[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)]}. j(n) = {[z(n) + x_mean] + s(n)}.
Since the first term is always a positive quantity, we note that
packet reordering at the receiver is possible whenever the second It follows that the separation in the post-jitter time of packets n
term is greater than the first. Said another way, whenever the and n+1 is {[s(n+1)-s(n)] - [z(n)-z(n+1)]}. Since the first term is
difference in possible zero mean PDV sample delays (i.e., [x_max- always a positive quantity, we note that packet reordering at the
x_min]) exceeds the inter-departure time of any two sent packets, we receiver is possible whenever the second term is greater than the
have the possibility of packet re-ordering. first. Said another way, whenever the difference in possible zero
mean PDV sample delays (i.e., [x_max-x_min]) exceeds the inter-
departure time of any two sent packets, we have the possibility of
packet re-ordering.
There are important use cases in real networks where packets can There are important use cases in real networks where packets can
become re-ordered such as in load balancing topologies and during become re-ordered such as in load balancing topologies and during
route changes. However, for the vast majority of cases there is no route changes. However, for the vast majority of cases there is no
packet re-ordering because most of the time packets follow the same packet re-ordering because most of the time packets follow the same
path. Due to this, if a packet becomes overly delayed, the packets path. Due to this, if a packet becomes overly delayed, the packets
after it on that flow are also delayed. This is especially true for after it on that flow are also delayed. This is especially true for
mobile wireless links where there are per-flow queues prior to base mobile wireless links where there are per-flow queues prior to base
station scheduling. Owing to this important use case, we define station scheduling. Owing to this important use case, we define
another PDV profile similar to the above, but one that does not allow another PDV profile similar to the above, but one that does not allow
skipping to change at page 12, line 35 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[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]
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-08 (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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3551>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3551>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 26 skipping to change at page 13, line 36
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8083>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8083>.
[RFC8593] Zhu, X., Mena, S., and Z. Sarker, "Video Traffic Models
for RTP Congestion Control Evaluations", RFC 8593,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8593, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8593>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. 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-09 (work in progress), January 2020. testing-09 (work in progress), January 2020.
[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-10 (work in progress), May 2019. eval-test-10 (work in progress), May 2019.
[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-08 (work in progress), July 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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5033, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-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>.
[RFC8593] Zhu, X., Mena, S., and Z. Sarker, "Video Traffic Models
for RTP Congestion Control Evaluations", RFC 8593,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8593, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8593>.
[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/ .
Appendix A. Application Trade-off Appendix A. Change Log
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.
A.1. Measuring Quality
No quality metric is defined for performance evaluation, it is
currently an open issue. However, there is consensus that congestion
control algorithm should be able to show that it is useful for
interactive video by performing analysis using a real codec and video
sequences.
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-07 A.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07
Updated the draft according to the discussion at IETF-101. Updated the draft according to the discussion at IETF-101.
o Updated the discussion on fairness. Thanks to Xiaoqing Zhu for o Updated the discussion on fairness. Thanks to Xiaoqing Zhu for
providing text. providing text.
o Fixed a simple loss model and provided pointers to more o Fixed a simple loss model and provided pointers to more
sophisticated ones. sophisticated ones.
o Fixed the choice of the jitter model. o Fixed the choice of the jitter model.
B.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 A.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06
o Updated Jitter. o Updated Jitter.
B.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 A.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.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 A.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.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 A.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.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 A.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.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 A.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.8. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 A.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.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 A.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.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 A.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.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 A.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02
o Added scenario descriptions. o Added scenario descriptions.
B.12. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 A.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. 32 change blocks. 
93 lines changed or deleted 99 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/