| draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-13.txt | draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-14.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: September 10, 2020 Technical University of Munich | Expires: September 20, 2020 Technical University of Munich | |||
| S. Holmer | S. Holmer | |||
| March 9, 2020 | March 19, 2020 | |||
| Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media | Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media | |||
| draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-13 | draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-14 | |||
| 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 September 10, 2020. | This Internet-Draft will expire on September 20, 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 | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 27 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 27 ¶ | |||
| 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5.2. RTP Video model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 5.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5.3. Background UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| A.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 . . . . . . 15 | A.1. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 . . . . . . 15 | |||
| A.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 15 | A.2. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-06 . . . . . . 15 | |||
| A.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 15 | A.3. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-05 . . . . . . 15 | |||
| A.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 15 | A.4. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-04 . . . . . . 15 | |||
| A.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 15 | A.5. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-03 . . . . . . 15 | |||
| A.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 15 | A.6. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-02 . . . . . . 15 | |||
| A.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 15 | A.7. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01 . . . . . . 16 | |||
| A.8. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 16 | A.8. Changes in draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-00 . . . . . . 16 | |||
| A.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 16 | A.9. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-04 . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| A.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 16 | A.10. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03 . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| A.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 16 | A.11. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-02 . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| A.12. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 16 | A.12. Changes in draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-01 . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 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]. | |||
| 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 congestion | |||
| expected to operate within the envelope of the circuit breakers | control algorithms are expected to operate within the envelope of the | |||
| defined in RFC8083 [RFC8083]. | circuit breakers 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 the | [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-test] (Basic Test Cases), which also defines the | |||
| specifics for the test cases. Additionally, proponents may produce | specifics for the test cases. Additionally, proponents may produce | |||
| evaluation results for the wireless test scenarios | evaluation results for the wireless test scenarios | |||
| [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests]. | [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests]. | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 40 ¶ | |||
| 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. | |||
| 3.1. RTP Log Format | 3.1. RTP Log Format | |||
| Having a common log format simplifies running analyses across and | 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: | comma separated containing the following details: | |||
| Send or receive timestamp (unix) | Send or receive timestamp (Unix): <int>.<int> -- sec.usec decimal | |||
| RTP payload type | RTP payload type <int> -- decimal | |||
| SSRC | SSRC <int> -- hexadecimal | |||
| RTP sequence no | RTP sequence no <int> -- decimal | |||
| RTP timestamp | RTP timestamp <int> -- decimal | |||
| marker bit | marker bit 0|1 -- character | |||
| payload size | Payload size <int> -- # bytes, decimal | |||
| If the congestion control implements, retransmissions or FEC, the | Each line of the log file should be terminated with CRLF, CR, or LF | |||
| characters. Empty lines are disregarded. | ||||
| If the congestion control implements retransmissions or FEC, the | ||||
| evaluation should report both packet loss (before applying error- | evaluation should report both packet loss (before applying error- | |||
| resilience) and residual packet loss (after applying error- | resilience) and residual packet loss (after applying error- | |||
| resilience). | resilience). | |||
| These data should suffice to compute the media-encoding independent | These data should suffice to compute the media-encoding independent | |||
| metrics described above. Use of a common log will allow simplified | metrics described above. Use of a common log will allow simplified | |||
| post-processing and analysis across different implementations. | post-processing and analysis across different implementations. | |||
| 4. List of Network Parameters | 4. List of Network Parameters | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 30 ¶ | |||
| 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] | [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests] | |||
| Sarker, Z., Johansson, I., Zhu, X., Fu, J., Tan, W., and | Sarker, Z., Zhu, X., and J. Fu, "Evaluation Test Cases for | |||
| M. Ramalho, "Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real- | Interactive Real-Time Media over Wireless Networks", | |||
| Time Media over Wireless Networks", draft-ietf-rmcat- | draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-11 (work in progress), | |||
| wireless-tests-09 (work in progress), February 2020. | March 2020. | |||
| [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>. | |||
| End of changes. 13 change blocks. | ||||
| 25 lines changed or deleted | 28 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/ | ||||