Re: [dispatch] Charter proposal for Q4S WG ( formerly Q-HTTP) Version 1

Hi Cullen 

Yes, the draft is draft-aranda-dispatch-qhttp-00.txt  . We are working in a "better explained" draft than this one, but for the moment this is the best we have done, and this is the draft we submitted to the dispatch list on 8 Nov 2010.

This protocol allow applications to measure bandwith, latency , jitter and packetloss in two steps:

 - just at the beginning, checking if the network support the requirements for a given application
 - during the application timelife, checking if the network support the requirements and raising alerts if the network violates some constraints

The protocol does not transport video, data, etc. The protocol only measures and send alerts. It is designed to be used in parallel with other protocols which transport application data. For example, a videogame executed remotelly can send video to the user using rtp ( RTP does not need to change) and the user can send action control using http, or something over UDP, etc. In parallel , Q4S will do the surveillance and will alert if network conditions degrade. 

A possible implementation may use the alerts for two different approach:

 - for adaptative mechanisms: ( for example we are developing a videoserver which reduces the compresion time if latency grows). In other cases , for example FTP, may be reduced the number of FTP threads if packetloss alerts or latency alerts are raised, etc.
 - for QoS profile changing mechanisms: trigger request to the ISP, asking for more QoS ( more bw, less latency, more priority...)

The actions are not defined in the draft, are implementation dependant. For example, as you mention, it could interfact with diffserv, if the ISP check the alerts and change on the fly DSCP markings in the access router, also could act over the access node ( DSLAM or CMTS) changing QoS parameters in response to the alerts

Q4S protocol can be used in parallel with any other protoocl ( RTP, FTP, HTTP, etc) without changes for these protocols, because Q4S runs in parallel and provides a functionality useful for all of them, but at the same time, independent of all of them.

Use cases: virtualized videogames ( video generated remotelly) but also any interactive-video application. In general applications which have bandwidth constraints  but also latency  constraints in order to provide a good user experience

Regards & thanks!

- Jose Javier

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com] Enviado el: viernes, 14 de enero de 2011 3:35
Para: GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER)
CC: 'dispatch@ietf.org'; pedrochas@dit.upm.es; CUBILLO PASTOR, CLARA (CLARA); ORTIGA HERRERA, GUADALUPE (GUADALUPE); jquemada@dit.upm.es; HERRANZ PABLO, SONIA (SONIA); gabriel@dit.upm.es; barcenilla@dit.upm.es; jsr@dit.upm.es; DIAZ VIZCAINO, LUIS MIGUEL (LUIS MIGUEL)
Asunto: Re: [dispatch] Charter proposal for Q4S WG ( formerly Q-HTTP) Version 1

First, cool I like it. Second, I don't understand what you are  proposing. 

Do you have any drafts we should read? I assume draft-aranda-dispatch-qhttp-00.txt

Would this protocol allow the applications to say measure bandwidth or would that come from the data traffic? 

When you talk about the measurement and alerts, could you say a bit more in email here about what you mean by that.

Thoughts on how this might interact with DiffServ or ECN? 

Would RTP need something new or could it just use RTCP? 

Use cases for this? 

On Dec 13, 2010, at 8:39 AM, GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER) wrote:

>  
> Hi everybody,
>  
> Here is the charter proposal for Q4S ( Quality for service) WG. This WG will include the achieved works with  "Q-HTTP"
>  
> Thanks for your comments
>  
>  
> Description of Working group
> ============================
>  
>    Problem Statement:
>  
>    The QoS over Internet is a hot issue today. Current QoS handling
>    mechanisms used in  modern network transport layers (MPLS, RSVP,
>    Diffserv,Traffic Engineering) do not provide  themselves a
>    QoS-on-demand end-to-end solution and existing adaptative
>    solutions based on In-band Control protocols (such as RTCP)
>    are very difficult to combine with any other protocols for which
>    they have not been designed for.
>  
>    Four Network Parameters comprises the QoS at application level:
>    Bandwidth, packet-loss, latency and Jitter.
>  
>    Interactive-video applications define flows in both directions.
>    Different applications require different constraints (in terms of
>    latency, jitter, packet loss) in one or both directions and
>    different responsiveness. The proposed solution must be an
>    effective out-of-band application level protocol capable of
>    reacting when any of these constraints are violated. Such protocol
>    must trigger adaptive solutions and/or QoS network profile changes.
>  
>    Currently content providers are only able to provide services based
>    on adaptative methods or last-mille deployments which prefer
>    dedicated network resources (vs. Internet), and therefore, restricts
>    the subscriber population and increases the costs.
>  
>    Objetives:
>  
>    The goal of this working group is to define a
>    QoS application-level  standard protocol optimized for its use over
>    the internet that may be widely implemented and easily managed
>    by application developers and service providers.
>  
>    The core technical considerations for such protocol include, but
>    are not necessarily limited to, the following:
>  
>    1. Protocol design to be used in interactive applications (including
>       virtualized videogames,and interative-video applications)
>  
>    2. Ensuring interoperability with all existing transport protocols
>  
>    3. Optimizing for low bit rates (typlically below 2.4 kbps)
>  
>    4. To ensure a feasible practical implementation based on
>       policy servers and interoperability between service providers
>  
>  
>    Deliverables:
>  
>    1. Specification of protocol that meets the requirements in the
>       form of an Internet-Draft that defines the negotiation of QoS
>       parameters, the measurement process and alert mechanisms.
>  
>    2. Dimensioning rules and performance analysis
>  
>    3. A set of technical requirements for a practical
>       implementation which may include adaptative solutions and/or
>       QoS profile modification.
>  
>  
> Goals and Milestiones
> =====================
>  
> Nov 2010    Submit Internet-Draft as a proposed standard for QoS
>              application-level protocol
>  
>              Proposed charter for Q4S WG
>  
>              Informational document with rules for dimensioning
>              and performance analysis
>  
>              Specification of architecture document for implementation
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> - Jose Javier
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch