Re: [PMOL] RMCAT

["Eggert, Lars" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the detailed comments!

Lars

On Nov 11, 2012, at 7:33, Vinayak Hegde <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Draft comments for draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval follow:
> 
> Draft Section 3 - Metrics
> 
> 1. Can you please explain why each metric is relevant for congestion ?
> For example
> 
> Delay can be caused due to buffer bloat or due to the underlying
> (suboptimal) path that is taken. Both have different remedies.
> Possibly add ways of finding out root cause for this.
> 
> 2. Also how do you account for burstiness. Lots of packets arriving at
> once with some having expired (arrived late) by the time of arrival.
> How does this interplay with the User's experience of quality
> (blockiness and jitter depending on how the codec works).
> 
> 3. Also some of the metrics are interdependent. Packet loss and
> discard rate can be made to approximate User's experience if we know
> how the codec works (such as amount of robustness under packet loss)
> and delay characteristics of the underlying streams (Such as busty
> arrival of packets).
> 
> 4. In the statistical measures - Standard deviation and variance might
> also be useful in the context of interactive streams possibly to
> measure possibility of interruptions in play (Directly correlates to
> User's quality of experience).
> 
> 4. Guidelines
> Section 4.4 Diverse Environments
> 1. A minimum list of environment or simulations in which the algorithm
> is recommended to be tested could be useful. Even more useful could be
> setting min/max range limits for tests (such as delay/bandwidth). This
> could closely model real network characteristics.
> 
> Section 4.8 Impact on Cross Traffic
> How will you measure the impact of the RTP flows on competing TCP
> flows. A list of metrics and/or examples would be useful.
> 
> General comments:
> 1. If any simulation/real world tests are carried out by network
> equipment what are the standards that they should adhere to in terms
> of delay (sensitivity) in counting / measuring.
> 
> Regards
> Vinayak
> 
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Al Morton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Thanks Vin, there is at least one proposal
>> identified in my first message.
>> 
>> Al
>> 
>> 
>> At 02:39 AM 11/8/2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Al Morton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 2- Do we have a volunteer to review this work on an on-going basis?
>>>> 
>>>> I will look in on this myself too, but I plan to return home
>>>> to the "more-Sandy-than-usual" Jersey Shore on Thursday morning
>>>> to deal with additional issues there, so I'll miss rmcat this time.
>>> 
>>> I am not attending this meeting and the next one in person but I can
>>> help review the drafts if they forward it to this list.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Vinayak
>> 
>>