[rmcat] Comments on draft-jesup-rmcat-reqs-01
Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com> Thu, 18 April 2013 15:58 UTC
Return-Path: <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5228121F8ACD for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.213, BAYES_05=-1.11, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4olfzcaKbnj for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy1-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy1-pub.bluehost.com [66.147.249.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 72D9621F8A09 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23455 invoked by uid 0); 18 Apr 2013 15:58:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO host291.hostmonster.com) (74.220.215.91) by oproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2013 15:58:18 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=avanw.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version; bh=jEp/LfYeB0zr0bXwJbyZTya7IPV8bvTi1BbWCO/B3ao=; b=d2qY9foOQLo9EimHZAPtnCU/Epl63+23u9oEhgWGbSZJGzeGbbYKNeDhMX4SuMoa24z7teSD+tP/Q8pjGF1Pv6vQ59pZZvTOLdhY5kni6u1YpaHRZRfPx8kIA8JH2NRj;
Received: from [209.85.223.180] (port=56883 helo=mail-ie0-f180.google.com) by host291.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <kevin.gross@avanw.com>) id 1USrE2-0006CZ-Jh for rmcat@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:58:18 -0600
Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id qd14so3574350ieb.11 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=jEp/LfYeB0zr0bXwJbyZTya7IPV8bvTi1BbWCO/B3ao=; b=Qt9B5tsrZTbImgR2/I/pyFuo3DBq38kEpjHMiYhzBTuzpkesGIMefvhpYjLInaO3RW HuQ58wzB9x1T9TSd/tyrQhPrKy+S7zIca9GWRwbLFjRqnHUuvbBQXjwnG1RSciBLKhtn RQLy6lg2BbujEeuwMNsDh/GkT8f/ofKbC9Z2snILtjl6PW2ni5sXRKX2F0ggI4f3O2bW OcdyuYWLhDdih8Wurv96jVy8lUXQW4gd1fpo1nn1jV0pw8KRJk9fRexPQHpxd2HtGiwR PU+f+hgJRdI3y4guxac92XHQZcTT+F+5Iw3vQZxmye3iQ8wUiMVdqWaU9hlnUG8HEkIl bn2w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.117.3 with SMTP id ka3mr12875943igb.107.1366300697748; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.180.201 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:58:17 -0600
Message-ID: <CALw1_Q2CTSRk+-0AawOYMoWjX_twpDM+PsNf6Q7Z4voyEgk7WQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
To: rmcat WG <rmcat@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01175f6dbeea7f04daa4ab2b"
X-Identified-User: {1416:host291.hostmonster.com:avanwcom:avanw.com} {sentby:smtp auth 209.85.223.180 authed with kevin.gross@avanw.com}
Subject: [rmcat] Comments on draft-jesup-rmcat-reqs-01
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmcat>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:58:42 -0000
I've been on a few airplanes recently and have had some quality time with RMCAT drafts and my red pen. I do think that improving the existing adopted drafts (and creating new ones) will be the best way to make progress on this project. Abstract Reverse first two clauses to avoid immediately raising people's hairs: s/Congestion control is needed for all data transported across the Internet, in order to promote fair usage and prevent congestion collapse./In order to promote fair usage and prevent congestion collapse, congestion control is needed for all data transported across the Internet./ s/which needs by low-delay/which needs low-delay/ "Evaluation" is the domain of draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval: s/used to evaluate/used to assess/ s/in order to figure out/in order to determine/ Section 1 (Introduction) Need to mention where the congestion control algorithm will operate: in network equipment, in end stations, both? Section 2 Point 2B. This paragraph is a placeholder and should be recast as an editor's note so that it is clear that we we don't intend to publish like this. Have we made any progress defining fairness? Point 3 claims that managing multiple streams as one flow improves performance This benefit is not obvious to me and should be justified. s/The algorithm should where possible merge information/The algorithm should, where possible, merge information/ Point 5B advocates violating RFC 3550. This is a controversial and arguably unnecessary proposal. Point 5F claims that backchannel data should be minimized. This surely cannot not be a blanket recommendation as there are systems with ample bandwidth in the reverse direction. Increasing backchannel data may be preferable to the alternatives such as FEC for achieving reliability. Point 10A or 10B should discuss starting with a potentially unreasonably high offered rate. This invites congestion collapse but is probably the fastest way to determine bottleneck bandwidth. Point 10B needs to specify what the "other problems" are. Point 11 s/local-lan (WiFi/etc)/local (LAN, WiFi, etc.)/ Point 11 add a reference for LEDBAT Point 12 add a reference for (VAD/DTX). Here's a crappy one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discontinuous_transmission Additional requirements to consider adding to section 2: Efficiently use available link bandwidth. Don't leave link idle unnecessarily. Don't degrade goodput significantly. Add list of contention scenarios we brainstormed at IETF86: 0/ Single flow 1/ Competing with other interactive multimedia flows 2/ Competing with long-lived TCP 3/ Competing with bursty TCP (web browser) 4/ Competing with ledbat or bittorrent 5/ Competing with unresponsive flows (no congestion or flow control, not necessarily CBR) Kevin Gross +1-303-447-0517 Media Network Consultant AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.avanw.com/>, www.X192.org
- [rmcat] Comments on draft-jesup-rmcat-reqs-01 Kevin Gross
- Re: [rmcat] Comments on draft-jesup-rmcat-reqs-01 Randell Jesup