Re: [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07.txt

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Sun, 04 November 2018 05:59 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 B62CF130DE5; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 22:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTx6uJNi0gsa; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 22:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4889130DD7; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 22:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:67c:1232:144:15ff:1721:48c:5f2c] (port=59993) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1gJBR8-00084j-F1; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 05:59:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <afd8ed81-aa1c-07f6-3e12-b28a8a26661f@netlab.tkk.fi>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 12:58:54 +0700
Cc: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria@ietf.org, "rmcat@ietf.org WG" <rmcat@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <275471D3-A0FE-484E-896E-31F5AB6AFB72@csperkins.org>
References: <152520102721.24767.12952595432840747794@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4BAE605-587F-4546-96E5-0C13310A289D@csperkins.org> <88FA7E60-241E-4DF8-A233-688961BCB6E9@csperkins.org> <B12D2E22-12A7-4FCA-B892-32FCE7C18263@csperkins.org> <afd8ed81-aa1c-07f6-3e12-b28a8a26661f@netlab.tkk.fi>
To: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cmcgT3R0?= <jo@netlab.tkk.fi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/2rVN-0kWF-qI5hwmXukWP4xV7n4>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07.txt
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 05:59:16 -0000

Hi Jörg,

Thanks – some replies inline.
Colin




> On 3 Nov 2018, at 00:01, Joerg Ott <jo@netlab.tkk.fi> wrote:
> 
> Hi Colin,
> 
> thanks much for the comments.  Finally, a first (not yet complete) stab
> at this:
> 
>>  * Section 3 begins “Each experiment is expected to…” but the draft
>>    hasn’t yet introduced the idea that there are some experiments that
>>    need to be completed.
> 
> Added a some context intro.
> 
>>  * Rather than talk about “RMCAT proposals”, “RMCAT flows”, etc.,
>>    discuss “proposed RTP congestion control algorithms”, “congestion
>>    controlled RTP flows”, and so on. The RFC will live longer than the
>>    RMCAT working group.
> 
> Fixed throughout the draft.
> 
>>  * Section 3: bullet 10 should be rephrased for clarity.
> 
> Bullet 10 is the editor’s note?

Right – it looks like a to-do note, so needs to be rephrased as something that reads like a complete point, or removed.

>>  * Does Section 3.1 need to describe the precise format, or just
>>    the information to be logged? Does it matter that the file is CSV
>>    format?
> 
> I'd say it simplifies running comparisons in the end and avoids parsing
> errors, but I don't feel strongly here.  Any format would do.

Maybe just add that as explanation?

>>  * Section 4.1: The introductory text only talks about high latency
>>    links, then gives examples covering a range of latencies. Expands
>>    remarks “, as well as low-latency links”
> 
> Done.
> 
>>  * Section 4.2: might be appropriate to add some motivating remarks.
> 
> Done.
> 
>>  * Section 4.3: add some remarks to motivate drop-tail?
> 
> This begs a broader discussion now that some time has passed since the
> initial version of this draft.  Should we include AQM models (such as
> CoDel or variants thereof) as well?

The eval-test draft mentions CoDel and PIE as things you’re encouraged to test with, but doesn’t look to focus on them. I’d say that’s likely the right way to approach this: encourage, but not require, experimentation with AQM.

>>  * Section 4.5.3: clarify if this recommended distribution applies to
>>    both sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2.
> 
> Only 4.5.2 is mandatory.  The same distribution could be applied to
> both jitter models.  Not sure how much we need to say explicitly.

I was envisaging “Whether Random Bounded PDV or Approximately Random Subject to No-Reordering Bounded PDV, it is recommended that z(n) is…”

>>  * Section 6.1: first paragraph ends mid-sentence.
> 
> Done.
> 
> An interesting question is if DASH-style flows should be considered, too.

Testing against DASH-style traffic is certainly worthwhile. Is it included in eval-test too? Should it be?

> Should we specify TCP congestion control?  E.g., CUBIC?

It’s widely deployed, so seems like a reasonable default. Ideally, we’d encourage testing against a range of congestion control algorithms.

>>  * Section 6.3: is it worth mentioning that QUIC flows use UDP, but
>>    are expected to have dynamics that look a lot like TCP, so don’t
>>    need to be explicitly included here?
> 
> Added a note here.  Should we anticipate future divergence from TCP
> behavior?

As in future versions of QUIC might do something different, and if they do it’s important to test against them? Sure, doesn’t hurt to add a note.

>>  * Section 7: security needs to be discussed. Maybe point out
>>    denial-of-service issues due to lack of congestion control, or
>>    denial-of-service on the congestion controlled flow due to spoofing
>>    of control signals, and state that the candidate algorithms should
>>    consider. The only specific security issue I can think of the these
>>    criteria is checking that the algorithm works as expected in these
>>    cases.
> 
> This remains tbd.  Maybe we can have a quick chat next week.

Ok.

>>  * Please spell-check the draft.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Will submit as soon as the I-D tool allows this again (read: on the
> weekend, even if this means a short-term expiry of the draft.
> 
> Jörg
> 
>>> On 20 Jun 2018, at 10:46, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org <mailto:csp@csperkins.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is to announce a working group last call on “Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media” (draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07).
>>> 
>>> Please send any final comments to the working group mailing list and the authors by 20 July 2018 (the date of the RMCAT session at IETF 102). If no substantive comments are received by that time, we intend to submit this draft to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC.
>>> 
>>> Colin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 2 May 2018, at 11:52, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org <mailto:csp@csperkins.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Jörg – thanks for updating this draft!
>>>> 
>>>> Any comments from the group before we progress this?
>>>> 
>>>> Colin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 1 May 2018, at 19:57, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org <mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>>> This draft is a work item of the RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques WG of the IETF.
>>>>> 
>>>>>      Title           : Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media
>>>>>      Authors         : Varun Singh
>>>>>                        Joerg Ott
>>>>>                        Stefan Holmer
>>>>> Filename        : draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07.txt
>>>>> Pages           : 16
>>>>> Date            : 2018-05-01
>>>>> 
>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>> The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in
>>>>> telephony and video conferencing applications.  This document
>>>>> describes the guidelines to evaluate new congestion control
>>>>> algorithms for interactive point-to-point real-time media.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria/
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07
>>>>> 
>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Colin Perkins
>>>> https://csperkins.org/
>>> 
>> -- 
>> Colin Perkins
>> https://csperkins.org/



-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/