Re: [rmcat] comments RMCAT app interactions draft
Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com> Wed, 22 October 2014 08:02 UTC
Return-Path: <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC781A8AF0 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 6aq2m7Frn8hX for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BCA91A8AE5 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id k14so3048997wgh.7 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tieto.com; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:thread-index:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=vjnOl3Ikebgp1OA10HavwQm706/bq1EVs7vRpItfAgw=; b=IiNPG1DeS7gQXjB00yo+31D0UvafgggaazaMzauWZ+SN+qDPqwQ/8u3/X7Ofy8P1wy lreDtjri0CZYRZHDYqZ2n707V/jja/FL5wWlE/xm8RIZtWnQ6VVbdQoLpp/mZDn8WiUN XlzBdmRCIS8VbHkcIBXD0NLyXW4EBbRiYzgrE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=vjnOl3Ikebgp1OA10HavwQm706/bq1EVs7vRpItfAgw=; b=f75kyxxujoAyCyHiuW8Mo7YMY6Sn4YaL/EsEn4IK9p2aBP/oVMbCOiZ50zjPvsCzAp x0o8f2oI5OoTXifMbipPqIh+eXSKptsYqtV6hjgaG6nViSv36iJ38lta/fBXZ49MDat3 zzmEOZVJ4yTl2gmM/mVvdpyMNNvChz/hAAsBGerL/ITd50p6WGNuv/e0VNB2J+FOgtn8 dIVN8Q0hbht78t0x4WPxYUTHVNPPdaHgNU/wOosPnpjDMEh2DLZeSc3trVTVcyH7ud76 TZXSaj86z9oW8wrffTExJ1sPSzwYOjtEZKmQjfWWgVAOPYXl8TqjyxJoUdokxYz5cFWE eb+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkqNpwU1fwJTAXgzi9norUpf9rMSw89zWuUpwisGQYuh7uG17yrROf0aSuRKygcp5wiiDMnbIN81bRvxx8t2qltqxaqdLXrzoJ6rkPLYO6JhwcAoJk=
X-Received: by 10.181.28.7 with SMTP id jk7mr8308053wid.14.1413964968968; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
References: <c638cd1c41f135b5997f6e16d7a642bf@mail.gmail.com> <D06CB387.3C1BC%mzanaty@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D06CB387.3C1BC%mzanaty@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIPttdCH2SJ02MV/3/Cp3GymEJhPgICN2BBm6wWB2A=
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:02:47 +0200
Message-ID: <dc4c77d97e0a8b94f079581604c6e406@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11364c1cb37bb40505fe5f03"
X-DomainID: tieto.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/7XHAF98Hpe6-jmiCpcu47h9owGc
Cc: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, draft-ietf-rmcat-app-interaction@tools.ietf.org, rmcat WG <rmcat@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] comments RMCAT app interactions draft
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:02:57 -0000
Hi Mo, all Please find follow up below. BR, Karen *From:* Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) [mailto:mzanaty@cisco.com] *Sent:* 22. oktober 2014 09:01 *To:* Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen *Cc:* Mirja Kühlewind; Eggert, Lars; draft-ietf-rmcat-app-interaction@tools.ietf.org *Subject:* Re: comments RMCAT app interactions draft Hi Karen, Thank you for the comments. Adding co-authors to review my responses (see Mo: inline) and provide their own as well. Feel free to include the list as well if you think the discussion should be wider. Best regards, Mo On 10/21/14, 12:06 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen < karen.nielsen@tieto.com> wrote: Hi Mo, Please accept the below comments to the present draft. Having been made aware, however, of the discussion about the draft scope and contents at IETF89 (Mirja made me aware – J), then some of the comments below may actually not be so useful. I.e., some parts may go away in consistency with the comments given to this effect at IETF89. Please see other email on this. BR, Karen Comments: Usage of term “OS”: (multiple places) In the document UDP and IP functions are consistently quoted as being OS functions. In user mode UDP/IP stack solutions this is not the case, meaning that here the UDP (or IP) layer does not reside more in OS space than the application layer does. I understand that kernel OS UDP/IP stack solutions are widely deployed but also User mode stack solutions exists and are getting some momentum in these years for some of the same reasons that implementation of transport layer in user mode has momentum. Would it be relevant to at least make the note in the document that the UDP/IP layer may not actually be part of the OS. Or alternatively completely remove all notions of the OS in the document as it wherever used seems to refer to UDP/IP stack functions. Mo: I agree user-space network stacks should be included. “OS” was not intended to exclude them or only encompass the kernel (although most network stacks are in kernel space in most OS’es). *[Karen] User mode network stack solutions do not invoke the OS IP stack (typically in OS kernel) but instead uses the OS as an HW abstraction layer in which to execute the user mode stack. But this is a very minor issue in the context of this doc.* How about if we just clarify in the initial definition of OS that this encompasses user-space network stacks as well as traditional kernel stacks? I’m hesitant to replace OS with UDP/IP stack in case we want to describe other interactions, like interface-level traffic shaping which may be a lower layer than UDP/IP functions. I guess we could go with “network stack” though, if that is preferred over OS. *[Karen] Either way would works fine for me. * Then potentially most of the OS and UDP/IP aspects of this document may actually be removed – except for the overall setting of context which I think is nice and beneficial. Mo: Nothing was intended as pure context with no relevant interactions to describe. If we remove the interactions (5.6), it probably makes sense to remove the component completely. *[Karen] Setting the context of a function is generally very valuable even if not all parts/components are in scope of the work (RFC). But let’s see what others think . References (e.g. [Singh12]) of course also can serve for architectural context.* Also I agree with the comment given by Lars at IETF89 that most of the described interaction in-between the UDP/IP and the CC likely would be handled in the CC and the interface for the relation in between CC and UDP/IP would be described in each CC algorithm proposals. Mo: Yes, in most cases things like pacing/shaping for a single flow would be done by the CC. But, as mentioned in 5.6, interface-level traffic shaping may also be used (for local bottlenecks) if supported by the OS. *(The network stack solution ;-).* The text can probably be clearer on this, if we agree it is a worthwhile thing to retain. I’m aware of implementations that do this, but they are fairly rare, so I’m fine with omitting such interactions if we want to simplify the draft. However, I think we should at least retain the ECN and DSCP parts of the CC-UDP/IP interactions in 5.6. *[Karen] I think this would depend on to which extend these CC – network stack interactions are described in the CC algorithm proposals themselves.* *It would be good to have comments from the CC designers on this.* Section 4: Would it be right to clarify that the looser model in [Singh12] corresponds to the model in figure 2. Mo: Yes, will do. Section 5.4: Allowed rate: I know that it is merely an example. Still the one second example sounds like a bit of a long time compared to TCP CC which operates on an RTT granularity basis. Mo: Agreed. There is really no need for the example, so it can be removed. FEC: The FEC may influences the sensitivity towards certain network impairments (potentially to be communicated to CC) but that such sensitivity would stem from FEC would not be exposed as the interface. Or would it ? Mo: I think you’re right. FEC is just a consideration when exposing Loss Tolerance which is the real interface. Folding the FEC consideration into the Loss Tolerance part would be clearer. The same about the probing: If FEC is run, probing may be done in particular manner, but it would not necessarily be exposed on the interface between codec and CC. Or would it ? Mo: Perhaps Varun or Lars can comment on FEC probing since they wrote a draft on it. ;) We should decide which is a better model, to have FEC coupled with CC so the Allowed Rate only includes media and only increases after successful probing, or have FEC coupled with the Codec (or RTP) but invisible to CC so the Allowed Rate includes FEC and increases speculatively (so the Codec/RTP must cautiously apply FEC upon speculative increases signaled by the CC). The draft currently does the latter, but I’m open to changing this. Section 5.5: I wonder if the following should not be a requirement for the RMCAT CC, and go into that document, rather than be stated as something to handle at the interface in between RTP and RMCAT CC: RTP Circuit Breakers: The intent behind RTP circuit breakers [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers] is to provide a kill switch of last resort, not true congestion control. The breakers should never trip when an effective congestion control is operating. This may impose some boundaries on RMCAT solutions to ensure the congestion control never approaches situations which may trigger the breakers. Mo: Yes, it is more a requirement for no interaction! We can remove it unless/until we discover some specific quantifiable boundaries that would be dynamically imposed on the CC. *[Karen] I think that we should have this be lifted into the requirements doc.* Section 5.7: I wonder if the context here does not belong to the Coupled CC work ? Mo: This section is really just a stub to acknowledge that interface may exist and point to the Coupled CC draft for details. *[Karen] Ok. We see were we end exactly in terms of scope of this doc: App* *ß**à** CC interaction only or interactions generally between the various components.*
- Re: [rmcat] comments RMCAT app interactions draft Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen