Re: [rmcat] Request for comment/input for draft-zhu-rmcat-framework-00

"Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <> Tue, 24 January 2017 04:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3AF129567 for <>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:37:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DwidH0C9M3dc for <>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 121E1126CD8 for <>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:37:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=10111; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485232672; x=1486442272; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=kys8KahLRzG2zUG9Te8hogmoEyg0oKzXcFVOyf6aSZA=; b=GJdcrQFAWLLrs0OK1Ep8ZiJM+6VINND2+szNUUWoueg3tZvXYBp9Q8um H8vPU2Z3RA2DXtp/bPR+eD9n44AJ3FdfnOw0vrTm4EREb9q+ArNsXxqQ0 Ejui3fP9eecBkcAORfqHyZ0C0J1S/mMALEqHjdQ7wlQpLkXqROZe8IbBz 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,277,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="197272173"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Jan 2017 04:37:51 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0O4bpNr010931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:37:51 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 22:37:50 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 22:37:50 -0600
From: "Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <>
To: Roni Even <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Request for comment/input for draft-zhu-rmcat-framework-00
Thread-Index: AQHSapCH1smqw6/hP0eXQO2yKEpKBqE/nTEwgAeBDWY=
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:37:50 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_148523267011771585ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Varun Singh <>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] Request for comment/input for draft-zhu-rmcat-framework-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:37:55 -0000

Hi Roni,

Thanks for reading the draft and providing your input.   You are right that to a resource management algorithm is needed to decide which flow get how much portion of the aggregate BW calculated by the network congestion controller.  Currently, my intention is for the "Rate Controller" to host that algorithm.  Will add some text to clarify on this part.

An example of the shared states would be the set of "flow state information" mentioned in the coupled-cc draft (, such as priority, current flow rate, etc.  I'll add a reference to the coupled-cc draft to help make this concept more concrete.



From: Roni Even <>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:57 AM
To: Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu);
Cc: Varun Singh
Subject: RE: Request for comment/input for draft-zhu-rmcat-framework-00


I read the document and have a question about the multiple streams case.  Figure 2 adds the shared states module.  The text say
"The Rate Controller divides up the aggregate estimated bandwidth (1) from the Network Congestion Controller amongst sub-streams based on their relative priority levels, Shared States, as well as current occupancy level of the Transmission Queue."
I am not sure what the shared state is but definitely in order to divide the bandwidth there is a need to know the required bw for each of the video streams (as a number or information about the encoding parameters like codec, resolution,...) this is a resource management algorithm that is needed here.

Roni Even

From: rmcat [] On Behalf Of Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
Sent: ??? ? 09 ????? 2017 18:54
Cc: Varun Singh
Subject: [rmcat] Request for comment/input for draft-zhu-rmcat-framework-00

Hi everyone,

This draft has just expired and Zahed and I do plan to revive it soon. Currently we have on our "edit-to-address" list only some questions raised by Varun from IETF-96 (Berlin) regarding RTP taxonomy.  Varun has graciously agreed to provide some specific comments as follow-up, so we are waiting for those (thanks ahead Varun).

In the meantime, I would like to poll the mailing list to collect further review comments on this draft.  Please let us know what other issues you'd like us to address.