Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06
"Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com> Mon, 01 July 2019 18:26 UTC
Return-Path: <xiaoqzhu@cisco.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 232D612069E for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 11:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=cXw7dQ0w; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=E6QWTuak
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 cbl6bVOkodJx for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 11:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E956120106 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 11:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12568; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562005595; x=1563215195; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=bdox2HXKufIX8kYv6TAkeGtOh+1A4BM2OQeoQ8gjoJQ=; b=cXw7dQ0w1MMnK4AxpJV52NtomxEYFRwZ+XzT7LS9B/IprIc5EnBkuq+U 0QebaoXXkProIch1+muH0UMjsXFKR4dNv2wMz+aYmkFmCEvpiEh5yC1t2 ARcNbYOZwDbh5e/8ZDKUdO+q3fecFCAvOaQWxoSm2Y2j31PRgo+sshJrH k=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:33E0QRM+3d6jwrOVt8sl6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEu6w/l0fHCIPc7f8My/HbtaztQyQh2d6AqzhDFf4ETBoZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBjrLfftdj46AexJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ANAAB1Txpd/5pdJa1kGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBVAQBAQEBCwGBQ1ADalUgBAsUFIQdg0cDjl2CNiWXRIEugSQDVAkBAQEMAQEjCgIBAYRAAheCayM1CA4BAwEBBAEBAgEFbYo3DIVLAQEBAxIRBA0MAQElBwsBDwIBCBgCAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FIoMAAYFqAx0BDpoEAoE4iGBxfzOCeQEBBYE2AoNUGIIRAwaBDCgBi14XgUA/gREnDBOCTD6BSYEYAQEDgTcHAQEeF4JzMoImi25ED4FyL5tRCQKCFoZThGmIPhuCK4cbhAyKF45ghgmPagIEAgQFAg4BAQWBUgE1gVhwFTsqAYJBgUl4DBeDToUUhT9ygSmLXw8XgiwBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,440,1557187200"; d="scan'208";a="584327465"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 01 Jul 2019 18:26:34 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (xch-rcd-020.cisco.com [173.37.102.30]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x61IQYxD010147 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Jul 2019 18:26:34 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (173.37.102.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 13:26:33 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:26:32 -0400
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:26:32 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=testarcselector01; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=sFkEFiMBpSw71pA7z+97+y63DilvlaiVU/ovbYArKUhzVbWqZkSdRYhn/wdkIzCqZjDrk3brXoRY7/ZXCxOtS9mRCmwy3fHgSVkV8aA7Wxd7ceDL0O8naiHAoWVWPcwUPp7UCws86kr2KJ9GK8jSkKeHVv506/lToNHJcefAi3M=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=testarcselector01; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=bdox2HXKufIX8kYv6TAkeGtOh+1A4BM2OQeoQ8gjoJQ=; b=qmdw0FTaw8g+Oo/YlitPYwTdTYLFEgNaPgFXT3SIBU10Tnf/l9zm9SzrZM3OE3hZdoAqWnW/DA4ExoUzeMqDuTaMqgQlJJqeM658jOVn5jpkigGKkQmJEnVzHKNInVWsuyeSpdzit9A1CfoGkH+OksenS3N4YvK+f12ZbM8vrnQ=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; test.office365.com 1;spf=none;dmarc=none;dkim=none;arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=bdox2HXKufIX8kYv6TAkeGtOh+1A4BM2OQeoQ8gjoJQ=; b=E6QWTuakbsSYnonfIaApBEY3QWyZ9bXdl1dHyqjn2z/k3X+TR62Aj2IFndcfxF4mV7UYITRkI6GK4X5huBy5gZKeTcjFOjR0itdZTIrHOYMwZIazTdNkJmBOKJ2pBHRSMLy0RBTD2h26MpWumvO6APTaXMw0gHBzq291g7tmIWY=
Received: from CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.72.140) by CY4PR11MB1253.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.173.16.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2008.16; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 18:26:31 +0000
Received: from CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::24f3:4bc5:1eb9:44df]) by CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::24f3:4bc5:1eb9:44df%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2032.019; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 18:26:31 +0000
From: "Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com>
To: "Sergio Mena de la Cruz (semena)" <semena@cisco.com>
CC: "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "Dan Tan (dtan2)" <dtan2@cisco.com>, "Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <mramalho@cisco.com>, "Jeromy Fu (jianfu)" <jianfu@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06
Thread-Index: AQHUrGBiH/nkUgM8YUGWCdSkTH5FLKXTAeUAgOPGUAA=
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 18:26:30 +0000
Message-ID: <9DAA8BC1-62E3-4044-9E72-F23CE5448ABE@cisco.com>
References: <E6617C54-2372-4915-97D0-50200571B790@csperkins.org> <63ddb8a7-d0fc-f20e-1e66-8be13cc2395d@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <63ddb8a7-d0fc-f20e-1e66-8be13cc2395d@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1a.0.190609
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=xiaoqzhu@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0cc:1005::fe]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 792eba69-7458-4ab0-e391-08d6fe51a3bd
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:CY4PR11MB1253;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR11MB1253:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY4PR11MB1253A4951B265F206BE618A8C9F90@CY4PR11MB1253.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 00851CA28B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(346002)(396003)(136003)(189003)(199004)(51914003)(14454004)(446003)(2616005)(99286004)(476003)(25786009)(11346002)(6636002)(229853002)(7736002)(966005)(305945005)(4326008)(46003)(6486002)(6436002)(68736007)(71200400001)(71190400001)(8936002)(6246003)(6116002)(33656002)(36756003)(81156014)(81166006)(486006)(316002)(8676002)(6862004)(478600001)(107886003)(76176011)(5660300002)(53936002)(66446008)(64756008)(73956011)(76116006)(91956017)(66556008)(66476007)(66946007)(102836004)(66574012)(2906002)(58126008)(6306002)(86362001)(37006003)(6506007)(186003)(53546011)(6512007)(256004)(54906003)(14444005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR11MB1253; H:CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: s4SI3pzGv1nQ2R9MwUoTi6IY4Y1HchS0/T45CHRkSW8VdMgxXRhemyH0eSP26e1p1L0eCSaCyFaouOhg31sBnyU8/deEqGc6wFNrj95gz0JikYPQFXnPiH6dZ3Dkibf/yC/Yxtsp36nhE9wELM0WpGzaP7jaoN0XBYrS/xIffEjQNcnjkNprBPkhbUdmRdzt5ugLdfIKMEE2F4aaGaGNTbj2k7fS+qFlx3wwhdoABY+FyWZm7SfcOukMAOr4mOFuHQnKsIyE3eTMO1cYaBgouqT/Y0HemoboQerUe1Jy9MNHYIp8+Qo2WY/u8C0R+3qxeevszId8/3vEdSUDFgL+rtH+GwYcO/LCKRHru7xIZdfjYhKd9DpWCNc088TOnFu9hymMfDyfYkM3UJJxURyBlTghzQtStO3An/2+stj8tBY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EAEC85EACF209143A0EAC008E5799224@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 792eba69-7458-4ab0-e391-08d6fe51a3bd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Jul 2019 18:26:31.0459 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: xiaoqzhu@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR11MB1253
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.30, xch-rcd-020.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/RivKIAr7zijbNLaZeBTsRNJmleM>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06
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: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 18:26:39 -0000
Hi Sergio, Thanks again for your valuable review for the draft. We finally got a chance to update the draft to version -07 so as to incorporate your comments. Apologies for the long wait! https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-07 Please find below inline detailed responses (tagged [Authors]). And, of course, any further comments or discussions are very welcome. Cheers, Xiaoqing (on behalf of all authors) On 2/6/19, 9:06 AM, "rmcat on behalf of Sergio Mena" <rmcat-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of semena@cisco.com> wrote: RMCAT working group, This is my review of draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06. I realize my review comes a few days after the deadline. Sorry about that. Hopefully it's not too late. I have structured my feedback in three parts: minor/editorial comments, "less minor" comments, and general comments. * General comments. - Although I had some (fairly minor) suggestions on the particular setup of test cases, I understand it is too late for that, as the draft is quite mature and several teams have already implemented the TCs as they are described, so this review doesn't attempt to re-discuss the values/topologies chosen for the test cases. - Wifi6. The document does not make any reference to Wifi6. I am aware of the fact the the standard is not yet finalized, but I think the announced innovations (in particular OFDMA, and the increased scheduling flexibility it mail entail) would justify at least a general mention. My suggestion is that page 11 could be a good place to introduce such a reference. Section 4.3 is another good spot. [Authors] Thanks for the great suggestion. Sec. 4 is now revised as follows. Note that we've also updated the statistics for 11ac and 11n to catch up on their evolution over time. Unless otherwise mentioned, test cases in this section are described using the underlying PHY- and MAC-layer parameters based on the IEEE 802.11n Standard. Statistics collected from enterprise Wi-Fi networks show that the two dominant physical modes are 802.11n and 802.11ac, accounting for 41% and 58% of connected devices. As Wi-Fi standards evolve over time, for instance, with the introduction of the emerging Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) products, the PHY- and MAC-layer test case specifications need to be updated accordingly to reflect such changes. ... All test cases described below can be carried out using simulations, e.g. based on [ns-2] or [ns-3]. When feasible, it is also encouraged to perform testbed-based evaluations using Wi-Fi access points and endpoints running up-to-date IEEE 802.11 protocols, such as 802.11ac and the emerging Wi-Fi 6, to verify the viability of the candidate schemes. * "less minor" - Page 6. Section 3.1.1. Please do not define the bandwidth as "infinite". That is problematic in a simulation. Rather, choose a big enough value (e.g., 10 Gbps) that is big enough so that it will not produce any congestion. [Authors] Thanks for raising this point. The text in that section is now revised as: ... The fixed user is connected to the Internet via wired connection with sufficiently high bandwidth, for instance, 10 Gbps, so that the system is resource-limited on the wireless interface. - Page 10. Last bullet. I would use the expression "non-congestion related losses" in this bullet, to be consistent with the cellular section. [Authors] We've discussed offline regarding this topic. In order to describe the nature of packet losses over Wi-Fi more accurately, the wording in the 3rd bullet point of Sec. 4 has been revised to: * Packet transmissions over Wi-Fi are susceptible to contentions and collisions over the air. Consequently, traffic load beyond a certain utilization level over a Wi-Fi network can introduce frequent collisions over the air and significant network overhead, as well as packet drops due to buffer overflow at the transmitters. This, in turn, leads to excessive delay, retransmissions, packet losses and lower effective bandwidth for applications. Note, however, that the consequent delay and loss patterns caused by collisions are qualitatively different from those induced by congestion over a wired connection. - Page 11. Last paragraph. I wonder why the cellular section recommends or suggests that the tests should be carried out only in a simulator, whereas the WiFi section recommends to also run some "evaluation" in a real testbed. [Authors] Thanks for raising this important issue. Even though it is possible to carry out tests over LTE (and 5G) networks, and actually it is already done so today, these tests cannot in the general case be carried out in a deterministic fashion or to ensure repeatability, as these network are in the control of cellular operators and there can various amounts of competing traffic in the same cell(s). In practice, it is only in underground mines that one can carry out near deterministic testing. Even there, it is not guaranteed either as workers in the mines carry with them their iPhones and Androids. Also, the underground mining setting may not reflect typical usage patterns of a urban setting. [Authors] The main reason for the lack of suggestion for testbed-based evaluations for cellular in the draft is out of the above concerns of practical feasibility, whereas Wi-Fi equipment is relatively lower cost to acquire and setup. Based on the reviewer comments, we've revised the discussion in this paragraph (Sec. 4) to tune down the level of recommendation for testbed-based Wi-Fi evaluations to "encourage": All test cases described below can be carried out using simulations, e.g. based on [ns-2] or [ns-3]. When feasible, it is also encouraged to perform testbed-based evaluations using Wi-Fi access points and endpoints running up-to-date IEEE 802.11 protocols, such as 802.11ac and the emerging Wi-Fi 6, to verify the viability of the candidate schemes. - Page 16. "Congestion control" bullet includes the acronym [TBD]. Does it mean "to be decided"? If it does, what is the decision? BTW, why aren't TCP flows used in the cellular TCs (or did I miss them?) [Authors] Good catch. This was indeed a "to-be-decided" reminder to the editors. We've updated the reference for the default congestion control scheme of TCP to [RFC5681] so as to align with the eval-test draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-10, see Sec. 5.6 and 5.7). The draft now specifies background FTP traffic over TCP (using default congestion control per RFC5681) in both Sections 3.1 and 3.2 for cellular test cases. * minor/editorial - Abstract. "These applications are typically required to implement congestion control". Grammar is correct, but somewhat ambiguous on what requires what. Suggestion: "A congestion control algorithm is typically required by these applications" - Page 4. 1st paragraph. "Besides, there are certain characteristics which make the cellular network different and challenging than other types of access network such as Wi-Fi and wired network”. Please fix grammar near the word "than". - Page 5. "The key factors to define test cases for cellular network are" should read either "for a cellular network", or "for cellular networks". There are other occurrences of this further down in the text - Page 6. In my opinion, "there should be enough amount of time" could be shortened to "there should be enough time" - Page 8. "intercity" --> "intensity" (?) - Page 11. First paragraph "singal" --> "signal" - Page 11. "Throughout this draft". I would rather say "Throughout the 'WiFi networks' section" or "Throughout this section" something similar, to avoid confusion with the cellular section - Page 12. 1st paragraph. "set up" --> "setup" - All over. Search and replace: "traffics" --> "traffic" - All over. Search and replace "followings" --> "following" [Authors] Thanks for identifying all these nits via your "minor/editorial" comments. The draft has been updated accordingly. I hope this will help improve the quality of the text. Sergio On 15/01/19 00:24, Colin Perkins wrote: > This is to announce a working group last call on the “Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real-Time Media over Wireless Networks” (draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06). > > Please send any final comments to the working group mailing list and the authors by 1 February 2019. 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 > (as WG co-chair) > > > > >
- [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-te… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Sergio Mena
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Sergio Mena
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)