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

[Joerg Ott <[e-mail]>]

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?

>   * 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.

>   * 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?

>   * 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.

>   * Section 6.1: first paragraph ends mid-sentence.

Done.

An interesting question is if DASH-style flows should be considered, too.

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

>   * 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?

>   * 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.

>   * 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 <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jörg – thanks for updating this draft!
>>>
>>> Any comments from the group before we progress this?
>>>
>>> Colin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 1 May 2018, at 19:57, [e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> 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/
> 
> 
> 
>