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

Joerg Ott <jo@netlab.tkk.fi> Fri, 02 November 2018 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jo@netlab.tkk.fi>
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 BE02012EB11; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 10:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 T02jSbpHqcW5; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 10:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from roundabout.aalto.fi (roundabout.aalto.fi [130.233.222.87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2818129619; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 10:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out-01.aalto.fi (smtp-out-01.aalto.fi [130.233.228.120]) by roundabout.aalto.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36A0802E8; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:01:59 +0200 (EET)
Received: from smtp-out-01.aalto.fi (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Email Security Appliance) with SMTP id EF14311546A_BDC825FB; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:59:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.177]) by smtp-out-01.aalto.fi (Sophos Email Appliance) with ESMTP id 7595F115416_BDC825FF; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:59:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370821E0FF; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:01:59 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at luuri.netlab.hut.fi
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1Dmrju8-JeuZ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:01:53 +0200 (EET)
Received: from alf.local (ip-109-41-193-141.web.vodafone.de [109.41.193.141]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F1E01E03D; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:01:51 +0200 (EET)
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria@ietf.org
Cc: "rmcat@ietf.org WG" <rmcat@ietf.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>
From: Joerg Ott <jo@netlab.tkk.fi>
Message-ID: <afd8ed81-aa1c-07f6-3e12-b28a8a26661f@netlab.tkk.fi>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 18:01:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B12D2E22-12A7-4FCA-B892-32FCE7C18263@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SASI-RCODE: 200
X-SEA-Spam: Gauge=XXXXXXXXXIIIIII, Probability=96%, Report=' SXL_IP_PROXY 8, SXL_IP_DYNAMIC 3, TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODY_SIZE_5000_5999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, IN_REP_TO 0, LEGITIMATE_SIGNS 0, MSG_THREAD 0, MULTIPLE_REAL_RCPTS 0, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0, REFERENCES 0, SPF_NONE 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CC_NAME 0, __CC_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0, __CC_REAL_NAMES 0, __CP_MEDIA_BODY 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __DQ_NEG_HEUR 0, __DQ_NEG_IP 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_CC_HDR 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HIGHBITS 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __REFERENCES 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __SUBJ_REPLY 0, __TO_IN_SUBJECT2 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0, __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NOT_IMG 0, __URI_NS , __URI_WITHOUT_PATH 0, __URI_WITH_PATH 0, __USER_AGENT 0'
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/ySHdlKofyVbIIrmDTGd6itTYLF4>
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: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 17:02:09 -0000

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 <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/
> 
> 
> 
>