Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model-06
"Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com> Fri, 22 February 2019 04:25 UTC
Return-Path: <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1101286D8; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 20:25:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, 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=h09FwdQR; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=EU47PBR5
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 CHZ7iueM-DON; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 20:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DC0A1275F3; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 20:25:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6356; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1550809508; x=1552019108; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=8XUI0DyJefVMdwGUwzckbDPwfk/O4K0J39W2EVIFT40=; b=h09FwdQR0vMypHscOsyTZfmJOFQvzULOA8a+YX61ra860+hcMhyRJKrO DKqEcA2eK13jokTPTcKzQZXMIErVoppGJf+rd0MJ0p6X28RJu6TFy7BHX aPrp/wmlklm5XtxRfm0a18Iz6eLKXfubGsgfr2AogHjeext15ae6nE8MJ 0=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:ggQKFRyGgMruEBXXCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9psgjfdUf7+++4j5YhWN/u1j2VnOW4iTq+lJjebbqejBYSQB+t7A1RJKa5lQT1kAgMQSkRYnBZuVCET8NezqcgQxHd9JUxlu+HToeUU=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AnAADqeG9c/51dJa1lHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBUQcBAQsBgTBQA4FbBAsnhAeDRwOEUIsNgjKYQ4EkA1QLAQEshEAZg2MiNAkNAQMBAQIBAQJtHAyFSwYjEQwBATcBEQEIDgIKAhkNAgQwFRIEAQ0FgyCBWwMVAaEAAooUcYEvgngBAQWFCRiCCwiBC4s9F4FAP4E4DBOCFzWEWyaDCTGCJoloUJkdCQKSXBIHgXGFWotAihovkgcCBAIEBQINAQEFgUc4gVZwFTsqAYJBghyDbopTcoEojBeCTAEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,398,1544486400"; d="scan'208";a="519260205"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Feb 2019 04:25:06 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x1M4P6lh002977 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:25:06 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 22:25:05 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 22:25:05 -0600
Received: from NAM05-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 22:25:05 -0600
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=8XUI0DyJefVMdwGUwzckbDPwfk/O4K0J39W2EVIFT40=; b=EU47PBR5XTDrUfRDPvO9y0GfXGiFCrrPZt6P5Bw6abSxZdR9HBnN6LmgX0uFE2ww2goLCL6ZHODAXIIoRecXw1ZgPkJZ2W8QphgNVFqjG5h1dZN9HhmwFXjNsf5Xk8hvCOeC9+i093szF5FteUIVukfLKRdD4QGaYKXurs7ue+Q=
Received: from CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.70.138) by CY4PR11MB1861.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.61.135) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1643.15; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:25:03 +0000
Received: from CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d540:fdd4:ed72:856b]) by CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d540:fdd4:ed72:856b%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1643.014; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:25:03 +0000
From: "Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>
CC: "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model-06
Thread-Index: AQHUymaU1ssPJHlSTkCMl6TyDMnRNg==
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:25:03 +0000
Message-ID: <ED374517-5FE2-4283-82D3-D8E05AE49062@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.16.1.190220
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=xiaoqzhu@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0cc:1003::16]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d29163cd-6db9-4cac-aef6-08d6987db794
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600110)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:CY4PR11MB1861;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR11MB1861:
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;CY4PR11MB1861;23: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
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY4PR11MB1861AF983AF1862CED9A7983C97F0@CY4PR11MB1861.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 09565527D6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(376002)(396003)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(2906002)(33656002)(81166006)(81156014)(58126008)(316002)(6512007)(97736004)(14454004)(106356001)(6116002)(6486002)(8676002)(486006)(6436002)(25786009)(54906003)(110136005)(71200400001)(83716004)(71190400001)(476003)(229853002)(68736007)(8936002)(5660300002)(105586002)(2501003)(86362001)(2616005)(36756003)(99286004)(66574012)(6506007)(46003)(7736002)(4326008)(102836004)(478600001)(305945005)(82746002)(256004)(186003)(14444005)(6246003)(53936002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR11MB1861; 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: 3mLlFSY+Zhu9Ve9Fmwd8nBRsxF/89dh/TjnZCBC7mQlGBtsBg8gGwZKaxgN4LcuNHOqYXFMai6wU7YVarnngEwQVB2vzaxZztl/6udV2ToAo61v81svWSsetRtR4Uv1VQNFvZDdLQ0gBttkMmMtrAydgVW7F4d0b14GtrIts5NGIZm7/TfmLkYe/tgfqEhtu/N3WC1bc+1ZwvTflBLihrMBRM/z2ivUERxMr1ieL87fH+XDgTcHRpwbckNGdNJQ4la44cAOe1lGkKuraCmwhVCQzYk4EocGERbkAcNgR95AK43gUTehDwqpLsxqGDsxfniDZ582yGVN7U7ID0k/QTELHZO+BPnhP2Rahcrj8KmLOAys2mCGfuv2sjdtTAJbejQ3inW3H8Pr0Oi2PnidwO/DNyXQuKb7YCupB9GbiNf8=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <162A022195651F4A83A86E98D211BB05@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d29163cd-6db9-4cac-aef6-08d6987db794
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Feb 2019 04:25:03.7151 (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-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR11MB1861
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/ycEb_0TWpmcXzuiMx9asqiPXNr4>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model-06
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:25:11 -0000
Hi Tommy, Thanks a lot for reviewing our draft and providing your input. We've recently updated the draft to version -07. Please find inline below (tagged [XZ]) on how we tried to incorporate your comments. Any further thoughts are always welcome! Thanks, Xiaoqing (on behalf of all authors) On 2/1/19, 11:54 AM, "Tommy Pauly" <tpauly@apple.com> wrote: Reviewer: Tommy Pauly Review result: Ready This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. Document: draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model-06 This document is clearly written and provides useful guidance on how to model live video traffic for the purpose of evaluating congestion control algorithms. The document is clear in its goal of not defining new protocols or congestion control algorithms. As such, it does not pose any transport protocol or algorithm concerns. While I agree with the Security Area Directorate's review that the content of "Security Considerations" does not seem to apply to security directly, there is precedent for putting warnings to avoid congestion collapse into the Security Considerations sections (see RFC 5681 as an example). I am happy to see this text either remain in security considerations or move to a new section, potentially earlier in the document to emphasize the importance of using realistic models for evaluating congestion control. [XZ] Thanks for raising this concern, which is also shared by a few other reviewers. In the new version we've revised the text in the Security Considerations section as below, so as to clarify that the draft itself does not impose security concerns. Instead, the models described herein can be used for evaluating candidate algorithms to prevent them from hurting the Internet: "The synthetic video traffic models as described in this draft do not impose any security threats. They are designed to mimic realistic traffic patterns for evaluating candidate RTP-based congestion control algorithms, so as to ensure stable operations of the network. It is RECOMMENDED that candidate algorithms be tested using the video traffic models presented in this draft before wide deployment over the Internet. If the generated synthetic traffic flows are sent over the Internet, they also need to be congestion controlled." Very minor editorial nits: - R_v is described first in Section 4 as the "target rate request", but unlike most of the other definitions there is not given a unit. Later, Section 5 shows that an example value is "1 Mbps". It is clear that this is a "bitrate" as referred elsewhere in the document, but it may be clearer to describe this as the "target bitrate request", or similar. A similar comment would apply to R_o, as defined in Section 5.2. [XZ] Good catch. The new version (-07) now refers to R_v and R_o as “bitrate”. We also explicitly mention the unit (bit-per-second) when first introducing these variables. - In Section 6.1, the document states that "it has been empirically determined that a sequence with a length between 2 and 4 minutes strikes a fair tradeoff [between short and long sample times]." The lower bound on the length of a sample is determined by avoiding "obvious periodic patterns" in the model; while the upper bound is determined by the ability of the system or model to efficiently store the sampled data. It seems that the lower bound here is a stricter limit, and the upper bound may change in the future or in other test setups depending on the capabilities of the testing system. To that end, it may be equally useful and more future-proof to state that "it has been empirically determined that a sequence 2 to 4 minutes in length sufficiently avoids the periodic pattern." [XZ] Very nice point on making the draft future proof. The text has been updated as suggested in version -07.
- [Tsv-art] Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-rm… Tommy Pauly
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart telechat review of draft-iet… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart telechat review of draft-iet… Tommy Pauly