Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-18
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-03-03
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-01-18
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-01-13
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2016-11-15
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2016-11-13
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2016-09-19
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from AUTH48 |
2016-09-16
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-09-06
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-08-19
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-08-19
|
18 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-08-19
|
18 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-08-18
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2016-08-18
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-08-18
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-08-18
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-08-18
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-08-18
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-08-18
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-08-18
|
18 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-08-18
|
18 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-08-18
|
18 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-18.txt |
2016-07-20
|
17 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-07-20
|
17 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-17.txt |
2016-06-17
|
16 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-06-13
|
16 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Thanks for address my discuss! Thanks for all the work and discussion! Final comment/question: Should reference [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker] should be normative? |
2016-06-13
|
16 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2016-06-13
|
16 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. --- (1) Did the WG discuss BCP status for this rather than PS? (2) Section 4.3: "If … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. --- (1) Did the WG discuss BCP status for this rather than PS? (2) Section 4.3: "If such a reduction in sending rate resolves the congestion problem, the sender MAY gradually increase the rate at which it sends data after a reasonable amount of time has passed, provided it takes care not to cause the problem to recur ("reasonable" is intentionally not defined here)." In later sections you explain that thresholds are not specified because they are application-dependent. I think that would be useful to note here too as the reason for not defining "reasonable," assuming that is the reason. |
2016-06-13
|
16 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2016-06-13
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-06-13
|
16 | Colin Perkins | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2016-06-13
|
16 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16.txt |
2016-05-05
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-05-04
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] scott bradner performed the opsdir review |
2016-05-04
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-05-04
|
15 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-05-04
|
15 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-05-04
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-05-04
|
15 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-05-04
|
15 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-05-03
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-05-03
|
15 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-05-03
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I just have a nit and a random query... - nit: The abstract says "It is expected that future standards-track congestion control algorithms … [Ballot comment] I just have a nit and a random query... - nit: The abstract says "It is expected that future standards-track congestion control algorithms for RTP will operate within the envelope defined by this memo." That seems both unwise and unlikely to work to me. Unwise in that you're trying to control the future which seems like it'll just generate heat and not light, and unlikely to work since it's not clear to me that any CC scheme can take into account circuit breaker constants configured on a node that may not be known anywhere else. I'd say better would be to say that we hope that future CC algorithms will be consistent with this and leave it at that. However, if that sentence is the product of a bunch of haggling then it's probably better to leave it as-is and I'll just hold my nose a bit;-) (Same sentence is in the intro - same comment.) - query: Assuming people have implemented some or all of this, I wondered if it'd be a good idea to document some of the ways in which those implementations went wrong, i.e. bugs already fixed, especially if there were any that'd result in the circuit not being broken when it ought be. But that's probably too late or better done in some other document for now, so feel free to ignore me. |
2016-05-03
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-05-03
|
15 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-05-03
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot discuss] This is about one point in section 7 (ECN) that I think is wrong but I would like to get some feedback from … [Ballot discuss] This is about one point in section 7 (ECN) that I think is wrong but I would like to get some feedback from the authors: "then ECN-CE marked packets SHOULD be treated as if they were lost when calculating if the congestion- based RTP circuit breaker" (also section 5: "The count of ECN-CE marked packets contained in those ECN feedback reports is counted towards the number of lost packets reported") We are currently discussion mechanisms where the AQM in the congested network node sends much more CE markings than one would see loss (when using TCP) for the same level of congestion. When treating ECN-CE similar to loss, such a different behavior could trigger the circuit breaker unnecessarily. Potentially ECN-CE might not need to be considered here at all, because as long as there are (only) ECN-CE marks (and no loss) all data is transmitted correctly to the receiver and therefore there is no need to trigger a circuit breaker. Further also in section 7: "ECN-CE marked packets SHOULD be treated as if they were lost for the purposes of congestion control" This document should not impose any SHOULDs for congestion control as this doc is only about circuit breaker sand therefore the sentence above should be removed. |
2016-05-03
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Few more minor comments: 1) reference [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker] should be normative 2) How is the loss rate in 4.3 calculated if some … [Ballot comment] Few more minor comments: 1) reference [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker] should be normative 2) How is the loss rate in 4.3 calculated if some (but no all) RR are lost? 3) I don't think that most of the text on congestion control in section 2 (as well as the abstract) is necessary for this doc (but it also don't really hurt) |
2016-05-03
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-05-02
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] (1) Did the WG discuss BCP status for this rather than PS? (2) Section 4.3: "If such a reduction in sending … [Ballot comment] (1) Did the WG discuss BCP status for this rather than PS? (2) Section 4.3: "If such a reduction in sending rate resolves the congestion problem, the sender MAY gradually increase the rate at which it sends data after a reasonable amount of time has passed, provided it takes care not to cause the problem to recur ("reasonable" is intentionally not defined here)." In later sections you explain that thresholds are not specified because they are application-dependent. I think that would be useful to note here too as the reason for not defining "reasonable," assuming that is the reason. |
2016-05-02
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot comment text updated for Alissa Cooper |
2016-05-02
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot discuss] Many thanks for this work. I expect to ballot YES once we discuss and resolve the issue below. In Section 4.5, I understand … [Ballot discuss] Many thanks for this work. I expect to ballot YES once we discuss and resolve the issue below. In Section 4.5, I understand the need to base the re-start of the media flow on a human user intervention, but I find it puzzling that this is framed in terms of "restarting the call" rather than "restarting the flow." The recommendation in Section 8 is that senders MUST treat each session independently, but ending/restarting "the call" seems to assume that multiple flows will be treated together. One situation I'm thinking of is one where my audio and video traffic are in separate RTP flows and are routed along different paths for whatever reason. Some network problem is encountered in the video path, triggering a circuit breaker. The "call" doesn't necessarily need to be terminated and re-started, because my audio can continue just fine. This is another case where the application may not want to rely on a human user re-start (if you leave it up to me whether to re-start my video, I'll certainly try to re-start it right away). I think the text in this section needs to be re-phrased to separate the case where a circuit breaker triggering on a single 3-tuple causes a whole call to end (either because the call consisted of a single flow or because all of the flows were encountering congestion and it takes just one circuit breaker to trigger the end of it) from cases where it causes only that flow to be suspended, and reference Section 8 to make it clear that the unit of operation for "ceasing" and "re-starting" is a single flow unless the sender chooses to group flows. Furthermore (and this is not a DISCUSS point but I leave it here since it follows from the points above), the normative recommendation in the first paragraph here doesn't really follow from the discussion of restarting the call. The recommendation is not to automatically re-start until indications are received that congestion has improved, which is different from waiting until a human user re-starts. I think this would be clearer if the normative recommendation came first and the human user case was discussed afterward. |
2016-05-02
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] "If such a reduction in sending rate resolves the congestion problem, the sender MAY gradually increase the rate at which … [Ballot comment] "If such a reduction in sending rate resolves the congestion problem, the sender MAY gradually increase the rate at which it sends data after a reasonable amount of time has passed, provided it takes care not to cause the problem to recur ("reasonable" is intentionally not defined here)." In later sections you explain that thresholds are not specified because they are application-dependent. I think that would be useful to note here too as the reason for not defining "reasonable," assuming that is the reason. |
2016-05-02
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-04-30
|
15 | Colin Perkins | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2016-04-30
|
15 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-15.txt |
2016-04-26
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working with me on my Discuss. |
2016-04-26
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Spencer Dawkins has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2016-04-19
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot discuss] I really like this specification, and have two questions I'd like to understand before balloting YES ... I'm looking at this text: 4.5. … [Ballot discuss] I really like this specification, and have two questions I'd like to understand before balloting YES ... I'm looking at this text: 4.5. Ceasing Transmission What it means to cease transmission depends on the application. The intention is that the application will stop sending RTP data packets to a particular destination 3-tuple (transport protocol, destination port, IP address), until the user makes an explicit attempt to restart the call. It is important that a human user is involved in the decision to try to restart the call, since that user will eventually give up if the calls repeatedly trigger the circuit breaker. This will help avoid problems with automatic redial systems from congesting the network. Accordingly, RTP flows halted by the circuit breaker SHOULD NOT be restarted automatically unless the ^^^^^^^^^^ sender has received information that the congestion has dissipated, or can reasonably be expected to have dissipated. and trying to understand why this is not MUST NOT. I'm trying to reconcile this with the RFC 2119 definition of SHOULD NOT, which is 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label. Could you help me understand when automatic restarts might be "acceptable or even useful"? Reading on, I'm wondering if this text is anticipating It is recognised that the RTP implementation in some systems might not be able to determine if a call set-up request was initiated by a human user, or automatically by some scripted higher-level component of the system. but definitely want to understand what you're thinking here. I have a similar question about this text ECN-CE marked packets SHOULD be treated as if it were lost for the purposes of congestion control, when determining the optimal media sending rate for an RTP flow. If an RTP sender has negotiated ECN support for an RTP session, and has successfully initiated ECN use on the path to the receiver [RFC6679], then ECN-CE marked packets SHOULD ^^^^^^ be treated as if they were lost when calculating if the congestion- based RTP circuit breaker (Section 4.3) has been met. Could you help me understand why an implementation wouldn't do this? |
2016-04-19
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-03-29
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-03-29
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-05-05 |
2016-03-29
|
14 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-03-29
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Ballot has been issued |
2016-03-29
|
14 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-03-29
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-03-29
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-03-17
|
14 | Colin Perkins | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2016-03-17
|
14 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-14.txt |
2016-03-15
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Scott Bradner. |
2016-03-10
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom. |
2016-03-09
|
13 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2016-03-09
|
13 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2016-03-09
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-02-29
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-02-29
|
13 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-02-27
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2016-02-27
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2016-02-25
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2016-02-25
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2016-02-25
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2016-02-25
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2016-02-24
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-02-24
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document: - 'Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-03-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is widely used in telephony, video conferencing, and telepresence applications. Such applications are often run on best-effort UDP/IP networks. If congestion control is not implemented in the applications, then network congestion will deteriorate the user's multimedia experience. This acts as a safety measure to prevent starvation of network resources denying other flows from access to the Internet, such measures are essential for an Internet that is heterogeneous and for traffic that is hard to predict in advance. This document does not propose a congestion control algorithm; instead, it defines a minimal set of RTP circuit- breakers. Circuit-breakers are conditions under which an RTP sender needs to stop transmitting media data in order to protect the network from excessive congestion. It is expected that, in the absence of severe congestion, all RTP applications running on best-effort IP networks will be able to run without triggering these circuit breakers. Any future RTP congestion control specification will be expected to operate within the constraints defined by these circuit breakers. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-02-24
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-02-24
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Last call was requested |
2016-02-24
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-02-24
|
13 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-02-24
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-02-24
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-02-24
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-02-24
|
13 | Ben Campbell | This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13. While I do have some comments and questions, I don't think anything here needs to block IETF last … This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13. While I do have some comments and questions, I don't think anything here needs to block IETF last call. Please address these along with any other last call feedback. Substantive =========== -4, third paragraph, sentence starting with "This approach SHOULD NOT be used..." Does this mean that, in addition to the fact that non-RTCP peers shouldn’t be on the network in the first place, a circuit-breaker implementation shouldn’t talk to them even if they are? That is, even if the peer has a "good reason" (in an RFC 2119 sense) to violate that SHOULD, circuit-breaker implementations should ostracize it? :-) -4.2, last paragraph, sentence starting with "In this case" Does this imply that the SHOULD only applies if the sender has reason to believe that the SR or RR packets will be too large? or should the sender always behave this way? How does this relate to the guidance (MAY) in section 8? - 4.3, 6th paragraph:"Implementations that desire this extra sensitivity MAY use the full TCP throughput equation in the RTP circuit breaker. " Is there potential for the extra sensitivity to do harm (beyond the higher calculation complexity)? -4.4, 2nd to last paragraph, last sentence: Is there any potential guidance on reasonable lower limits to the time period considered "significant"? - 12.2: It seems like the following references might should be normative: I-D.ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker, RFC3168, RFC6679 Editorial ========= - Abstract s/"will deteriorate"/"will cause the deterioration of" -- "This acts as a safety measure..." What is the antecedent for “this”? Congestion control? The deterioration? (Also, this sentence contains a comma splice) - 1: A very short definition of what we mean by "circuit breaker" might be useful. - 3: It's a little odd to find 2119 keywords imbedded in term definitions. You might consider moving those to procedure sections. (OTOH, it may not be worth changing this late in the process.) -4.2, last paragraph: What would it even mean to maintain a timeout past the end of the related stream? -4.3, -- paragraph 6: typo: s/throughout/throughput -- paragraph 9: "MUST record the value of the fraction lost field in the report block" Does this mean the field _from_ the report block? (That is, you aren't _writing_ the value in the report block?) -9, last paragraph: Is this paragraph really related to security? It sounds more like an operational consideration. |
2016-02-19
|
13 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-02-17
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard, and the draft indicates that it is intended for standards track publication. It is the appropriate as it is a normative definition of a procedure to follow. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is widely used in telephony, video conferencing, and telepresence applications. Such applications are often run on best-effort UDP/IP networks. If congestion control is not implemented in the applications, then network congestion will deteriorate the user's multimedia experience. This acts as a safety measure to prevent starvation of network resources denying other flows from access to the Internet, such measures are essential for an Internet that is heterogeneous and for traffic that is hard to predict in advance. This document does not propose a congestion control algorithm; instead, it defines a minimal set of RTP circuit- breakers. Circuit-breakers are conditions under which an RTP sender needs to stop transmitting media data in order to protect the network from excessive congestion. It is expected that, in the absence of severe congestion, all RTP applications running on best-effort IP networks will be able to run without triggering these circuit breakers. Any future RTP congestion control specification will be expected to operate within the constraints defined by these circuit breakers. Working Group Summary: The WG has been quite diligent in working on this. There has been discussion if the specification addresses the right issue, and if the perimeter behavior it establish is the appropriate one. That consensus is definitely a rough consensus. A very good number of people have commented on the specification. Document Quality: There has been significant input, including simulations both for wired and wirelless networks, the result of these simulations are referenced by the specification. Simon Perreault at JIVE did a trial deployment in their service. All of this has helped improving the solution and its definition significantly and helped verifying the behavior of the circuit breakers. Personnel: Magnus Westerlund is the document shepherd. Responsible AD is Ben Campbell (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The WG shepherd has reviewed the document several times during the development of the document. While doing the shepherds writeup the shepherd has checked the I-D checklist against the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Not really, there where some hope that someone would perform updated simulations with the latest changes to the algorithm, that has unfortunately not happen. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No such need deemed necessary. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns exists. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, they have. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure have beeen filed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is a strong consensus with a good number of people involved. The WG last call was also cross posted to both RTCWEB and RMCAT to ensure both a direct consumer and the people involved in the congestion control algorithm deployment that will be restricted has gotten opportunity to review the WG output prior to requesting publication. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No ID nits found. The ID nite tool do report on possible pre-5378 work. That is because this document updates one aspect of RFC 3550, in regards to round-robin reporting in RTCP when there are many SSRCs to report on to ensure that the circuit breaker gets the most appropriate information. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal review criteria exists. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No, all are published documents. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward normative references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document does not change the status of any document, but updates RFC 3550 in one minor aspect. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document only defines a procedure to follow. It does not define new protocol fields, nor any extension points. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new IANA registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. There are no formal language used. |
2016-02-17
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | Responsible AD changed to Ben Campbell |
2016-02-17
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2016-02-17
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-02-17
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-02-17
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-02-17
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-02-17
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | Changed document writeup |
2016-02-17
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | Changed document writeup |
2016-02-10
|
13 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13.txt |
2016-02-09
|
12 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-12.txt |
2015-12-11
|
11 | Magnus Westerlund | Concludes on 16th December 2015 |
2015-12-11
|
11 | Magnus Westerlund | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-12-10
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2015-12-10
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2015-10-16
|
11 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-11.txt |
2015-03-23
|
10 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-10.txt |
2015-03-06
|
09 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-09.txt |
2014-12-04
|
08 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-08.txt |
2014-10-27
|
07 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-07.txt |
2014-07-04
|
06 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-06.txt |
2014-02-14
|
05 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-05.txt |
2014-01-13
|
04 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-04.txt |
2013-07-15
|
03 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-03.txt |
2013-03-12
|
02 | Magnus Westerlund | Changed shepherd to Magnus Westerlund |
2013-02-25
|
02 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-02.txt |
2012-10-22
|
01 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-01.txt |
2012-10-12
|
00 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-00.txt |