Test Cases for Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-Time Media
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-07-23
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-07-20
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-06-05
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2020-06-01
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2020-03-25
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2019-08-26
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Zitao Wang was marked no-response |
2019-05-30
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2019-05-30
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-05-30
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2019-05-30
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-05-30
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-05-30
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-05-30
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2019-05-30
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-05-30
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-05-30
|
10 | Mirja Kühlewind | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2019-05-23
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-10.txt |
2019-05-23
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-23
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, Varun Singh , Zaheduzzaman Sarker , Michael Ramalho , Xiaoqing Zhu |
2019-05-23
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-07
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-03-07
|
09 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] We don't really explain the usage of the "variation pattern index" that I can see. Section 3 + Bottleneck-link … [Ballot comment] We don't really explain the usage of the "variation pattern index" that I can see. Section 3 + Bottleneck-link capacity: defines minimum capacity of the end-to-end path I'm not sure I'd describe this as the "minimum capacity of the end-to-end path", since attempts to use anything larger than this value will pile up at the bottleneck. Section 5.6, 5.7 Do we want anyone to consider testing with alternative TCP congestion control algorithms? Section 6.1 If you're not going to reference what scheme is used for implementing priority, say how these priority values are interpreted. Section 6.2 nit: "delay-based" (hyphenated) Section 6.3 Expected behavior: The candidate algorithm is expected to achieve full utilization at both bottleneck links without starving any of the I'm not sure how we can get "full utilization" at both bottlenecks, when the links in question have different capacity ratios. Section 11.2 Some of these may need to be normative references; e.g., if we require default TCP congestion control (RFC5681) for the competing TCP flows, then it's mandatory. |
2019-03-07
|
09 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-03-07
|
09 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2019-03-06
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Section 1: s/controlled environment/controlled environments/ With the above change, I think the document is clear enough about where these tests should be run. |
2019-03-06
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-03-06
|
09 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the work on this document. I have only one minor nit to call out. ID Nits reports: ** The document … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the work on this document. I have only one minor nit to call out. ID Nits reports: ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 458: '...didate proposals MAY show the effectiv...' |
2019-03-06
|
09 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-03-06
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-03-06
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list. |
2019-03-06
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-03-06
|
09 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-03-05
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I share the Gen-ART reviewer's discomfort about the weak language in the security considerations section, but will leave it to the responsible AD … [Ballot comment] I share the Gen-ART reviewer's discomfort about the weak language in the security considerations section, but will leave it to the responsible AD to do the right thing. |
2019-03-05
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2019-03-05
|
09 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-02-28
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2019-02-19
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-02-14
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2019-02-14
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2019-02-12
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Zitao Wang |
2019-02-12
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Zitao Wang |
2019-02-12
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-03-07 |
2019-02-12
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-02-12
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot has been issued |
2019-02-12
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-02-12
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-02-12
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-02-11
|
09 | Sheng Jiang | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Sheng Jiang was rejected |
2019-02-11
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-02-10
|
09 | Joseph Salowey | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey. Sent review to list. |
2019-02-08
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2019-02-08
|
09 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-09.txt |
2019-02-08
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-08
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, Varun Singh , Zaheduzzaman Sarker , Michael Ramalho , Xiaoqing Zhu |
2019-02-08
|
09 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-07
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | Closed request for Last Call review by TSVART with state 'Withdrawn' |
2019-02-05
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
2019-02-05
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
2019-02-04
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list. |
2019-02-04
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-02-04
|
08 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry 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, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-01-31
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2019-01-31
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2019-01-31
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2019-01-31
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2019-01-30
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Jana Iyengar |
2019-01-30
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Jana Iyengar |
2019-01-28
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-01-28
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-02-11): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test@ietf.org, Colin Perkins , rmcat@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-02-11): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test@ietf.org, Colin Perkins , rmcat@ietf.org, ietf@kuehlewind.net, csp@csperkins.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques WG (rmcat) to consider the following document: - 'Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals' as Informational RFC 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 2019-02-11. 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 used to transmit media in multimedia telephony applications. These applications are typically required to implement congestion control. This document describes the test cases to be used in the performance evaluation of such congestion control algorithms in a controlled environment. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2019-01-28
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-01-28
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | Last call was requested |
2019-01-28
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-01-28
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-01-28
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2019-01-28
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-12-11
|
08 | Colin Perkins | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2018-12-11
|
08 | Colin Perkins | > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > > Changes are expected over time. … > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > > Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. > > (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? Informational. This was chosen because the draft describes test cases for evaluation of congestion control algorithm candidates but doesn't specify an algorithm or protocol in itself. As such, there is no requirement that it be standards track or BCP. This is indicated in the title page header. > (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 > > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. This document describes test cases that can be used for performance evaluation of the congestion control algorithms being developed by the RMCAT working group. These are suitable for laboratory experiments, in a controlled testbed environment, and are intended to demonstrate the basic suitability of the algorithms. They will complement, but do not replace, real-world testing. > Working Group Summary > > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? WG determined that draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria was getting unwieldy and over-long, and decided to split the test cases out into a separate draft. This was done at IETF 89, with the result being adopted as WG item at IETF 90. Steady discussion since then, gradually accumulating test cases as the candidate congestion control algorithm, and the WGs experiences with them, have developed. No particular controversies. > Document Quality > > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? The draft has been carefully reviewed by the WG, including by the implementers of the candidate congestion control algorithms, and has received extensive input based on evaluation experience. The test cases presented represent a good consensus from the WG about what is needed for basic evaluation of the algorithms. No MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other expert review needed or undertaken. > Personnel > > Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area > Director? The document shepherd is Colin Perkins. The responsible AD is Mirja Kuehlewind. > (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 shepherd carefully reviewed the draft for WG last call in July 2018, and has ensured that the minor issues raised, and those raised by others in the WG, have been addressed. Draft was discussed at IETF 103, and it was agreed that issues were resolved. A short WG last on the list to confirm has just concluded. > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. > (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 review needed. > (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. > (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. Each author has confirmed this. > (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 has been 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 solid consensus. No objections have no raised. > (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.) There is no such discontent. > (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this > document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts > Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be > thorough. The idnits tools reports a few instances of overly long lines. They are due to figures that are indented too far from the left margin, and will be fixed when the RFC Editor processes the document. The idnits tool also reports missing references, but inspection shows this is due to a limitation of the tool that's interpreting the range [300ms, 1000ms] as two document references. > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such review needed. > (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? There are normative references to the following: - draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria has completed WG last call, and is waiting on the authors to resolve minor issues. I expect it to be ready to advance in the next few weeks. - draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model is with the IESG - draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests is complete, and scheduled to go to WG last call once this draft, draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria, and draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model have completed WG last call. > (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. No such status changes are made. > (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). No IANA actions are needed. > (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 IANA actions are needed. > (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. No use of such formal languages. The WG has seen implementations of the various test cases included in the draft, however, and we have confidence that they are reasonable. |
2018-12-11
|
08 | Colin Perkins | Responsible AD changed to Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-12-11
|
08 | Colin Perkins | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2018-12-11
|
08 | Colin Perkins | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-12-11
|
08 | Colin Perkins | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-12-11
|
08 | Colin Perkins | Changed document writeup |
2018-12-10
|
08 | Colin Perkins | Notification list changed to Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> |
2018-12-10
|
08 | Colin Perkins | Document shepherd changed to Colin Perkins |
2018-12-10
|
08 | Colin Perkins | WG last call concluded. No issues. |
2018-12-10
|
08 | Colin Perkins | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2018-12-10
|
08 | Colin Perkins | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2018-11-26
|
08 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-08.txt |
2018-11-26
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-26
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, Varun Singh , Zaheduzzaman Sarker , Michael Ramalho , Xiaoqing Zhu |
2018-11-26
|
08 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-23
|
07 | Anna Brunstrom | Added to session: IETF-103: rmcat Thu-1120 |
2018-10-22
|
07 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-07.txt |
2018-10-22
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-22
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, Varun Singh , Zaheduzzaman Sarker , Michael Ramalho , Xiaoqing Zhu |
2018-10-22
|
07 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-27
|
06 | Anna Brunstrom | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-06-21
|
06 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-06.txt |
2018-06-21
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-21
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, Varun Singh , Zaheduzzaman Sarker , Michael Ramalho , Xiaoqing Zhu |
2018-06-21
|
06 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-30
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-04-28
|
05 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-05.txt |
2017-04-28
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-28
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, Varun Singh , Zaheduzzaman Sarker , Michael Ramalho , Xiaoqing Zhu |
2017-04-28
|
05 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-24
|
04 | Colin Perkins | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2016-10-26
|
04 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-04.txt |
2016-10-26
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-26
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Varun Singh" , rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, "Zaheduzzaman Sarker" , "Michael Ramalho" , "Xiaoqing Zhu" |
2016-10-26
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-11
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-03-10
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-03.txt |
2015-09-08
|
02 | Xiaoqing Zhu | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-02.txt |
2015-03-09
|
01 | Varun Singh | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-01.txt |
2014-10-22
|
00 | karen Nielsen | This document now replaces draft-sarker-rmcat-eval-test instead of None |
2014-08-14
|
00 | Varun Singh | New version available: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-00.txt |