draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10.txt		draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-11.txt
	RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques D. Hayes, Ed.		RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques D. Hayes, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Simula Research Laboratory		Internet-Draft Simula Research Laboratory
	Intended status: Experimental S. Ferlin		Intended status: Experimental S. Ferlin
	Expires: August 20, 2018		Expires: September 30, 2018
	M. Welzl		M. Welzl
	K. Hiorth		K. Hiorth
	University of Oslo		University of Oslo
	February 16, 2018		March 29, 2018
	Shared Bottleneck Detection for Coupled Congestion Control for RTP		Shared Bottleneck Detection for Coupled Congestion Control for RTP
	Media.		Media.
	draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10		draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-11
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes a mechanism to detect whether end-to-end data		This document describes a mechanism to detect whether end-to-end data
	flows share a common bottleneck. It relies on summary statistics		flows share a common bottleneck. It relies on summary statistics
	that are calculated based on continuous measurements and used as		that are calculated based on continuous measurements and used as
	input to a grouping algorithm that runs wherever the knowledge is		input to a grouping algorithm that runs wherever the knowledge is
	needed.		needed.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 3, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 42 ¶
	The current Internet is unable to explicitly inform endpoints as to		The current Internet is unable to explicitly inform endpoints as to
	which flows share bottlenecks, so endpoints need to infer this from		which flows share bottlenecks, so endpoints need to infer this from
	whatever information is available to them. The mechanism described		whatever information is available to them. The mechanism described
	here currently utilizes packet loss and packet delay, but is not		here currently utilizes packet loss and packet delay, but is not
	restricted to these. As ECN becomes more prevalent it too will		restricted to these. As ECN becomes more prevalent it too will
	become a valuable base signal.		become a valuable base signal.
	1.2.1. Packet Loss		1.2.1. Packet Loss
	Packet loss is often a relatively rare signal. Therefore, on its own		Packet loss is often a relatively infrequent indication that a flow
	it is of limited use for SBD, however, it is a valuable supplementary		traverses a bottleneck. Therefore, on its own it is of limited use
	measure when it is more prevalent.		for SBD, however, it is a valuable supplementary measure when it is
			more prevalent (refer to [RFC2680] section 2.5 for measuring packet
			loss).
	1.2.2. Packet Delay		1.2.2. Packet Delay
	End-to-end delay measurements include noise from every device along		End-to-end delay measurements include noise from every device along
	the path in addition to the delay perturbation at the bottleneck		the path in addition to the delay perturbation at the bottleneck
	device. The noise is often significantly increased if the round-trip		device. The noise is often significantly increased if the round-trip
	time is used. The cleanest signal is obtained by using One-Way-Delay		time is used. The cleanest signal is obtained by using One-Way-Delay
	(OWD).		(OWD) (refer to [RFC7679] section 3 for a definition of OWD).
	Measuring absolute OWD is difficult since it requires both the sender		Measuring absolute OWD is difficult since it requires both the sender
	and receiver clocks to be synchronized. However, since the		and receiver clocks to be synchronized. However, since the
	statistics being collected are relative to the mean OWD, a relative		statistics being collected are relative to the mean OWD, a relative
	OWD measurement is sufficient. Clock skew is not usually significant		OWD measurement is sufficient. Clock skew is not usually significant
	over the time intervals used by this SBD mechanism (see [RFC6817] A.2		over the time intervals used by this SBD mechanism (see [RFC6817] A.2
	for a discussion on clock skew and OWD measurements). However, in		for a discussion on clock skew and OWD measurements). However, in
	circumstances where it is significant, Section 5.2 outlines a way of		circumstances where it is significant, Section 5.2 outlines a way of
	adjusting the calculations to cater for it.		adjusting the calculations to cater for it.
	skipping to change at page 21, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 21, line 37 ¶
	for coupled congestion control as described in		for coupled congestion control as described in
	[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc], the security considerations of		[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc], the security considerations of
	[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc] apply.		[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc] apply.
	10. Change history		10. Change history
	XX RFC ED - PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION XXX		XX RFC ED - PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION XXX
	Changes made to this document:		Changes made to this document:
			WG-10->WG-11 : Genart review addressed.
	WG-09->WG-10 : AD review addressed.		WG-09->WG-10 : AD review addressed.
	WG-08->WG-09 : Removed definitions that are no longer used. Added		WG-08->WG-09 : Removed definitions that are no longer used. Added
	pkt_loss definition. Refined c_s recommendation.		pkt_loss definition. Refined c_s recommendation.
	WG-07->WG-08 : Updates addressing https://www.ietf.org/mail-		WG-07->WG-08 : Updates addressing https://www.ietf.org/mail-
	archive/web/rmcat/current/msg01671.html Mainly		archive/web/rmcat/current/msg01671.html Mainly
	clarifications.		clarifications.
	WG-06->WG-07 : Updates addressing		WG-06->WG-07 : Updates addressing
	skipping to change at page 23, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 23, line 31 ¶
	Hayes, D., Ferlin, S., and M. Welzl, "Practical Passive		Hayes, D., Ferlin, S., and M. Welzl, "Practical Passive
	Shared Bottleneck Detection using Shape Summary		Shared Bottleneck Detection using Shape Summary
	Statistics", Proc. the IEEE Local Computer Networks		Statistics", Proc. the IEEE Local Computer Networks
	(LCN) pp150-158, September 2014,		(LCN) pp150-158, September 2014,
	<http://heim.ifi.uio.no/davihay/		<http://heim.ifi.uio.no/davihay/
	hayes14__pract_passiv_shared_bottl_detec-abstract.html>.		hayes14__pract_passiv_shared_bottl_detec-abstract.html>.
	[I-D.ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message]		[I-D.ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message]
	Sarker, Z., Perkins, C., Singh, V., and M. Ramalho, "RTP		Sarker, Z., Perkins, C., Singh, V., and M. Ramalho, "RTP
	Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control",		Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control",
	draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-00 (work in		draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-01 (work in
	progress), October 2017.		progress), March 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc]		[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc]
	Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion		Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion
	control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-07		control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-07
	(work in progress), September 2017.		(work in progress), September 2017.
			[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
			Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>.
	[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.		[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
	Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time		Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
	Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,		Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
	July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.		July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
	[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,		[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
	"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control		"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
	Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,		Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.
	skipping to change at page 24, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 24, line 21 ¶
	[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for		[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
	Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback		Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
	(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February		(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February
	2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5124>.		2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5124>.
	[RFC6817] Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., Iyengar, J., and M. Kuehlewind,		[RFC6817] Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., Iyengar, J., and M. Kuehlewind,
	"Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)", RFC 6817,		"Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)", RFC 6817,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6817, December 2012,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6817, December 2012,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6817>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6817>.
			[RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
			Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
			(IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
			2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[Zhang-Infocom02]		[Zhang-Infocom02]
	Zhang, L., Liu, Z., and H. Xia, "Clock synchronization		Zhang, L., Liu, Z., and H. Xia, "Clock synchronization
	algorithms for network measurements", Proc. the IEEE		algorithms for network measurements", Proc. the IEEE
	International Conference on Computer Communications		International Conference on Computer Communications
	(INFOCOM) pp160-169, September 2002,		(INFOCOM) pp160-169, September 2002,
	<http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.2002.1019257>.		<http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.2002.1019257>.
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	10 lines changed or deleted		24 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/