Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media
draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (rmcat WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2015-10-14
(latest revision 2014-12-12)
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-jesup-rmcat-reqs
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
Informational
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
html
bibtex
|
|
Reviews |
|
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
Submitted to IESG for Publication
(wg milestones:
Dec 2012 - Adopt first WG draf...,
Aug 2017 - Submit requirements ...
)
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
Mirja Kühlewind
|
|
Shepherd write-up |
|
Show
(last changed 2014-11-13)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
RFC Ed Queue
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Yes
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
Spencer Dawkins
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
| IANA |
IANA review state |
|
Version Changed - Review Needed
|
|
IANA action state |
|
No IC
|
| RFC Editor |
RFC Editor state |
|
MISSREF |
Network Working Group R. Jesup
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Intended status: Informational Z. Sarker, Ed.
Expires: June 15, 2015 Ericsson
December 12, 2014
Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media
draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09
Abstract
Congestion control is needed for all data transported across the
Internet, in order to promote fair usage and prevent congestion
collapse. The requirements for interactive, point-to-point real-time
multimedia, which needs low-delay, semi-reliable data delivery, are
different from the requirements for bulk transfer like FTP or bursty
transfers like Web pages. Due to an increasing amount of RTP-based
real-time media traffic on the Internet (e.g. with the introduction
of the Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC)), it is especially
important to ensure that this kind of traffic is congestion
controlled.
This document describes a set of requirements that can be used to
evaluate other congestion control mechanisms in order to figure out
their fitness for this purpose, and in particular to provide a set of
possible requirements for real-time media congestion avoidance
technique.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The terms are presented in many cases using lowercase for
readability.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Jesup & Sarker Expires June 15, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTP Media Congestion Control Requirements December 2014
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 15, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Deficiencies of existing mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
Most of today's TCP congestion control schemes were developed with a
focus on an use of the Internet for reliable bulk transfer of non-
time-critical data, such as transfer of large files. They have also
been used successfully to govern the reliable transfer of smaller
chunks of data in as short a time as possible, such as when fetching
Web pages.
These algorithms have also been used for transfer of media streams
that are viewed in a non-interactive manner, such as "streaming"
video, where having the data ready when the viewer wants it is
important, but the exact timing of the delivery is not.
Show full document text