Skip to main content

Quality of Outcome

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Magnus Olden , Bjørn Ivar Teigen
Last updated 2023-07-10
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
IP Performance Measurement                                      M. Olden
Internet-Draft                                              B. I. Teigen
Intended status: Informational                                     Domos
Expires: 11 January 2024                                    10 July 2023

                           Quality of Outcome


   This document describes a new network quality framework named Quality
   of Outcome (QoO).  The QoO framework is unique among network quality
   frameworks in satisfying all the requirements layed out in
   "Requirements for a Network Quality Framework Useful for
   Applications, Users and Operators".

   The framework proposes a way of sampling network quality, setting
   network quality requirements and a formula for calculating the
   probability for the sampled network to satisfy network requirements.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at  Status
   information for this document may be found at

   Discussion of this document takes place on the IP Performance
   Measurement Working Group mailing list (, which
   is archived at
   Subscribe at

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at

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

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

   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 11 January 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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 (
   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Sampling requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Describing Network Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Calculating Quality of Outcome (QoO)  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Example requirements and measured latency:  . . . . . . .   8
   6.  How to find network requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  An example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Known Weaknesses and open questions . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Missing Temporal Information in Distributions.  . . . . .  11
     7.2.  Subsampling the real distribution . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.3.  Assuming Linear Relationship between Perfect and useless
           (and that it is not really a probability) . . . . . . . .  11
     7.4.  Binary Bandwidth threshold  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.5.  Low resolution on Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.6.  Arbitrary selection of percentiles: . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  qoo-c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  goresponsiveness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   "Requirements for a Network Quality Framework Useful for
   Applications, Users and Operators"
   [draft-teigen-ippm-app-quality-metric-reqs] describes a set of
   requirements for a network quality framework.  This document explores
   how the quality attenuation metric and framework [TR-452.1] can be
   extended to meet the full set of requirements.

   Quality attenuation is a network quality metric that meets the most
   of the criteria set out in the requirements; it can capture the
   probability of a network satisfying application requirements, it is
   composable, and it can be compared to a variety of application
   requirements.  The part that is yet missing is how to present quality
   attenuation results to end-users and application developers in an
   understandable way.  We believe a per-application, per application-
   type, or per-SLA approach is appropriate here.  The challenge lies in
   specifying how to simplify enough without losing too much in terms of
   precision and accuracy.

   We believe the probabilistic approach is key as the network stack and
   application's network quality adaptation can be highly complex.
   Applications and the underlying networking protocols makes separate
   optimizations based on their perceived network quality over time and
   saying something about an outcome with absolute certainty will be
   practically impossible.  We can however make educated guesses on the
   probability of outcomes.

   We propose representing network quality as minimum required
   throughput and set of latency and loss percentiles.  Application
   developers, regulatory bodies and other interested parties can
   describe network requirements in the same manner.  We propose a
   formula for a distance measure between perfect and useless quality.
   This distance measure can, with some assumptions, calculate something
   that can be simplified into statements such as “A Video Conference
   has a 93% chance of being lag free on this network” all while making
   it possible to use the framework both for end-to-end test and
   analysis from within the network.

   The work proposes a minimum viable framework, and often trades
   precision for simplicity.  The justification for this is to ensure
   adoption and usability in many different contexts such as active
   testing from applications and monitoring from network equipment.  To
   counter the loss of precision, we require some parameters that allow
   for analysis of the precision.

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

2.  Background

   The foundation of the framework is Quality Attenuation [TR-452.1].
   This work will not go into detail about how to measure Quality
   Attenuation, but some relevant techniques are:

   *  Active probing with TWAMP Light / STAMP / IRTT

   *  Varying Latency Under Load Tests

   *  Varying Speed Tests with latency measures

   *  Simulating real traffic

   *  End-to-end measurements of real traffic

   *  TCP SYN ACK / DNS Lookup RTT Capture

   *  Estimation

   Quality Attenuation represents quality measurements as distributions.
   Using Latency distributions to measure network quality is nothing new
   and has been proposed by various researchers/practitioners.  The
   novelty of the Quality Attenuation metric is to view packet loss as
   infinite (or too late to be of use e.g. > 3 seconds) latency

   Latency Distributions can be gathered via both passive monitoring and
   active testing.  The active testing can use any type of IP traffic.
   It is OSI Layer and network technology independent, meaning it can be
   gathered in an end-user application, within some network equipment,
   or anywhere in between.

   A key assumption behind the choice of latency distribution is that
   different applications and application categories fail at different
   points of the latency distribution.  Some applications, typically
   downloads, have lenient latency requirements.  Video Conferences
   typically are sensitive to high 90th percentile latency and to the
   difference between the 90th and the 99th percentile.  Online gaming
   typically has a low tolerance for high 99th percentile latency.  All
   applications require a minumum level of throughput and a maximum
   packet loss rate.  A network quality metric that aims to generalize
   network quality must take the latency distribution, throughput, and
   packet loss into consideration.

   Two distributions can be composed using convolution [TR-452.1].

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

3.  Sampling requirements

   To reach the design goal of being useful in the contexts laid out in
   "Requirements for a Network Quality Framework Useful for
   Applications, Users and Operators"
   [draft-teigen-ippm-app-quality-metric-reqs], this work imposes no
   requirement on the time period or the network loading situation.
   This choice has pros and cons.  Latency under load is extremely
   important, but average or median latency has a role too.  However, a
   network quality metric that does not take latency under load into
   account is bound to fail at predicting application outcome.

   This framework only requires a latency distribution.  If the sampling
   is done while the network is loaded, latency under load will be part
   of the distribution, which is encouraged, but is not always possible,
   for example when passively monitoring the latency of real traffic.

   It takes quite a few samples to have a statistically significant
   distribution.  Modeling a distribution may be a challenging software
   engineering task, hence we need to sample the latency distribution at
   certain percentiles.  A list of 10 percentiles in a logarithmic-esque
   fashion has already been suggested in industry [0th, 10th, 25th,
   50th, 75th, 90th, 95th, 99th, 99.9th, 100th] and seems adequate.  We
   propose to define a shared set of percentile values to report.

   The framework is flexible when it comes to the direction of traffic
   that is being sampled, but does require that it is noted whether the
   latency distribution is measured one-way or two-way.  The framework
   does not require an explicit throughput measurement, but does require
   a note on the maximal observed throughput in the time period.

   By not requiring a specific number of samples, this framework allows
   taking 10 samples and calling it a distribution, which of course is
   not ideal.  On the other hand, making the framework overly complex
   and difficult to adhere to using real-world equipment and
   applications is the best way to ensure that this framework goes
   unused.  Constraints will vary for different network equipment and

   To make sure we can trust measurements from others and analyze their
   precision, we require:

   *  Timestamp of first sample

   *  Duration of the sampling period

   *  Number of samples

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

   *  Type of measurement:

      -  Cyclic (a sample every Nth ms) - Specify N

      -  Bursts (X samples every Nth ms) - Specify X and N

      -  Passive (observing traffic and therefore unevenly sampled)

   By requiring the report of these variables, we ensure that the
   network measurements can be analyzed for precision and confidence.

4.  Describing Network Requirements

   This work builds upon the work already proposed in the Broadband
   Forum standard called Quality of Experience Delivered (QED/TR-452)
   [TR-452.1].  In essence, it describes network requirements as a list
   of percentile and latency requirement tuples.  In other words, a
   network requirement may be expressed as: The network requirement for
   this app quality level/app/app category/SLA is “at 4 Mbps, 90% of
   packets needs to arrive within 100 ms, 100% of packets needs to
   arrive within 200ms”. This list can be as simple as “100% of packets
   need to arrive within 200ms” or as long as you would like.  For the
   sake of simplicity, the requirements percentiles must match one or
   more of the percentiles defined in the measurements, i.e., one can
   set requirements at the [0th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, 95th,
   99th, 99.9th, 100th] percentiles.  The last specified percentile
   marks the acceptable packet loss.  I.e. if the 99th percentile is
   defined, and the 99.9th or 100th percentile is not, 1% packet loss
   (100-99) is inferred.

   Applications do of course have throughput requirements.  With
   classical TCP and typical UDP flows, latency and packet loss would be
   enough, as they are bound to create some latency or packet loss when
   ramping up throughput if subsequently they become hindered by
   insufficient bandwidth.  However, we cannot always rely on monitoring
   latency exclusively, as low bandwidth may give poor application
   outcomes without necessarily inducing a lot of latency.  Therefore,
   the network requirements should include a minimum throughput

   Whether the requirements are one-way or two-way must be specified.
   Where the requirement is one-way, the direction (uplink or downlink)
   must be specified.  If two-way, a decomposition into uplink and
   downlink measurements may be specified.

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

   Until now, network requirements and measurements are what is already
   standardized in BBF TR-452 (aka QED) framework [TR-452.1].  The novel
   part of this work is what comes next.  A method for going from
   Network Requirements and Network Measurements to probabilities of
   outcomes, or Quality of Outcomes if you will.

   To do that we need to make articulating the network requirements a
   little bit more complicated.  A key design goal was to have a
   distance measure between perfect and useless, and have a way of
   quantifying what is ‘better’.

   We extend the requirements to include the quality required for
   perfection and a quality threshold beyond which the application is
   considered useless.

   This is named Network Requirements for Perfection (NRP).  As an
   example: At 4 Mbps, 99% of packets need to arrive within 100ms, 99.9%
   within 200ms (implying that 0.1% packet loss is acceptable) for the
   outcome to be perfect.  Network Requirement points of uselessness
   (NRPoU): If 99% of the packets have not arrived after 200ms, or 99.9%
   within 300ms, the outcome will be useless.

   Where the NRPoU percentiles and NRP are a required pair then neither
   should define a percentile not included in the other - i.e., if the
   99.9th percentile is part of the NRPoU then the NRP must also include
   the 99.9th percentile.

5.  Calculating Quality of Outcome (QoO)

   At this point we have everything we need to calculate the quality of
   the application outcome.  The QoO.  There are 3 scenarios:

   1.  The network meets all the requirements for perfection.  There is
       a 100% chance that the application is not lagging because of the

   2.  The network does meet one of the criteria of uselessness,
       including bandwidth.  There is a 0% chance that the application
       will work because of the network

   3.  The network does not meet NRP but is not beyond NRPoU.

   1 and 2 require nothing more from the framework.  For 3, we will now
   specify the calculation between to translate these distances to a 0
   to 100 measure.  We use the percentile pair where the measured
   latency is the closest to the NRPoU as the application is only as
   good as its weakest link.

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

   Mathematically: QoO = min(ML, NRP, NRPoU) = (1-(ML-NRP)/(NRPoU-NRP))
   * 100)

   Essentially, where on the relative distance between Network
   Requirement for Perfection (NRP) and Network Requirement Point of
   Uselessness (NRPoU) the Measured Latency (ML) lands, normalized to a

   Where: NRP is network requirements for perfection.  With minimum
   throughput and with percentiles and milliseconds NRPoU is the points
   of uselessness.  With percentiles and milliseconds i is the length of
   NRP / NRPoU latency per percentile requirements ML is Measured
   Latency in percentiles and milliseconds

5.1.  Example requirements and measured latency:

   NRP: 4 Mbps {99%, 250 ms},{99.9%, 350 ms} NRPoU: {99%, 400
   ms},{99.9%, 401 ms} Measured Latency: .... 99% = 350ms, 99.9% = 352
   ms Measured Minumum bandwidth: 32 Mbps / 28 Mbps

   Then the QoO is defined:


   = Min(
    ((1-(350 ms - 250 ms )/(400 ms - 250 ms))*100),
    ((1-(352 ms - 350 ms)/(401 ms - 350 ms))*100)

   = Min (33.33,96.08)

   = 33.33

   In this example, we would say: This application/SLA/application
   category has a 33% chance of being lag-free on this network

6.  How to find network requirements

   A key advantage of having a measurement that stretches between
   perfect and useless, as opposed to having a binary (Good/Bad) or
   other low resolution (Superbad/Bad/OK/Great/Supergreat) metrics, is
   that we have some leeway.  The leeway is useful, for instance: a
   lower than 20% chance of lag free experience is intuitively not good
   and a greater than 90% chance of lag free experience is intuitively
   good --- meaning we don’t have to find perfection for making the QoO
   metric useful.

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

   Nevertheless we have to find some points for uselessness and
   perfection.  There is no strict definition of when the network is so
   bad that the application is useless.  For perfect, we may have a
   definition for some apps, but for apps like web browsing and gaming,
   lower latency is simply better.  But to assist those who wish to make
   a requirement, we can say that if the end-user experience does not
   change when reducing the latency, the network quality is sufficient
   for the Network Requirements for Perfection (NRP) .

   Someone who wishes to make a network requirement for an application
   in the simplest possible way, should do something along these lines.

   *  Simulate increasing levels of latency

   *  Observe the application and note the threshold where the
      application stops working perfectly

   *  Observe the application and note the threshold where the
      application stops being useful at all

   Someone who wishes to find sophisticated network requirements might
   proceed in this way

   *  Set thresholds for acceptable fps, animation fluidity, i/o latency
      (voice, video, actions), or other metrics capturing outcomes that
      directly affects the user experience

   *  Create a tool for measuring these user-facing metrics

   *  Simulate varying latency distribution with increasing levels of
      latency while measuring the user facing metrics.

   A QoO score at 94 can be communicated as "John's smartphone has a 94%
   chance of lag-free Video Conferencing", however, this does not mean
   that at any point of time there is a 6% chance of lag.  It means
   there is a 6% chance of experiencing lag during the entire session/
   time-period, and the network requirements should be adjusted

   The reason for making the QoO metric for a session or time-period is
   to make it understandable for an end-user, an end-user should not
   have to relate to the time period the metric is for.

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

6.1.  An example's video-conferencing service requirements can be
   translated into the QoO Framework.  For best performance for video
   meetings they specify 4/4 Mbps, 100 ms latency, <1% packet loss, and
   <30 ms jitter.  This can be translated to an NRP (if we take some
   liberties with interpreting their jitter score):

   NRP video conferencing service: At minimum 4/4 Mbps.

   For minimum requirements does not specify anything, but
   at 500ms latency or 1000ms 99p latency, a video conference is very
   unlikely to work in a remotely satisfactory way.

   NRPoU {0p=500,99p=1000ms}

   Of course, it is possible to specify network requirements for Teams
   with multiple NRP/NRPoU, for different quality levels or one/two way
   video and so on.  Then one can calculate the QoO at each level.

7.  Known Weaknesses and open questions

   We have described a way of simplifying how the network requirements
   of applications can be compared to quality attenuation measurements.
   The simplification introduces several artifacts that may or may not
   be significant.  If new information emerges that indicate other
   tradeoffs are more fit for our purpose, we should switch before this
   Internet Draft moves further.  In this section we discuss some known

   Volatile networks - in particular, mobile cellular networks - pose a
   challenge for network quality prediction, with the level of assurance
   of the precition likely to decrease as session duration increases.
   Historic network conditions for a given cell may help indicate times
   of network load or reduced transmission power, and their effect on
   throughput/latency/loss.  However: as terminals are mobile, the
   signal bandwidth available to a given terminal can change by an order
   of magnitude within seconds due to physical radio factors.  These
   include whether the terminal is at the edge of cell, or undergoing
   cell handover, the interference and fading from the local
   environment, and any switch between radio bearers with differing
   signal bandwidth and transmission-time intervals (e.g. 4G and 5G).
   This suggests a requirement for measuring quality attenuation to and
   from an individual terminal, as that can account for the factors
   described above.  How that facility is provisioned onto indiviudal
   terminals, and how terminal-hosted applications can trigger a quality
   attenuation query, is an open question.

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

7.1.  Missing Temporal Information in Distributions.

   These two latency series: 1,200,1,200,1,200,1,200,1,200 and
   1,1,1,1,1,200,200,200,200,200 will have identical distributions, but
   may have different application performance.  Ignoring this
   information is a tradeoff between simplicity and precision.  To
   capture all information necessary to perfectly capture outcomes we
   are getting into extreme computational complexity.  As an
   application's performance is bound by how the developers react to
   varying network performance, meaning nearly all different series of
   latencies may have different application outcomes.

7.2.  Subsampling the real distribution

   Additionally, we cannot capture latency on every packet that is sent.
   We can probe and sample, but there will always be unknowns.  We are
   now in the realm of probability.  Perfection is impossible, but
   instead of denying this, we should embrace it, which is why talking
   about the probability of outcomes is the way forward.

7.3.  Assuming Linear Relationship between Perfect and useless (and that
      it is not really a probability)

   One can conjure up scenarios where 50ms latency is actually worse
   than 51ms latency as developers may have chosen 50ms as the threshold
   for changing quality, and the threshold may be imperfect.  Taking
   these scenarios into account would add another magnitude of
   complexity to determining network requirements and finding a distance
   measure (between requirement and actual measured capability).

7.4.  Binary Bandwidth threshold

   Choosing this is to reduce complexity, but we do acknowledge that the
   applications are not that simple.  The defence for this trade off is
   that insufficient bandwidth will cause queues and therefore latency,
   and it should be possible to see this.  Additionally, network
   requirements can be set up per quality level (resolution, fps etc.)
   for the application.  However, having too many network requirements
   also increases the complexity for users of the framework, and it is
   still unclear if this is the optimal tradeoff.

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

7.5.  Low resolution on Packet Loss

   To ensure simplicity, packet loss is described as infinite latency
   and the resolution will be bound to the percentiles we chose to
   sample.  There is a good argument that some applications need higher
   resolution on packet loss for sufficiently describing application
   outcomes.  If this good evidence is presented for this, packet loss
   should be measured separately and added to the QoO formula.

7.6.  Arbitrary selection of percentiles:

   There is a need for a selection of percentiles, as we in the name of
   simplicity can’t use them all.  But how should we select them?  The
   0th (minimal) and 50th (median) percentile have implicit usage by
   themselves.  [BITAG] discusses that the 90th, 98th and 99th
   percentiles are key for some apps.  In general the wisdom is that the
   higher percentiles are more useful for interactive applications, but
   only to a certain point.  At this point an application sees it as
   packet loss and may adapt to it.  Should we pick the 95th, 96th
   percentile, the 96.5th or the 97th?  We don’t know, and as this is
   likely not universal across applications and applications classes, we
   simply have to choose arbitrarily, and to the best of our knowledge.

8.  Implementation status

   Note to RFC Editor: This section MUST be removed before publication
   of the document.

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may

   According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

8.1.  qoo-c

   *  Link to the open-source repository:

   *  The organization responsible for the implementation:


   *  A brief general description:

      A C library for calculating Quality of Outcome

   *  The implementation's level of maturity:

      A complete implentation of the specification described in this

   *  Coverage:

      The library is tested with unit tests

   *  Licensing:

      GPL 2.0

   *  Implementation experience:

      Tested by the author.  Needs additional testing by third parties.

   *  Contact information:

      Bjørn Ivar Teigen:

   *  The date when information about this particular implementation was
      last updated:

      10th of July 2023

8.2.  goresponsiveness

   *  Link to the open-source repository:

   *  The organization responsible for the implementation:

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

      University of Cincinatti for goresponsiveness as a whole, Domos
      for the QoO part.

   *  A brief general description:

      A network quality test written in Go.  Capable of measuring RPM
      and QoO.

   *  The implementation's level of maturity:

      In active development

   *  Coverage:

      The QoO part is tested with unit tests

   *  Licensing:

      GPL 2.0

   *  Implementation experience:

      Needs testing by third parties

   *  Contact information:

      Bjørn Ivar Teigen:

      William Hawkins III:

   *  The date when information about this particular implementation was
      last updated:

      10th of July 2023

9.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

10.  Security Considerations

   TODO Security

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [BITAG]    BITAG, "Latency Explained", October 2022,

              "Requirements for a Network Quality Framework Useful for
              Applications, Users, and Operators", n.d..

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,

   [TR-452.1] Broadband Forum, "TR-452.1: Quality Attenuation
              Measurement Architecture and Requirements", September


   TODO acknowledge.

Authors' Addresses

   Magnus Olden
   Gaustadalléen 21

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                     QoO                         July 2023


   Bjørn Ivar Teigen
   Gaustadalléen 21

Olden & Teigen           Expires 11 January 2024               [Page 16]