Minutes IETF104: nwcrg

Meeting Minutes Coding for efficient NetWork Communications Research Group (nwcrg) RG
Title Minutes IETF104: nwcrg
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2019-04-09

Meeting Minutes

IETF 104 NWCRG Meeting minutes

nwcrg@ietf104-hackathon: Sliding Window FEC (SWiF) codec project

Saturday and Sunday, March 23-24th, 2019.\
[Github swifc repo](https://github.com/irtf-nwcrg/swif-codec)

nwcrg meeting@ietf104

Thursday, March 28, 2019, Afternoon session I, 13:50-15:50,

### 00- Welcome, administrative and general matters


### 01- Sliding Window FEC (SWiF) codec hackathon project feedback (Vincent

A first goal of the Hackathon project is to design reference open-source
codecs (RLC-like first, later RLNC) in order to facilitate adoption.
Another goal is to improve the generic API I-D

Progress made on the SWiF codec:\
- encoder almost done, test in progress, python wrapper in progress,
started work on decoder;\
- 4 problems in API fixed, 5 open problems remaining.\
The hackathon will continue in Montreal (finish decoder?). Then we'll
continue with RLNC support (Singapore?).

No questions.

### 02- "Quick status on Network coding and satellites I-D" (Nicolas Kuhn)


Feedback from NWC RG and DTN WG, assessed comments from Lloyd Wood. New
version spun based on this.

Comment (Chairs): Looking to move to RGLC. Chairs proposed doing this
after confirmation on the list.

No questions.

### 03- "Quick status on Network Coding for Content-Centric Networking / Named
Data Networking: Requirements and Challenges" (Kazuhisha Matsuzono)


Goal of draft is to articulate challenges/requirements and encourage
research directions. Actual coding and protocol proposed solutions would
be in new drafts. Updates:\
- added a backward compatibility section;\
- added a section on security and privacy.\
Got some more comments, plan to address them, respin the draft, then try
to get RG last call.

Comment (DaveO with ICNRG Chair hat on): give ICNRG a chance to review
the next version, then we'll have advice about readiness for NWCRG Last

### 04- "RLNC Background and Practical Considerations / RLNC Based Symbol
Representation" (Kerim Fouli and Muriel Medard, remote)

(draft-heide-nwcrg-rlnc-background and draft-heide-nwcrg-rlnc)

Separated background and symbol representation into two different
drafts. Latest comments (Salvatore and DaveO) will be addressed in next

Q (Vincent): On slide 5, you mention a dynamic number of
coefficients/symbols but with a 4-bit field you're are rather limited.\
A (Kerim): We thought there was a large field and small field. I will go
back and check.\
A (Muriel): If using as a seed, it's different, you have more choices.

Comment (Vincent): Need to tradeoff flexibility with detailed and
efficient symbol representation. It's a difficult exercise that needs to
be discussed on the list.\
A (Kerim): We might have different symbol representations for different
classes of applications.\
A (Muriel): We already had different representations in different
implementations in the past.

Q (Vincent): Do you intent to include more representations in this
document? What's the view for evolution?\
A (Kerim): Not necessarily, might have different documents for different
applications and different representations. Topic for further
discussion. Having one to bash on is useful to act as a baseline and is
Comment (Vincent): Agree.

Q (Vincent): Plan to have PRNG (pseudo-random number generator)
A (Muriel): Goal of draft is to have a baseline concrete representation.
It's a narrow but concrete and useful contribution.

### 05- "Adding Forward Erasure Correction to QUIC" (Fran├žois Michel)

[ArXiV preprint](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.04822.pdf)

FEC was originally in QUIC specifications, but was removed. We did an
independent FEC implementation, with a totally different design than the
current NWCRG direction. Instead of fixed size source symbols, we work
at QUIC packet payload level and protect the transported frames,
regardless of their nature. This packet-based approach: - solves the
last symbol issue of NWCRG FEC for QUIC approach; - protects any number
of STREAM data flows transparently; - but modifies any source packet and
increases the packet size which in turn can create issues. Note that
QUIC naturally handles padding so we don't need fixed source symbol size
any more. We propose to explicitly signal that a packet has been
recovered, using a dedicated RECOVERED frame that looks like an ACK
frame but does not trigger any retransmission. Check slides for
performance experiments and results. We also looked at how QUIC+FEC
competes with plain QUIC. Results are already interesting.

Q (Nicolas): Have you considered sending an ECN signal? May be able to
handle recovery and congestion window with one mechanism. A: Yes, agree.
We can discuss on having a new frame or not.

Q (Morten): How do you know whether to just protect the end. Does QUIC
know the size of the file being sent? A: A FIN bit marks the end of the
stream. When we see this bit, we add redundancy. We do the same when all
streams are blocked by application, we send redundancy.

Q (Morten): how does this interact with HTTP when pipelining several
files in the same connection? Is it only at the end, when you close
socket you protect last piece of data? A: Either you use separate
streams, one per file, and in that case you know when we are reaching
the end of a file. Or there is a single stream where all files are
concatenated one behind another, and in that case we can't detect the
end of file.

Q (Morten): Do you know what's the current thinking on this?\
A: It seems the idea is to use only one file (or correlated files) per
stream, and uncorrelated files in different streams.

Q (Morten): do you see advantage to integrate FEC into transport, as
opposed to inserting above the datagram layer in the application?\
A: If the application knows the features of its traffic, it may be
better to do FEC within the application rather than at transport. But
doing that at transport level also simplifies the application design.
There are use-cases for both approaches.

Q (CJ Juhn): What was the RTT used in the experiment? Do you have
separate results for different RTT? A: We did lots of experiments with
different RTTs between 100-700ms. They are not all displayed here.

Q (Nicolas): What QUIC implementation did you use? A: We used two,
QUIC-Go and now picoquic.

Comment (Vincent): There are different design goals and properties. We
already discussed with Fran├žois and goal is now to experiments both
types of solutions. We will update our two I-Ds to include support to
both approaches.

Comment (DaveO): don't bake it too much until QUIC groups decides on how
they will do multi-path.

Comment (Spencer Dawkins): Strongly agree with DaveO with the exception
that experiments here might inform QUIC how to do multi-path.

### 06- "Coding for low latency" (Morten V. Pedersen)

Video conferencing, AR/VR, Telesurgery, Cooperative driving: these need
not just low latency but high reliability too. Advocates trading
bandwidth for latency via coding in order to have sufficient
reliability. Lots of IETF groups talk on and on about latency but don't
think coding...

Q (Vincent): Did you contact the authors of the cited drafts (which have
A: Yes, we're doing that.

### 07- "About RLC/TinyMT32 standardisation at TSVWG: a quick feedback"
(Vincent Roca)

We first missed the Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) issue -- we've
long relied on Park Miller Linear Congruential PRNG which is broken for
this usage. Then we moved to TinyMT32, but for copyright/licence
reasons, we had the code maintainers to co-author a specific I-D on the
topic. Specifying a PRNG from its C code also raises
interoperability/deterministic behaviour issues, sometimes rather subtle
(negative value representation is not standardized in C).

Q (Morten): Did you benchmark the time needed to seed the PRNG?\
A: Yes, we did it and it's important -- using a PRNG to produce coding
coefficients means that you need a large number of short sequences
(rather than a single very long sequence). We did not identify any issue

Q (Morten): is this PRNG mandatory to use, recommended, or what?\
A: It's only mandatory to use for the RLC FEC scheme which relies on it.

### IETF 105, July 2019

Next NWCRG meeting will be in Montreal, and don't forget the Hackathon!