Minutes for RMCAT at IETF-92
minutes-92-rmcat-1

Meeting Minutes RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques (rmcat) WG
Title Minutes for RMCAT at IETF-92
State
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2015-04-15

Meeting Minutes
minutes-92-rmcat

   Thursday, March 26, Morning Session I 0900-1130
Room Name: Venetian

Transcript (notes taken by Brian Trammell )

WG Status & Agenda Bashing: Chairs
==================================

On draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test
-----------------------------

Zahed: status of eval, small changes to RTT fairness,
       but there are missing wifi test cases, please have a look.
Varun: Traffic models (short-lived TCP) from appendix moved to the other draft
       Asking for additional reviews
Randal (via Magnus): Will talk to Patrick McManus about models, on short-lived
TCP

On merging test cases into eval-test:
Zahed: this could be done. Not sure about video traffic sources, still listing
       different models, that needs to proceed as individual.
Mirja: At people using the wireless test cases? If you're the only one working
on it, worries me a little.

Varun: On cellular test cases, not all of us have simulators
Mirja: Can these be simplified so they can be implemented, e.g. in NS3
Varun: Yes; on level and granularity in the draft, hard to implement
Zahed: Can't promise to contribute on ns3

Karen: Disussion on list to resolve this point -> potential adoption.
Mirja: If we need these, we can
Zahed: For RMCAT, wireless test cases is a MUST
Mike Ramallo: We normally ignore link layer at transport. Link layer
              characteristics are very important for delay CC. WACs and
              schedulers make modeling difficult. Use case is incredibly
              important. How to codify that in the charter? Contrast between
              shared and per-user queues. We need more than just mailing list
              discussion. Do we need to add link-layer issues directly to the
              charter?
Mirja: Not excluded from charter, recharting doesn't make sense. Clear we can
  work on it. The group deciding is very small.
Xiaoqing Zhu: Let's do something based on wifi first. Similar to cellular draft.
              Decide whether to merge when we have more experience
Mirja: Did you implement any wireless test cases?
Xiaoqing: For simulations, no.
Mirja: Now I've heard two people who say they can't implement.
Zahed: Why not? If you have comments as to why not, please say so.
Mirja: Can we simplify the cellular model?
Zahed: Of course. But we can't pick just one scheduler to model. Want to
       have this discussion though, what can we simplify for eval
       implementation.

Mumble, covered badge: Maybe an option is to have real-world traces fed into a
simulator Magnus (as Randall): Strongly agree need to test wifi. Eval criterion
4.5 says must
                     handle heterogeneous environments
Magnus (as ???): [missing, check jabber log]

Mike Ramallo: Hard to drive characteristics off data traces, not a stationary
process.

Xiaoqing: as evaluators, we want something we can build on top of. don't want to
  spend lots of time implementing. In terms of networks, wifi/cellular are
  merging, but delay characteristics are still difficuly

Zahed: I don't think we'll be able to provide traces. We could talk to 3GPP.

Varun: Re-echo what [missing] said, we have to do both. What stephan said:
       perhaps using a trace is easier, could go down that path with cellular
       case. How to get them? Another problem.

magnus as Randall: We don't need perfection
magnus as Stephan: We can record traces ourselves

Mirja: who thinks draft-sarker-rmcat-cellular-eval-test-cases
       is a good starting point? Hum now (hum quietly pro + randall)
       -> will take to the list.

Zahed: we need another revision to determine whether we are going to merge the
models

Mirja: Can we merge trace-based into test cases now? If we can merge now,
       we don't have to procees
Varun: I prefer the models stay in one place

Colin: Video traffic modeling should perhaps be separate
Mirja: We're doing this work for evaluation. It's easier to proceed less
documents

Brian: What just happened for the record?
Mirja: We will have two documents at the end: test cases and eval criteria.
       We adopted cellular test cases to move it forward (Not clear about
       merging wifi at this point). Not adopting video traffic source now, but
       may merge parts into eval criteria.

on splitting rmcat-app-interaction
    terminate existing, three new:
    CC-App interations -> W3C (Varun)
    CC-Codec interactions -> RMCAT (Mo)
    RMCAT framework

Mike Ramallo: Procedural question: this is a WG document, will all three become
WG drafts? Or should they be submitted as individual drafts (first)?
Karen/Mirja: yes (will be individual drafts)

On feedback extensions
----------------------

Mo: Other areas in RAI where we may need to switch media in conference
scenarios,
    can we use feedback techniques here since we need them elsewhere anyway

Varun: The idea of the holmer draft is good, not sure this is the right group
Karen: Not the question. We're not doing etension here,
       question is does the arch need feedback extensions. document says no now.

Colin: Characterization of cc-feedback is not how I see it. There are two kinds
       of RTP extensions: those that fit the frame and those that change it.
       CC-feedback shows that framework is enough. Draft said nothing about
       feedback type, or new types of message. Expect each CC alg may need new
       messages, this draft asks whether RTP needs to be extended. For the
       purpose of this document, I think the answer is no. I don't believe
       feedback messages are extensions.

Zahed: Even if we recommend new feedback message, we need to say why we need
them.
       We have to wait on CC to know that.
Mirja: In this group?
Zahed: I think so

Magnus as Magnus: The CC alg should specify info it needs, sufficient for
testing.

Colin: Agree. Possibly we'll need to change framework. Probably not. But we
       need to look at the outcome of the CC exercise. Actual reqts for feedback
       messages in the alg drafts.

Geert: From our 3gpp point of view I think it works with current messages.
Zahed: I don't think 3gpp has an alg?
Karen: cut discussion

Shared Bottleneck Detection for Coupled Congestion Control for RTP Media: David
Hayes
=====================================================================================

Brian: (on clock drift slide) How much drift have you really seen in your
experiments David: (basically) not very much, simple method is sufficient

Mirja: We had a lot of feedback, who's read version 2? any version? seems enough
Mirja: Hum for adoption (hum pro, no hum against) -> we'll confirm on list

Update on Scream and implementation: Zahed Sarker
=================================================

Varun: clarification: (changes in alg 2/2 slide) when you do fast start,
       do you have false positives?
Zahed: We look at different variables, don't think there is a chance of
       false start. Haven't seen this.

Colin: You have some new feedback messages (slide changes 1/2):
       look at 6679, a lot of this information is already included.
Zahed: No timestamp
Colin: But everything else. May want to try and use it and piggyback
       a timestamp, or align with it.

Xiaoqing: (RTT fairness) Are these diverging?
Zahed: No

Xiaoqing: Are you planning on testbed experiments?
Zahed: Working on now

Mirja: To have an experimental RFC we only need to show simulation
       results that it won't break the Internet

Karen (individual): Have you tested with reordering?
Zahed: Yes
Karen: There is no requirement for reordering required, but we need to
       think about whether we specify this in our documents. Especially WRT
       wireless.
Zahed: We have to discuss, not sure we have to stress it
Karen: Not a showstopper, we have to talk about it though

Magnus as Randal: contact Mozilla for test integration in Firefox.

Mirja: Shall we adopt? I think it's ready. Hum for adoption (Hum for + Randal,
no hum against) -> confirm on list

Update on NADA on Evaluation Results  : Xiaoqing Zhu
================================================================================

Varun: WHen you modeled TCP in test case G, how was it modeled?
Xiaoqing: FTP source on for a certain amount of time, not an amount of data

Xiaoqing: in test case H, restarting the flow starts as a completely new flow

Brian: May want to change VM hosts to ensure you don't have systematic timing
error

[missing exchange with Zahed]

Mirja: Which TCP are you using in NADA vs TCP
Xiaoqing: whatever is in Windows 7
Mirja: In the simulations?
Xiaoqing: TCP [missing], in ns2
Mirja: In this scenario, NADA looks more aggressive, in contrast to the
simulations Xiaoqing: Not side-by-side comparable Mirja: Maxrate is config
parameter? Xiaoqing: Yes Mirja: Are you going to recommend a set of parameters?
Xiaoqing: Application input Mirja: Are the NADA aggression parameters the same
as in the simulation? Xiaoqing: Parameter is a function of video... how much
weight do you want to add to loss? Mirja: Same set of parameters as [...]
Xiaoqing: Not changed

Mirja: In your draft you discuss AQM mechanisms. We don't have that on charter.
       If we adopt this, we would ask you to remove these from the draft.
Xiaoqing: Performance doesn't depend on AQM. We include results to demonstrate
that AQM helps. Karen: Is this AQM spec something we want in the evaluation
criteria or test cases?

Xiaoqing: We do have a place for UCs with AQM in the test cases draft
Zahed: Yes, we discussed this at IETF 91, we found no need, but if it pops up
as really important we can add it. Magnus as Randall: We had AQM in reqts: 11,
be stable and maintain low delay when using AQM Matt: We can't set requirements
on the network, but this can provide insight on how to make things better. No
AQM, long flows, cross traffic -> hopeless. Mirja: We should integrate AQM
in test cases. But before we adopt the doc we can move this somewhere. Question
on AQM testing is whether we specify parameters.

Mirja: call for adoption for next revision in which AQM is removed. Hum for,
not against -> confirm on list.

NADA AQM: Xiaoqing Liu
======================

Mirja: on two flows with PIE: Here, PIE has a target rate of 20ms, but you have
100ms? Xiaoqing: We're showing total OWD. Queueing delay is loose.

Coupled congestion control with NADA: Michael Welzl
===================================================

Michael: Would like not to have to track CC alg changes in each CCC
implementation. Zahed: WOuldn't it be nice to not have to change CCC? Michael:
That's impossible, have to at least look at things that changed, may have to
         make minor tweaks. I would like the call for adoption not to require
         the support of both scream and nada

....

Michael: example NADA updates two rates based on feedback, if I only change
         one rate, not adjusting both rates, have to wait for next feedback

michael: next rev will have guidelines for how to make CC work with CCC.

Mirja: How complicated is it for someone to update CCC to handle a new CC?
       Would it be valuable to document how to apply it to a new CC alg?
Michael: We're going to do that.
Mirja: Do you need a separate doc for CCC for NADA, CCC for SCReAM?
Michael: No, it's one paragraph.

Stein: Could we make a generic interface between CC and CCC?
Michael: Offline.

Mirja: Are you planning to apply to scream? How far have you looked into it?
Michael: We initially found the code complicated and hard to use.
Zahed: What's complicated?
Michael: We'll have a deeper look at it.

Mirja: I understand you can't prove it works for every alg, but I would feel
better if it works for two rmcat algs. Other possibility is to specify CCC for
a specific scheme then add text to recommend how to use a different CC alg,
instead of describing a completely general mechanism. Reorganize the docmuent
so it specifies on a single CC alg.

Michael: OK, I see.

David: NADA and SCReAM were designed without CCC.
       New algs will have to specify CCC support from the start.
Varun: Don't set the bar too high for generic mechanisms. If CCC has a
requirement for CC,
       makes this easier.
Michael: Planned for next rev.
Varun: Other algs eg scream have multiflow support, these may conflict with CCC.

Zahed: I don't want something to constrain how I design my alg.