From harald@alvestrand.no Sat Feb 2 15:41:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E7721F8440 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:41:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.352 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.247, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zxkcf6kuHVQZ for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:41:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FE021F866D for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:41:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE9F39E151; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 00:41:44 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mnu-105k-xdR; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 00:41:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:700d:b80:cac1:2ae1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:700d:b80:cac1:2ae1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B81F539E070; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 00:41:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <510DA437.7040607@alvestrand.no> Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 00:41:43 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hassnaa Moustafa References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rmcat@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rmcat] draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 23:41:46 -0000 On 01/28/2013 07:25 PM, Hassnaa Moustafa wrote: > Hi, > After reading the draft on (RTCP message for Receiver Estimated > Maximum Bit Rate "draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb"), it's not clear for me > what is the target/scope of "multiple media streams" mentioned in the > draft, is there a specific use-case fpr that "for example video > conferences with more than one stream")? Thanks for the question! All videoconferencing applications use at least one video stream and one audio stream from the participant to the mixer (there might be more video streams, data streams or other streams too). Some use more. For instance, Google Hangouts uses one video stream and one audio stream per participant from the mixer to the participants. It would be strange indeed to insist that each of those streams should be considered a separate congestion control regime. > Regards, > Hassnaa From mattmathis@google.com Sun Feb 3 16:09:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B9A21F8871 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 16:09:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S4U7+8vXGCQB for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 16:09:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ia0-x22a.google.com (ia-in-x022a.1e100.net [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8ED521F8928 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 16:09:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ia0-f170.google.com with SMTP id k20so7501114iak.15 for ; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:09:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=80r9D2KYOpHQ7M6SF2dGjZXl0Uum5sa2YPqAycCTWBU=; b=myBfcPYn1nv9qUX4saf4AywGEXLLbqibvQwc5GJSv6257pOARLfOvnaqMN68jwlT4z Zn+VHpO13ZpU3BtWtIL0aRdeS7pwOXCpWgJr8FXCGLQFLv02k0Fjodp5J9mDv/OihLrx GJVhJXCmu3P0bxyqKrBthyS34HfNOWS7g/VXjcl2DhUWFNlISGjLNwN9u0I9E4Svn46P yzSsQ2N+Q/gdmP/jZ4ohkwCagaKUv+iCs9Sz0UtNHGmhuU3RQf2T8783whjZvFj1ZZMr ITV8BkPPA7xJQpwMP7lCF+ezvuRu44/RAm3554sPegUAjOjD84a/lwmGL4BU2gScOREM W7ZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=80r9D2KYOpHQ7M6SF2dGjZXl0Uum5sa2YPqAycCTWBU=; b=cnhJH9zD9sRpUvX3TaFo/XEzZfrCQxIekIoaAqcbODc0TmXsU1iYOabqjShSerWdpw K44sIbwlfTEbLlRaDy8oBlHWhgV132uURNnouUHBzUhnMg7jZtn6gaqIXT2cNdtQCrWv CjKfNstQAMnPio6DTa3UzWwD827Eq1WsYF1EcYmszJTNh6aHqsAhxIhWRPUwtQUZlJBa s4QJwGVxOJDcb3ma9Z22wABgqcv0PIxOynvU1u1JJwdIwTexONopgTV5+/+12lLWIpPJ n8NY8TB410WY1MM/nH2YUnZPVL/1C5PFq4xnCVk5rHCM8lEaRX9ZJl6s8avmM02n/1Sr JI0Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.163.35 with SMTP id yf3mr3761441igb.60.1359936576053; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:09:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.167.134 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 16:09:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <510DA437.7040607@alvestrand.no> References: <510DA437.7040607@alvestrand.no> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 16:09:35 -0800 Message-ID: From: Matt Mathis To: Harald Alvestrand Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f83902988609604d4dae868 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkd1CgXoPco925aCWg/pwW+cdILBxUl++aXtzdPw/aL6IE7M9fy0FsEdTwTlf9EAGvckqmbkP5iiU6R/RHRtJuwT5wQV7NbdaDjw/dCI0BE9rW4nnbfKbbHLKz6Ud9AU840Mmgkr5EECdv6lEUDh1Rv26C7k6vjL86ZSJatUmrEwwj8c0Qq3iRQQi0J3vDDXDm4ITR4 Cc: Hassnaa Moustafa , rmcat@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rmcat] draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:09:37 -0000 --e89a8f83902988609604d4dae868 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > It would be strange indeed to insist that each of those streams should be > considered a separate congestion control regime. It would be strange indeed to insist that each of those streams should be considered a single congestion control regime. If the bridge is transcoding, and everybody has their own local bottleneck, then you want everybody to have their own congestion control regime. If the bridge can not transcode, and especially if there might be congestion local to the bridge, then clearly the system will be better behaved if they share a common congestion control regime. The point is the architecture has to support both. Thanks, --MM-- The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using our services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat privacy and security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are. --e89a8f83902988609604d4dae868 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Harald Alves= trand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
It would be strange indeed to insist that each of those streams should be c= onsidered a separate congestion control regime.

It wo= uld be strange indeed to insist that each of those streams should be consid= ered a single congestion control regime.

If the bridge is transcoding, and everybody has their own lo= cal=A0bottleneck, then you want everybody to have their own=A0congestion co= ntrol regime.
If the bridge can not transcode, and=A0especially= =A0if there might be congestion local to the bridge, then clearly the syste= m will be better behaved if they share a common congestion control regime.<= /div>

The point is the=A0architecture=A0has to support both.<= /div>

Thanks,
--MM--<= br>The best way to predict the future is to create it. =A0- Alan Kay
Privacy matters! =A0We know from recent events that people are using our s= ervices to speak in defiance of unjust governments. =A0 We treat privacy an= d security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.<= /div>
--e89a8f83902988609604d4dae868-- From lars@netapp.com Thu Feb 7 00:16:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB2821F8652 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:16:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.279 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.320, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OCvVP4rHeTvj for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:15:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC54621F886A for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:15:59 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,621,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="17476079" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2013 00:15:54 -0800 Received: from vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.34]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r178Frob020835; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:15:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from VMWEXCEHT06-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.106.77.104) by vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.106.77.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.9; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:15:53 -0800 Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.54]) by vmwexceht06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.104]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:15:53 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: "rmcat-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [rmcat] send agenda requests for IETF-86 Thread-Index: AQHN7Y+wvs5Unv0j50WdTZXpwWNL15huwa8A Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:15:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: " WG" Subject: Re: [rmcat] send agenda requests for IETF-86 X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 08:16:00 -0000 Folks, we are still looking for folks to present ideas/drafts related to ou= r first milestones. Lars On Jan 8, 2013, at 12:02, "Eggert, Lars" wrote: > Hi, >=20 > we asked for a 2.5h slot for RMCAT in Orlando. Please send Mirja and me r= equests for agenda time ASAP. Note that we will again prioritize discussion= of topics related to our next milestones, which are cc-requirements, eval-= criteria, rtcp-requirements (if needed), and app-interactions. (See http://= trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/trac/wiki/RearrangedCharter for which mileston= es are meant with these short tags.) >=20 > For any topic *not* related to those first milestones, a request for agen= da time is best motivated by the early availability of a related ID and an = active discussion on the list. >=20 > Thanks, > Lars From mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de Fri Feb 8 10:34:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B1221F8B98 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:34:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vTLVVNwXgl48 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.170.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A9B21F8AB6 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:34:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (netsrv1-c [10.11.12.12]) by mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CDC602CD for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:34:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from vpn-2-cl177 (vpn-2-cl177 [10.41.21.177]) by netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A06602C3 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:34:45 +0100 (CET) From: Mirja Kuehlewind Organization: University of Stuttgart (Germany), IKR To: rmcat@ietf.org Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:34:44 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20101217.1207316) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201302081934.44907.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> Subject: [rmcat] Fwd: rmcat - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 86 X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:34:51 -0000 Hi, our tentative slot will be right on Monday first session: rmcat Session 1 (2:30:00) Monday, Morning Session I 0900-1130 Room Name: Caribbean 5 --------------------------------------------- Please send agenda request as the session is already very soon ;-) Mirja From mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de Mon Feb 11 11:02:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AA521F86F4 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:02:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.355 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.895, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qI+tLvgdUKfS for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:02:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.170.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F43521F8694 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:02:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (netsrv1-c [10.11.12.12]) by mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C0460302; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:02:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from vpn-2-cl177 (vpn-2-cl177 [10.41.21.177]) by netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBDE602FC; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:02:38 +0100 (CET) From: Mirja =?iso-8859-1?q?K=FChlewind?= To: rmcat@ietf.org Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:02:37 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20101217.1207316) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201302112002.37778.mkuehle@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> Cc: Lars Eggert Subject: [rmcat] Preliminary Agenda X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:02:40 -0000 Hi everybody, I've uploaded a first version of our agenda: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/agenda/agenda-86-rmcat We still have time left. So please send agenda requests! Would be great to also get an update on 'Congestion Control Requirements For RMCAT'! Mirja From csp@csperkins.org Tue Feb 26 03:42:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8153A21F89DA for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:42:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 63nfaeWOR5J6 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.131.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A73A21F8A22 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [130.209.247.112] (port=52892 helo=mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAIvX-0005vL-28 for rmcat@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:42:36 +0000 From: Colin Perkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:42:27 +0000 References: <20130218232842.19535.91395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: rmcat@ietf.org Message-Id: <8471CA16-DC31-4AFD-ABEF-558ABB79AE31@csperkins.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28 X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On = Subject: [rmcat] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-perkins-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-00.txt X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:42:38 -0000 I submitted the following draft that talks about the types of congestion = control feedback that can be sent using RTCP as is currently specified, = and their suitability for implementing congestion control for unicast = multimedia applications. In particular, it talks about the rate of = congestion feedback that can be supported.=20 Comments are welcome. I'm also happy to present this in Orlando, if the = chairs think it useful. Colin Begin forwarded message: > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Subject: I-D Action: draft-perkins-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-00.txt > Date: 18 February 2013 23:28:42 GMT > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >=20 >=20 > Title : On the Use of RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) = Feedback for Unicast Multimedia Congestion Control > Author(s) : Colin Perkins > Filename : draft-perkins-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-00.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2013-02-18 >=20 > Abstract: > This memo discusses the types of congestion control feedback that it > is possible to send using the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP), and their > suitability of use in implementing congestion control for unicast > multimedia applications. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-perkins-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perkins-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-00 --=20 Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ From mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de Wed Feb 27 06:36:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8C221F870E for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:36:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.92 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yo1rxfduBVDH for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:36:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.170.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A87721F86BE for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:36:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (netsrv1-c [10.11.12.12]) by mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25CD6004A; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:36:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from vpn-2-cl113 (vpn-2-cl113 [10.41.21.113]) by netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5C160047; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:36:46 +0100 (CET) From: Mirja =?iso-8859-1?q?K=FChlewind?= To: rmcat@ietf.org Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:36:46 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20101217.1207316) References: <201302112002.37778.mkuehle@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> In-Reply-To: <201302112002.37778.mkuehle@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201302271536.46515.mkuehle@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> Cc: Lars Eggert Subject: [rmcat] Agenda online X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:36:51 -0000 Hi, I've just uploaded the (final) agenda. Please let me know as soon as possible if there are any further changes needed. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/86/agenda/rmcat/ Mirja From lars@netapp.com Wed Feb 27 10:09:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B34921F886E for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:09:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.357 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.242, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h6wiQqrNEYfC for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB9D21F886B for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:09:27 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,749,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="12423578" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2013 10:09:27 -0800 Received: from vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com (exchsmtp.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.35]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r1RI9Q8Z021142 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.54]) by vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.35]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:09:26 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: " WG" Thread-Topic: time to get active Thread-Index: AQHOFRWUL2D3qnNQcE+YT6egEQ+kIA== Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:09:26 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.116] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0D071964EFA82F4DBD7F0A6DB3440305@tahoe.netapp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [rmcat] time to get active X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:09:28 -0000 Hi, the group has been entirely too silent since IETF-86 in Atlanta. We now hav= e new revisions of a bunch of drafts available that are aiming for adoption= towards our first milestone work items. Please review these drafts now and comment on the list! We would very much = be able to focs the discussion in Orlando on the key issues, rather than do= ing rundowns through all the changes. Thanks, Lars= From mattmathis@google.com Wed Feb 27 10:35:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA07821F8A09 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:35:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.877 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bz6k6Kj60yzc for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:35:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ia0-x229.google.com (mail-ia0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6382821F8A0C for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:35:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ia0-f169.google.com with SMTP id j5so763409iaf.0 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:35:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=irGOgclZ8+exkXRWXaa4AH9076teOyKxw/+B4fBfeSM=; b=BHSW5Jnl8qOFFFBdI38/PT7MbD2wsfUDnLZPHlrlTgwLic0JmlkRDMzNRNafy8dDRV hQk76MJOBLUl5uxvOYTgX5JvkErJd+jhnjjoHiq/OGeUH1YCUdoOHKAEeIFX3NGOQDH7 Q+69roZ2/RUB9tgqv0BwF+ajpvuJRx+vwLm0ifus1eZ5jmFWm1nCaLjeObn9UOBs2bGr xNqHd3LzbagVH4HSNr9TEyDiZjL0+ARtxRbHPeJ8QhaFdawNxeRrN/6X0xGRwe3Jhd7x BIHRCUKOEPf8bvT3rxpXe//35GE0j9fupiggy5CkRk39mel/gb2O8N42957fixcB41ko Z2ag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=irGOgclZ8+exkXRWXaa4AH9076teOyKxw/+B4fBfeSM=; b=L78pzMtEIb/jYFDSXOXGP03eJhoPP12m0lG1pWT5mh1T4Blg4KBvJZo5yXYsf/QTPp cSluzNwNJAoKC0bNGvw202QW4NpJx301aNSk8XHqiLTDjL5hl0DJqLf4wBcL2x6/dnbs Oct8/B4bC5AeW5JUb4HPTSYi3/wayjMwxtHHV0ma7YBaa0sdMZwA11r4HBp01Sdoti8l BS8TzcELmnmKMMMOCDB3j3y3+pesuP2m2hMqjNAmYID/7sCBSP1cHX5q1N7JW3NIx6No tjt3+sbuKM0deBZNu5co8gNeNzuTh0q7gKvpntz+lsmrI2Uv6Dzf6Dn+P9mvgFXd4kcr GjNw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.36.169 with SMTP id r9mr7957123igj.96.1361990123650; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:35:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.137.129 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:35:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:35:23 -0800 Message-ID: From: Matt Mathis To: "Eggert, Lars" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae934032b82217e04d6b909ce X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQneu4GQGrxJnLPhlH/LQqbk2+zwmSiHv5mZgjR876MhqGMe8E6Gz8i5uo0BKgphfa0lEvFv5e6alWi+6B7GFHjPDqD+/gNa7QdH5unge5MkbzNO/D/xTZybDTdSL9XII8pwYtHl1xNOVIxUNkWLbzMwvLIWwKARRW2dYH6i+KwOh0XH8SMxHh+78Q09RULxCwO6GkpR Cc: rmcat WG Subject: Re: [rmcat] time to get active X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:35:35 -0000 --14dae934032b82217e04d6b909ce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Did we perhaps address all of the hard problems in the charter process, so now there is nothing to controversial to chew on? Thanks, --MM-- The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using our services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat privacy and security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are. On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, > > the group has been entirely too silent since IETF-86 in Atlanta. We now > have new revisions of a bunch of drafts available that are aiming for > adoption towards our first milestone work items. > > Please review these drafts now and comment on the list! We would very much > be able to focs the discussion in Orlando on the key issues, rather than > doing rundowns through all the changes. > > Thanks, > Lars --14dae934032b82217e04d6b909ce Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Did we perhaps address=A0all of the hard problems in the charter process, s= o now there is nothing to=A0controversial to=A0chew on?

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predic= t the future is to create it. =A0- Alan Kay

Privacy matters! =A0We know from recent events that people are using ou= r services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. =A0 We treat privacy= and security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they ar= e.


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Eggert= , Lars <lars@netapp.com> wrote:
Hi,

the group has been entirely too silent since IETF-86 in Atlanta. We now hav= e new revisions of a bunch of drafts available that are aiming for adoption= towards our first milestone work items.

Please review these drafts now and comment on the list! We would very much = be able to focs the discussion in Orlando on the key issues, rather than do= ing rundowns through all the changes.

Thanks,
Lars

--14dae934032b82217e04d6b909ce-- From lars@netapp.com Wed Feb 27 10:37:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0D321F89FB for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:37:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.348 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EkvJ1PCHRsQa for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:37:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7891E21F8970 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:37:42 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,749,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="26447829" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2013 10:37:42 -0800 Received: from vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.241]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r1RIbgPO002074; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:37:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.54]) by vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.241]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:37:42 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Matt Mathis Thread-Topic: [rmcat] time to get active Thread-Index: AQHOFRWUL2D3qnNQcE+YT6egEQ+kIJiOjliAgAAApAA= Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:37:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.116] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: rmcat WG Subject: Re: [rmcat] time to get active X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:37:43 -0000 On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:35, Matt Mathis wrote: > Did we perhaps address all of the hard problems in the charter process, s= o > now there is nothing to controversial to chew on? I wish... Lars From carlberg@g11.org.uk Wed Feb 27 11:13:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C30521F84C8 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:13:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l3VxVteFxjXg for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:13:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from portland.eukhosting.net (portland.eukhosting.net [92.48.97.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3536B21F8499 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:13:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=g11.org.uk; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=kPNO5WOIwA3c7vK8PZwnV788WHDZ+0YG1GBbDJrnWSg=; b=P0ny+xl4UJRBC6LAC6+PINrmPxhhSF94Ounf8YScS/sWQq+8wOE03Mi752WKULc0msLYJKshzdKw6cax+tYGkIBv1Ltie+8VfT9SZomMJHswVPzupleBKr4aHn5lHiko; Received: from c-98-218-170-72.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([98.218.170.72]:39500 helo=[10.0.1.20]) by portland.eukhosting.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UAmRE-003YYU-Cf; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:13:12 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: ken carlberg In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:13:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <023D88F2-1A6E-47C2-91B2-8B56DEEC70B1@g11.org.uk> References: To: "Eggert, Lars" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - portland.eukhosting.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - g11.org.uk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: portland.eukhosting.net: acl_c_relayhosts_text_entry: carlberg@g11.org.uk|g11.org.uk Cc: rmcat WG , Matt Mathis Subject: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get active) X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:13:19 -0000 well, perhaps I can get the ball rolling in terms of a headache to chew = on :-) The second requirement in draft-jesup-rmcat-reqs-01.txt is... 2. The algorithm must be fair to other flows, both realtime flows (such as other instances of itself), and TCP flows, both long- lived and bursts such as the traffic generated by a typical web browsing session. Note that 'fair' is a rather hard-to-define term. A. The algorithm must not overreact to short-term bursts (such as web-browsing) which can quickly saturate a local- bottleneck router or link, but also clear quickly, and should recover quickly when the burst ends. B. We will need make some evaluation of fairness, but deciding what is "fair" is a tough question and likely to be partially subjective, but we should specify some of the inputs needed in order to select among algorithms and tunings presented as options. however, the document does not have a definition of the term "fair" or = "fairness". And while the document points us to terminology in another = draft (draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-06.txt), this other draft doesn't even = mention "fair" or fairness". I think one nit is that the RMCAT = requirements draft needs its own terminology section instead of pointing = to another draft. And more importantly, I think we need to bite the bullet and decide what = is "fair" / "fairness". It just doesn't seem possible for us to say = that the algorithms *must* be fair, but then punt in defining what is = (or perhaps, what is not) fair. And I'm definitely not meaning to beat = up on the author, but rather ourselves. As a starting point, and in the context of real time apps, I don't think = we need to be fair to a continual series of parallel short transaction = flows. Rather, I would prefer to be fair, or focus our attention, to = longer transaction flows. thoughts? Have I missed something? -ken On Feb 27, 2013, at 1:37 PM, "Eggert, Lars" wrote: > On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:35, Matt Mathis wrote: >> Did we perhaps address all of the hard problems in the charter = process, so >> now there is nothing to controversial to chew on? >=20 > I wish... >=20 > Lars From lars@netapp.com Wed Feb 27 23:59:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519C221F8B3A for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:59:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.356 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ukLePbfyP30r for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:59:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D039A21F8AC3 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:58:59 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,754,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="26601216" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2013 23:58:59 -0800 Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com (exchsmtp.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.239]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r1S7wwSk026189; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:58:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.54]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:58:58 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: ken carlberg Thread-Topic: requirements (was Re: [rmcat] time to get active) Thread-Index: AQHOFR5/bzmSWJbsZUWEPDC9qKZJp5iPbsqA Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:58:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: <023D88F2-1A6E-47C2-91B2-8B56DEEC70B1@g11.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <023D88F2-1A6E-47C2-91B2-8B56DEEC70B1@g11.org.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <8B13F9B386BB3B40AFBF69143287E805@tahoe.netapp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: rmcat WG , Matt Mathis Subject: Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get active) X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:59:03 -0000 Hi, On Feb 27, 2013, at 20:13, ken carlberg wrote: > well, perhaps I can get the ball rolling in terms of a headache to chew o= n :-) thanks, Ken! > however, the document does not have a definition of the term "fair" or "f= airness". And while the document points us to terminology in another draft= (draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-06.txt), this other draft doesn't even mention= "fair" or fairness". I think one nit is that the RMCAT requirements draft= needs its own terminology section instead of pointing to another draft. agreed. Or at least it should point to a draft that has a concrete definiti= on we agree on.=20 (Varun's rmcat-cc-eval draft also needs to align with that definition; it a= lready has a corresponding editor's note.) > And more importantly, I think we need to bite the bullet and decide what = is "fair" / "fairness". It just doesn't seem possible for us to say that t= he algorithms *must* be fair, but then punt in defining what is (or perhaps= , what is not) fair. And I'm definitely not meaning to beat up on the auth= or, but rather ourselves. Agreed. Lars From p.ohanlon@gmail.com Thu Feb 28 01:33:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC20121F8B20 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:33:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.014 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.014 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.585, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pFsZUpuW0YIm for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:33:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD5421F8AC3 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:33:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id ez12so1816703wid.6 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:33:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=ECJzVAy/g/DAaaziKJ9JG5r7hbVYj4SvhIDhJ2J1bGA=; b=KRgtRjQfJMms4V1ndaxBfTZW6YnB/TjAZstt6elTHyVwmDKMDq12oHJbyZSqTmZx91 whqIgVhvW/UwZlvTKpa3OX3sgneNPp3pjmIB3c65hGW0+Vs4auLRLdlx4hjsyO3hfb5X m7nTunSu3B3gnw1OdvqNlDWZvW941RSaW8s5mPNWkhmcmebQ36RFsclr1o33m2bZj8U7 jSMPznh1lrUZiu7s6cvcDQSc+hYscXn97yas6cpEDAQMSm1gFUpts4GxWgednzyMaZW9 NJ5I0vqNJPzvWeTSstWRSKw/7Gf88Fv1aWpuzoFTgsPTFIB7wQG9mYnye71h6IPxrqzA yQvQ== X-Received: by 10.194.7.196 with SMTP id l4mr9481663wja.28.1362044024089; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:33:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from black.lan ([149.241.135.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ex1sm14090928wib.7.2013.02.28.01.33.37 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:33:41 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Piers O'Hanlon In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:33:36 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <023D88F2-1A6E-47C2-91B2-8B56DEEC70B1@g11.org.uk> To: "Eggert, Lars" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: rmcat WG , Matt Mathis , ken carlberg Subject: Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get active) X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:33:45 -0000 Hi, When I was reading over the requirements doc the lack of a fairness = measure had also come to my attention - it seemed to me that we should = probably at least reference the list of fairness measures in RFC5166 in = section 4.7 of draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval - or develop a revised list of = fairness measures. Some new aspects of fairness may arise when one = attempts to run delay based algorithms (potentially with differing delay = bounds) against lost based algorithms.... How do we quantify the 'delay = fairness'? Another thing that concerns me is the issue of talking about 'available' = bandwidth in section 3 - it seems to me that the 'available' bandwidth = (as in unused available bandwidth) may not be the best metric. This is = because existing conventional congestion control (e.g. TCP) will attempt = utilise more than the 'available' bandwidth - which is what one should = expect - so a new flow is often not only taking the 'available' = bandwidth but also taking it's 'fair' share - which is little harder to = define... Piers On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:58, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Feb 27, 2013, at 20:13, ken carlberg wrote: >> well, perhaps I can get the ball rolling in terms of a headache to = chew on :-) >=20 > thanks, Ken! >=20 >> however, the document does not have a definition of the term "fair" = or "fairness". And while the document points us to terminology in = another draft (draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-06.txt), this other draft = doesn't even mention "fair" or fairness". I think one nit is that the = RMCAT requirements draft needs its own terminology section instead of = pointing to another draft. >=20 > agreed. Or at least it should point to a draft that has a concrete = definition we agree on.=20 >=20 > (Varun's rmcat-cc-eval draft also needs to align with that definition; = it already has a corresponding editor's note.) >=20 >> And more importantly, I think we need to bite the bullet and decide = what is "fair" / "fairness". It just doesn't seem possible for us to = say that the algorithms *must* be fair, but then punt in defining what = is (or perhaps, what is not) fair. And I'm definitely not meaning to = beat up on the author, but rather ourselves. >=20 > Agreed. >=20 > Lars >=20 From mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de Thu Feb 28 02:28:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F42D21F8B97 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:28:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.075 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bwBriDO2mw5I for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:28:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.170.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D8721F8B8D for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:28:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (netsrv1-c [10.11.12.12]) by mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2AE600CD for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:28:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from vpn-2-cl113 (vpn-2-cl113 [10.41.21.113]) by netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D08600CC for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:28:20 +0100 (CET) From: Mirja Kuehlewind Organization: University of Stuttgart (Germany), IKR To: rmcat@ietf.org Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:28:19 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20101217.1207316) References: <023D88F2-1A6E-47C2-91B2-8B56DEEC70B1@g11.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <023D88F2-1A6E-47C2-91B2-8B56DEEC70B1@g11.org.uk> X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201302281128.19773.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> Subject: Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get active) X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:28:22 -0000 Hi, here my personal option: > And more importantly, I think we need to bite the bullet and decide what = is > "fair" / "fairness". It just doesn't seem possible for us to say that the > algorithms *must* be fair, but then punt in defining what is (or perhaps, > what is not) fair. And I'm definitely not meaning to beat up on the > author, but rather ourselves. > > As a starting point, and in the context of real time apps, I don't think = we > need to be fair to a continual series of parallel short transaction flows= =2E=20 > Rather, I would prefer to be fair, or focus our attention, to longer > transaction flows. We might not even want to talk about fairness at all. Instead we want to=20 ensure that we do not throttle down the competing flows completely and that= =20 we (as well as others) get an appropriate share of the available bandwidth.= =20 That might not be much easier to define, but fairness seems to be the wrong= =20 term and is often directly linked to tcp-friendliness. Mirja=20 > > thoughts? Have I missed something? > > -ken > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 1:37 PM, "Eggert, Lars" wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:35, Matt Mathis wrote: > >> Did we perhaps address all of the hard problems in the charter process, > >> so now there is nothing to controversial to chew on? > > > > I wish... > > > > Lars =2D-=20 =2D------------------------------------------------------------------ Dipl.-Ing. Mirja K=FChlewind Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR) University of Stuttgart, Germany Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart tel: +49(0)711/685-67973 email: mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de web: www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de =2D------------------------------------------------------------------ From wes@mti-systems.com Thu Feb 28 08:54:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ECE821F8C2D for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:54:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7EeR0VeaxhLG for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:54:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from atl4mhob09.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob09.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8402021F8C11 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:54:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by atl4mhob09.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1SGs9Ux017434 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:54:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 15962 invoked by uid 0); 28 Feb 2013 16:54:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.43.65?) (wes@mti-systems.com@107.45.25.177) by 0 with ESMTPA; 28 Feb 2013 16:54:08 -0000 Message-ID: <512F8BAD.4070701@mti-systems.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:54:05 -0500 From: Wesley Eddy Organization: MTI Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mirja Kuehlewind References: <023D88F2-1A6E-47C2-91B2-8B56DEEC70B1@g11.org.uk> <201302281128.19773.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> In-Reply-To: <201302281128.19773.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rmcat@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get active) X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:54:11 -0000 On 2/28/2013 5:28 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > > We might not even want to talk about fairness at all. Instead we want to > ensure that we do not throttle down the competing flows completely and that > we (as well as others) get an appropriate share of the available bandwidth. > That might not be much easier to define, but fairness seems to be the wrong > term and is often directly linked to tcp-friendliness. > I kind of agree. "Non-destructiveness" to other traffic is the property to look for. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems From bernard_aboba@hotmail.com Thu Feb 28 22:27:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A079221F8717 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:27:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.671 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.468, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cHlaQ5BO8c4M for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:27:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc1-s25.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s25.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B25B21F84D1 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:27:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU403-EAS364 ([65.55.116.8]) by blu0-omc1-s25.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:27:17 -0800 X-EIP: [nKdD4ar5tX5diuzQJ961vQXZ0VEKy6VZ] X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: <023D88F2-1A6E-47C2-91B2-8B56DEEC70B1@g11.org.uk> <201302281128.19773.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> <512F8BAD.4070701@mti-systems.com> From: Bernard Aboba MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <512F8BAD.4070701@mti-systems.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:27:17 -0800 To: Wesley Eddy X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Mar 2013 06:27:17.0795 (UTC) FILETIME=[D2595F30:01CE1645] Cc: "rmcat@ietf.org" , Mirja Kuehlewind Subject: Re: [rmcat] requirements (was Re: time to get active) X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:27:18 -0000 I agree that "fairness" isn't a goal. Hybrid algorithms (e.g. Delay based un= less competing with loss-based), try to avoid building queues unless that w= ould lead to starvation. However once you starve 'em, they get ornery and ca= n swipe at other flows like two cats in a fight. Which part should we focus= on for "fairness", the polite sniffing around the bowl or the all out cat f= ight? When someone says my cat isn't fair, I will want to know :) On Feb 28, 2013, at 8:54, "Wesley Eddy" wrote: > On 2/28/2013 5:28 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >>=20 >> We might not even want to talk about fairness at all. Instead we want to=20= >> ensure that we do not throttle down the competing flows completely and th= at=20 >> we (as well as others) get an appropriate share of the available bandwidt= h.=20 >> That might not be much easier to define, but fairness seems to be the wro= ng=20 >> term and is often directly linked to tcp-friendliness. >=20 >=20 > I kind of agree. >=20 > "Non-destructiveness" to other traffic is the property to look for. >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Wes Eddy > MTI Systems