



Network Working Group                                          Z. Sarker
Internet-Draft                                               Ericsson AB
Intended status: Informational                                  V. Singh
Expires: November 24, 2019                                  callstats.io
                                                                  X. Zhu
                                                              M. Ramalho
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            May 23, 2019


               Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals
                     draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-10

Abstract

   The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in
   multimedia telephony applications.  These applications are typically
   required to implement congestion control.  This document describes
   the test cases to be used in the performance evaluation of such
   congestion control algorithms in a controlled environment.

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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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 November 24, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Structure of Test cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Recommended Evaluation Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Evaluation metrics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Path characteristics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Media source  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Basic Test Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Variable Available Capacity with a Single Flow  . . . . .  10
     5.2.  Variable Available Capacity with Multiple Flows . . . . .  13
     5.3.  Congested Feedback Link with Bi-directional Media Flows .  14
     5.4.  Competing Media Flows with same Congestion Control
           Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.5.  Round Trip Time Fairness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.6.  Media Flow Competing with a Long TCP Flow . . . . . . . .  21
     5.7.  Media Flow Competing with Short TCP Flows . . . . . . . .  23
     5.8.  Media Pause and Resume  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   6.  Other potential test cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     6.1.  Media Flows with Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     6.2.  Explicit Congestion Notification Usage  . . . . . . . . .  27
     6.3.  Multiple Bottlenecks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   7.  Wireless Access Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32

1.  Introduction

   This memo describes a set of test cases for evaluating congestion
   control algorithm proposals in controlled environments for real-time
   interactive media.  It is based on the guidelines enumerated in
   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria] and the requirements discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements].  The test cases cover basic usage
   scenarios and are described using a common structure, which allows
   for additional test cases to be added to those described herein to
   accommodate other topologies and/or the modelling of different path
   characteristics.  The described test cases in this memo should be



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   used to evaluate any proposed congestion control algorithm for real-
   time interactive media.

2.  Terminology

   The terminology defined in RTP [RFC3550], RTP Profile for Audio and
   Video Conferences with Minimal Control [RFC3551], RTCP Extended
   Report (XR) [RFC3611], Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback
   (RTP/AVPF) [RFC4585], and Support for Reduced-Size RTCP [RFC5506]
   apply.

3.  Structure of Test cases

   All the test cases in this document follow a basic structure allowing
   implementers to describe a new test scenario without repeatedly
   explaining common attributes.  The structure includes a general
   description section that describes the test case and its motivation.
   Additionally the test case defines a set of attributes that
   characterize the testbed, for example, the network path between
   communicating peers and the diverse traffic sources.

   o  Define the test case:

      *  General description: describes the motivation and the goals of
         the test case.

      *  Expected behavior: describes the desired rate adaptation
         behavior.

      *  Define a list of metrics to evaluate the desired behavior: this
         indicates the minimum set of metrics (e.g., link utilization,
         media sending rate) that a proposed algorithm needs to measure
         to validate the expected rate adaptation behavior.  It should
         also indicate the time granularity (e.g., averaged over 10ms,
         100ms, or 1s) for measuring certain metrics.  Typical
         measurement interval is 200ms.

   o  Define testbed topology: every test case needs to define an
      evaluation testbed topology.  Figure 1 shows such an evaluation
      topology.  In this evaluation topology, S1..Sn are traffic
      sources.  These sources generate media traffic and use the
      congestion control algorithm(s) under investigation.  R1..Rn are
      the corresponding receivers.  A test case can have one or more
      such traffic sources (S) and their corresponding receivers (R).
      The path from the source to destination is denoted as "forward"
      and the path from a destination to a source is denoted as
      "backward".  The following basic structure of the test case has
      been described from the perspective of media generating endpoints



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


      attached on the left-hand side of Figure 1.  In this setup, the
      media flows are transported in forward direction and corresponding
      feedback/control messages are transported in the backward
      direction.  However, it is also possible to set up the test with
      media in both forward and backward directions.  In that case,
      unless otherwise specified by the test case, it is expected that
      the backward path does not introduce any congestion related
      impairments and has enough capacity to accommodate both media and
      feedback/control messages.  It should be noted that depending on
      the test cases it is possible to have different path
      characteristics in either of the directions.

   +---+                                                           +---+
   |S1 |====== \                 Forward -->              / =======|R1 |
   +---+       \\                                        //        +---+
                \\                                      //
   +---+       +-----+                               +-----+       +---+
   |S2 |=======|  A  |------------------------------>|  B  |=======|R2 |
   +---+       |     |<------------------------------|     |       +---+
               +-----+                               +-----+
   (...)         //                                     \\         (...)
                //          <-- Backward                 \\
   +---+       //                                         \\       +---+
   |Sn |====== /                                           \ ======|Rn |
   +---+                                                           +---+

                  Figure 1: Example of A Testbed Topology

      In a testbed environment with real equipments, there may exist a
      significant amount of unwanted traffic on the portions of the
      network path between the endpoints.  Some of this traffic may be
      generated by other processes on the endpoints themselves (e.g.,
      discovery protocols) or by other endpoints not presently under
      test.  Such unwanted traffic should be removed or avoided to the
      greatest extent possible.

   o  Define testbed attributes:

      *  Duration: defines the duration of the test in seconds.

      *  Path characteristics: defines the end-to-end transport level
         path characteristics of the testbed for a particular test case.
         Two sets of attributes describe the path characteristics, one
         for the forward path and the other for the backward path.  The
         path characteristics for a particular path direction is
         applicable to all the Sources "S" sending traffic on that path.
         If only one attribute is specified, it is used for both path




Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


         directions, however, unless specified the reverse path has no
         capacity restrictions and no path loss.

         +  Path direction: forward or backward.

         +  Minimum bottleneck-link capacity: defines minimum capacity
            of the end-to-end path

         +  Reference bottleneck capacity: defines a reference value for
            the bottleneck capacity for test cases with time-varying
            bottleneck capacities.  All bottleneck capacities will be
            specified as a ratio with respect to the reference capacity
            value.

         +  One-way propagation delay: describes the end-to-end latency
            along the path when network queues are empty, i.e., the time
            it takes for a packet to go from the sender to the receiver
            without encountering any queuing delay.

         +  Maximum end-to-end jitter: defines the maximum jitter that
            can be observed along the path.

         +  Bottleneck queue type: for example, "tail drop" [RFC7567],
            Flow Queue -CoDel (FQ-CoDel)[RFC8290], or Proportional
            Integral controller Enhanced (PIE)[RFC8033].

         +  Bottleneck queue size: defines the size of queue in terms of
            queuing time when the queue is full (in milliseconds).

         +  Path loss ratio: characterizes the non-congested, additive,
            losses to be generated on the end-to-end path.  This must
            describe the loss pattern or loss model used to generate the
            losses.

      *  Application-related: defines the traffic source behavior for
         implementing the test case

         +  Media traffic Source: defines the characteristics of the
            media sources.  When using more than one media source, the
            different attributes are enumerated separately for each
            different media source.

            -  Media type: Video/Voice

            -  Media flow direction: forward, backward or both.

            -  Number of media sources: defines the total number of
               media sources



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


            -  Media codec: Constant Bit Rate (CBR) or Variable Bit Rate
               (VBR)

            -  Media source behavior: describes the media encoder
               behavior.  It defines the main parameters that affect the
               adaptation behavior.  This may include but is not limited
               to:

               o  Adaptability: describes the adaptation options.  For
                  example, in the case of video it defines the following
                  ranges of adaptation: bit rate, frame rate, video
                  resolution.  Similarly, in the case of voice, it
                  defines the range of bit rate adaptation, the sampling
                  rate variation, and the variation in packetization
                  interval.

               o  Output variation : for a VBR encoder it defines the
                  encoder output variation from the average target rate
                  over a particular measurement interval.  For example,
                  on average the encoder output may vary between 5% to
                  15% above or below the average target bit rate when
                  measured over a 100 ms time window.  The time interval
                  over which the variation is specified must be
                  provided.

               o  Responsiveness to a new bit rate request: the lag in
                  time between a new bit rate request from the
                  congestion control algorithm and actual rate changes
                  in encoder output.  Depending on the encoder, this
                  value may be specified in absolute time (e.g. 10ms to
                  1000ms) or other appropriate metric (e.g. next frame
                  interval time).

               More detailed discussions on expected media source
               behavior, including those from synthetic video traffic
               sources, is at [I-D.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model].

            -  Media content: describes the chosen video scenario.  For
               example, video test sequences are available at:
               [xiph-seq] and [HEVC-seq].  Different video scenarios
               give different distribution of video frames produced by
               the video encoder.  Hence, it is important to specify the
               media content used in a particular test.  If a synthetic
               video traffic souce [I-D.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model]
               is used, then the synthetic video traffic source needs to
               configure according to the characteristics of the media
               content specified.




Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


            -  Media timeline: describes the point when the media source
               is introduced and removed from the testbed.  For example,
               the media source may start transmitting immediately when
               the test case begins, or after a few seconds.

            -  Startup behavior: the media starts at a defined bit rate,
               which may be the minimum, maximum bit rate, or a value in
               between (in Kbps).

         +  Competing traffic source: describes the characteristics of
            the competing traffic source, the different types of
            competing flows are enumerated in
            [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria].

            -  Traffic direction: forward, backward or both.

            -  Type of sources: defines the types of competing traffic
               sources.  Types of competing traffic flows are listed in
               [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria].  For example, the number
               of TCP flows connected to a web browser, the mean size
               and distribution of the content downloaded.

            -  Number of sources: defines the total number of competing
               sources of each media type per traffic direction.

            -  Congestion control: enumerates the congestion control
               used by each type of competing traffic.

            -  Traffic timeline: describes when the competing traffic
               starts and ends in the test case.

      *  Additional attributes: describes attributes essential for
         implementing a test case which are not included in the above
         structure.  These attributes must be well defined, so that the
         other implementers of that particular test case are able to
         implement it easily.

   Any attribute can have a set of values (enclosed within "[]").  Each
   member value of such a set must be treated as different value for the
   same attribute.  It is desired to run separate tests for each such
   attribute value.

   The test cases described in this document follow the above structure.








Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


4.  Recommended Evaluation Settings

   This section describes recommended test case settings and could be
   overwritten by the respective test cases.

4.1.  Evaluation metrics

   To evaluate the performance of the candidate algorithms the
   implementers must log enough information to visualize the following
   metrics at a fine enough time granularity:

   1.  Flow level:

       A.  End-to-end delay for the congestion controlled media flow(s).
           For example - end-to-end delay observed on IP packet level,
           video frame level.

       B.  Variation in sending bit rate and throughput.  Mainly
           observing the frequency and magnitude of oscillations.

       C.  Packet losses observed at the receiving endpoint.

       D.  Feedback message overhead.

       E.  Convergence time - time to reach steady state for the
           congestion controlled media flow(s).  Each occurrence of
           convergence during the test period need to be presented.

   2.  Transport level:

       A.  Bandwidth utilization.

       B.  Queue length (milliseconds at specified path capacity).

4.2.  Path characteristics

   Each path between a sender and receiver as described in Figure 1 have
   the following characteristics unless otherwise specified in the test
   case.

   o  Path direction: forward and backward.

   o  Reference bottleneck capacity: 1Mbps.

   o  One-Way propagation delay: 50ms.  Implementers are encouraged to
      run the experiment with additional propagation delays mentioned in
      [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria]




Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   o  Maximum end-to-end jitter: 30ms.  Jitter models are described in
      [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria]

   o  Bottleneck queue type: "tail drop".  Implementers are encouraged
      to run the experiment with other AQM schemes, such as FQ-CoDel and
      PIE.

   o  Bottleneck queue size: 300ms.

   o  Path loss ratio: 0%.

   Examples of additional network parameters are discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria].

   For test cases involving time-varying bottleneck capacity, all
   capacity values are specified as a ratio with respect to a reference
   capacity value, so as to allow flexible scaling of capacity values
   along with media source rate range.  There exist two different
   mechanisms for inducing path capacity variation: a) by explicitly
   modifying the value of physical link capacity; or b) by introducing
   background non-adaptive UDP traffic with time-varying traffic rate.
   Implementers are encouraged to run the experiments with both
   mechanisms for test cases specified in Section 5.1, Section 5.2, and
   Section 5.3.

4.3.  Media source

   Unless otherwise specified, each test case will include one or more
   media sources as described below.

   o  Media type: Video

      *  Media codec: VBR

      *  Media source behavior:

         +  Adaptability:

            -  Bit rate range: 150 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps.  In real-life
               applications the bit rate range can vary a lot depending
               on the provided service, for example, the maximum bit
               rate can be up to 4Mbps.  However, for running tests to
               evaluate the congestion control algorithms it is more
               important to have a look at how they are reacting to
               certain amount of bandwidth change.  Also it is possible
               that the media traffic generator used in a particular
               simulator or testbed is not capable of generating higher
               bit rate.  Hence we have selected a suitable bit rate



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


               range typical of consumer-grade video conferencing
               applications in designing the test case.  If a different
               bit rate range is used in the test cases, then the end-
               to-end path capacity values will also need to be scaled
               accordingly.

            -  Frame resolution: 144p - 720p (or 1080p).  This
               resolution range is selected based on the bit rate range.
               If a different bit rate range is used in the test cases
               then the frame resolution range also need to be selected
               suitably.

            -  Frame rate: 10fps - 30fps.  This frame rate range is
               selected based on the bit rate range.  If a different bit
               rate range is used in the test cases then the frame rate
               range also need to be adjusted suitably.

         +  Variation from target bit rate: +/-5%. Unless otherwise
            specified in the test case(s), bit rate variation should be
            calculated over one (1) second period of time.

         +  Responsiveness to new bit rate request: 100ms

      *  Media content: The media content should represent a typical
         video conversational scenario with head and shoulder movement.
         We recommend to use Foreman video sequence[xiph-seq].

      *  Media startup behavior: 150Kbps.  It should be noted that
         applications can use smart ways to select an optimal startup
         bit rate value for a certain network condition.  In such cases
         the candidate proposals may show the effectiveness of such
         smart approach as an additional information for the evaluation
         process.

   o  Media type: Audio

      *  Media codec: CBR

      *  Media bit rate: 20Kbps

5.  Basic Test Cases

5.1.  Variable Available Capacity with a Single Flow

   In this test case the minimum bottleneck-link capacity between the
   two endpoints varies over time.  This test is designed to measure the
   responsiveness of the candidate algorithm.  This test tries to
   address the requirements in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements], which



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   requires the algorithm to adapt the flow(s) and provide lower end-to-
   end latency when there exists:

   o  an intermediate bottleneck

   o  change in available capacity (e.g., due to interface change,
      routing change, abrupt arrival/departure of background non-
      adaptive traffic).

   o  maximum media bit rate is greater than link capacity.  In this
      case, when the application tries to ramp up to its maximum bit
      rate, since the link capacity is limited to a value lower, the
      congestion control scheme is expected to stabilize the sending bit
      rate close to the available bottleneck capacity.

   It should be noted that the exact variation in available capacity due
   to any of the above depends on the underlying technologies.  Hence,
   we describe a set of known factors, which may be extended to devise a
   more specific test case targeting certain behaviors in a certain
   network environment.

   Expected behavior: the candidate algorithm is expected to detect the
   path capacity constraint, converge to the bottleneck link's capacity
   and adapt the flow to avoid unwanted media rate oscillation when the
   sending bit rate is approaching the bottleneck link's capacity.  Such
   oscillations might occur when the media flow(s) attempts to reach its
   maximum bit rate but overshoots the usage of the available bottleneck
   capacity then to rectify, it reduces the bit rate and starts to ramp
   up again.

   Evaluation metrics : as described in Section 4.1.

   Testbed topology: One media source S1 is connected to the
   corresponding R1.  The media traffic is transported over the forward
   path and corresponding feedback/control traffic is transported over
   the backward path.


                                Forward -->
   +---+       +-----+                               +-----+       +---+
   |S1 |=======|  A  |------------------------------>|  B  |=======|R1 |
   +---+       |     |<------------------------------|     |       +---+
               +-----+                               +-----+
                             <-- Backward

           Figure 2: Testbed Topology for Limited Link Capacity

   Testbed attributes:



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   o  Test duration: 100s

   o  Path characteristics: as described in Section 4.2

   o  Application-related:

      *  Media Traffic:

         +  Media type: Video

            -  Media direction: forward.

            -  Number of media sources: one (1)

            -  Media timeline:

               o  Start time: 0s.

               o  End time: 99s.

         +  Media type: Audio

            -  Media direction: forward.

            -  Number of media sources: one (1)

            -  Media timeline:

               o  Start time: 0s.

               o  End time: 99s.

      *  Competing traffic:

         +  Number of sources : zero (0)

   o  Test Specific Information:

      *  One-way propagation delay: [ 50 ms, 100 ms]. on the forward
         path direction

      *  This test uses bottleneck path capacity variation as listed in
         Table 1

      *  When using background non-adaptive UDP traffic to induce time-
         varying bottleneck , the physical path capacity remains at
         4Mbps and the UDP traffic source rate changes over time as (4 -




Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


         (Y x r)), where r is the Reference bottleneck capacity in Mbps
         and Y is the path capacity ratio specified in Table 1

   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+
   | Variation pattern  | Path         | Start     | Path capacity     |
   | index              | direction    | time      | ratio             |
   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+
   | One                | Forward      | 0s        | 1.0               |
   | Two                | Forward      | 40s       | 2.5               |
   | Three              | Forward      | 60s       | 0.6               |
   | Four               | Forward      | 80s       | 1.0               |
   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+

      Table 1: Path capacity variation pattern for forward direction

5.2.  Variable Available Capacity with Multiple Flows

   This test case is similar to Section 5.1.  However in addition this
   test will also consider persistent network load due to competing
   traffic.

   Expected behavior: the candidate algorithm is expected to detect the
   variation in available capacity and adapt the media stream(s)
   accordingly.  The flows stabilize around their maximum bit rate as
   the maximum link capacity is large enough to accommodate the flows.
   When the available capacity drops, the flows adapt by decreasing
   their sending bit rate, and when congestion disappears, the flows are
   again expected to ramp up.

   Evaluation metrics : as described in Section 4.1.

   Testbed Topology: Two (2) media sources S1 and S2 are connected to
   their corresponding destinations R1 and R2.  The media traffic is
   transported over the forward path and corresponding feedback/control
   traffic is transported over the backward path.
















Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   +---+                                                         +---+
   |S1 |===== \                                         / =======|R1 |
   +---+      \\             Forward -->               //        +---+
               \\                                     //
               +-----+                               +-----+
               |  A  |------------------------------>|  B  |
               |     |<------------------------------|     |
               +-----+                               +-----+
                 //                                    \\
                //          <-- Backward                \\
   +---+       //                                        \\       +---+
   |S2 |====== /                                          \ ======|R2 |
   +---+                                                          +---+

        Figure 3: Testbed Topology for Variable Available Capacity

   Testbed attributes:

   Testbed attributes are similar as described in Section 5.1 except the
   test specific capacity variation setup.

   Test Specific Information: This test uses path capacity variation as
   listed in Table 2 with a corresponding end time of 125 seconds.  The
   reference bottleneck capacity is 2Mbps.  When using background non-
   adaptive UDP traffic to induce time-varying bottleneck for congestion
   controlled media flows, the physical path capacity is 4Mbps and the
   UDP traffic source rate changes over time as (4 - (Y x r)), where r
   is the Reference bottleneck capacity in Mbps and Y is the path
   capacity ratio specified in Table 2.

   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+
   | Variation pattern  | Path         | Start     | Path capacity     |
   | index              | direction    | time      | ratio             |
   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+
   | One                | Forward      | 0s        | 2.0               |
   | Two                | Forward      | 25s       | 1.0               |
   | Three              | Forward      | 50s       | 1.75              |
   | Four               | Forward      | 75s       | 0.5               |
   | Five               | Forward      | 100s      | 1.0               |
   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+

      Table 2: Path capacity variation pattern for forward direction

5.3.  Congested Feedback Link with Bi-directional Media Flows

   Real-time interactive media uses RTP hence it is assumed that RTCP,
   RTP header extension or such would be used by the congestion control
   algorithm in the backchannel.  Due to the asymmetric nature of the



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   link between communicating peers it is possible for a participating
   peer to not receive such feedback information due to an impaired or
   congested backchannel (even when the forward channel might not be
   impaired).  This test case is designed to observe the candidate
   congestion control behavior in such an event.

   Expected behavior: It is expected that the candidate algorithms are
   able to cope with the lack of feedback information and adapt to
   minimize the performance degradation of media flows in the forward
   channel.

   It should be noted that for this test case: logs are compared with
   the reference case, i.e, when the backward channel has no
   impairments.

   Evaluation metrics : as described in Section 4.1.

   Testbed topology: One (1) media source S1 is connected to
   corresponding R1, but both endpoints are additionally receiving and
   sending data, respectively.  The media traffic (S1->R1) is
   transported over the forward path and corresponding feedback/control
   traffic is transported over the backward path.  Likewise media
   traffic (S2->R2) is transported over the backward path and
   corresponding feedback/control traffic is transported over the
   forward path.

         +---+                                                         +---+
         |S1 |===== \                Forward -->              / =======|R1 |
         +---+      \\                                       //        +---+
                     \\                                     //
                  +-----+                               +-----+
                  |  A  |------------------------------>|  B  |
                  |     |<------------------------------|     |
                  +-----+                               +-----+
                     //                                     \\
                    //            <-- Backward               \\
        +---+      //                                         \\       +---+
        |R2 |===== /                                           \ ======|S2 |
        +---+                                                          +---+

          Figure 4: Testbed Topology for Congested Feedback Link

   Testbed attributes:

   o  Test duration: 100s

   o  Path characteristics:




Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


      *  Reference bottleneck capacity: 1Mbps.

   o  Application-related:

      *  Media Source:

         +  Media type: Video

            -  Media direction: forward and backward

            -  Number of media sources: two (2)

            -  Media timeline:

               o  Start time: 0s.

               o  End time: 99s.

         +  Media type: Audio

            -  Media direction: forward and backward

            -  Number of media sources: two (2)

            -  Media timeline:

               o  Start time: 0s.

               o  End time: 99s.

      *  Competing traffic:

         +  Number of sources : zero (0)

   o  Test Specific Information: this test uses path capacity variations
      to create congested feedback link.  Table 3 lists the variation
      patterns applied to the forward path and Table 4 lists the
      variation patterns applied to the backward path.  When using
      background non-adaptive UDP traffic to induce time-varying
      bottleneck for congestion controlled media flows, the physical
      path capacity is 4Mbps for both directions and the UDP traffic
      source rate changes over time as (4-x)Mbps in each direction,
      where x is the bottleneck capacity specified in Table 4.








Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+
   | Variation pattern  | Path         | Start     | Path capacity     |
   | index              | direction    | time      | ratio             |
   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+
   | One                | Forward      | 0s        | 2.0               |
   | Two                | Forward      | 20s       | 1.0               |
   | Three              | Forward      | 40s       | 0.5               |
   | Four               | Forward      | 60s       | 2.0               |
   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+

      Table 3: Path capacity variation pattern for forward direction

   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+
   | Variation pattern  | Path         | Start     | Path capacity     |
   | index              | direction    | time      | ratio             |
   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+
   | One                | Backward     | 0s        | 2.0               |
   | Two                | Backward     | 35s       | 0.8               |
   | Three              | Backward     | 70s       | 2.0               |
   +--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------------+

      Table 4: Path capacity variation pattern for backward direction

5.4.  Competing Media Flows with same Congestion Control Algorithm

   In this test case, more than one media flow share the bottleneck link
   and each of them uses the same congestion control algorithm.  This is
   a typical scenario where a real-time interactive application sends
   more than one media flow to the same destination and these flows are
   multiplexed over the same port.  In such a scenario it is likely that
   the flows will be routed via the same path and need to share the
   available bandwidth amongst themselves.  For the sake of simplicity
   it is assumed that there are no other competing traffic sources in
   the bottleneck link and that there is sufficient capacity to
   accommodate all the flows individually.  While this appears to be a
   variant of the test case defined in Section 5.2, it focuses on the
   capacity sharing aspect of the candidate algorithm.  The previous
   test case, on the other hand, measures adaptability, stability, and
   responsiveness of the candidate algorithm.

   Expected behavior: It is expected that the competing flows will
   converge to an optimum bit rate to accommodate all the flows with
   minimum possible latency and loss.  Specifically, the test introduces
   three media flows at different time instances, when the second flow
   appears there should still be room to accommodate another flow on the
   bottleneck link.  Lastly, when the third flow appears the bottleneck
   link should be saturated.




Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   Evaluation metrics : as described in Section 4.1.

   Testbed topology: Three media sources S1, S2, S3 are connected to R1,
   R2, R3 respectively.  The media traffic is transported over the
   forward path and corresponding feedback/control traffic is
   transported over the backward path.

   +---+                                                         +---+
   |S1 |===== \                Forward -->              / =======|R1 |
   +---+      \\                                       //        +---+
               \\                                     //
   +---+       +-----+                               +-----+       +---+
   |S2 |=======|  A  |------------------------------>|  B  |=======|R2 |
   +---+       |     |<------------------------------|     |       +---+
               +-----+                               +-----+
               //          <-- Backward               \\
   +---+      //                                       \\       +---+
   |S3 |===== /                                         \ ======|R3 |
   +---+                                                        +---+

    Figure 5: Testbed Topology for Multiple congestion controlled media
                                   Flows

   Testbed attributes:

   o  Test duration: 120s

   o  Path characteristics:

      *  Reference bottleneck capacity: 3.5Mbps

      *  Path capacity ratio: 1.0

   o  Application-related:

      *  Media Source:

         +  Media type: Video

            -  Media direction: forward.

            -  Number of media sources: three (3)

            -  Media timeline: new media flows are added sequentially,
               at short time intervals.  See test specific setup below.

         +  Media type: Audio




Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


            -  Media direction: forward.

            -  Number of media sources: three (3)

            -  Media timeline: new media flows are added sequentially,
               at short time intervals.  See test specific setup below.

      *  Competing traffic:

         +  Number of sources : zero (0)

   o  Test Specific Information: Table 5 defines the media timeline for
      both media type.

             +---------+------------+------------+----------+
             | Flow ID | Media type | Start time | End time |
             +---------+------------+------------+----------+
             | 1       | Video      | 0s         | 119s     |
             | 2       | Video      | 20s        | 119s     |
             | 3       | Video      | 40s        | 119s     |
             | 4       | Audio      | 0s         | 119s     |
             | 5       | Audio      | 20s        | 119s     |
             | 6       | Audio      | 40s        | 119s     |
             +---------+------------+------------+----------+

         Table 5: Media Timeline for Video and Audio media sources

5.5.  Round Trip Time Fairness

   In this test case, multiple media flows share the bottleneck link,
   but the one-way propagation delay for each flow is different.  For
   the sake of simplicity it is assumed that there are no other
   competing traffic sources in the bottleneck link and that there is
   sufficient capacity to accommodate all the flows.  While this appears
   to be a variant of test case 5.2, it focuses on the capacity sharing
   aspect of the candidate algorithm under different RTTs.

   Expected behavior: It is expected that the competing flows will
   converge to bit rates to accommodate all the flows with minimum
   possible latency and loss.  The effectiveness of the algorithm
   depends on how fast and fairly the competing flows converge to their
   steady states irrespective of the RTT observed.

   Evaluation metrics : as described in Section 4.1.

   Testbed Topology: Five (5) media sources S1,S2,..,S5 are connected to
   their corresponding media sinks R1,R2,..,R5.  The media traffic is
   transported over the forward path and corresponding feedback/control



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   traffic is transported over the backward path.  The topology is the
   same as in Section 5.4.

   Testbed attributes:

   o  Test duration: 300s

   o  Path characteristics:

      *  Reference bottleneck capacity: 4Mbps

      *  Path capacity ratio: 1.0

      *  One-Way propagation delay for each flow: 10ms for S1-R1, 25ms
         for S2-R2, 50ms for S3-R3, 100ms for S4-R4, and 150ms S5-R5.

   o  Application-related:

      *  Media Source:

         +  Media type: Video

            -  Media direction: forward

            -  Number of media sources: five (5)

            -  Media timeline: new media flows are added sequentially,
               at short time intervals.  See test specific setup below.

         +  Media type: Audio

            -  Media direction: forward.

            -  Number of media sources: five (5)

            -  Media timeline: new media flows are added sequentially,
               at short time intervals.  See test specific setup below.

      *  Competing traffic:

         +  Number of sources : zero (0)

   o  Test Specific Information: Table 6 defines the media timeline for
      both media type.







Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


             +---------+------------+------------+----------+
             | Flow IF | Media type | Start time | End time |
             +---------+------------+------------+----------+
             | 1       | Video      | 0s         | 299s     |
             | 2       | Video      | 10s        | 299s     |
             | 3       | Video      | 20s        | 299s     |
             | 4       | Video      | 30s        | 299s     |
             | 5       | Video      | 40s        | 299s     |
             | 6       | Audio      | 0          | 299s     |
             | 7       | Audio      | 10s        | 299s     |
             | 8       | Audio      | 20s        | 299s     |
             | 9       | Audio      | 30s        | 299s     |
             | 10      | Audio      | 40s        | 299s     |
             +---------+------------+------------+----------+

         Table 6: Media Timeline for Video and Audio media sources

5.6.  Media Flow Competing with a Long TCP Flow

   In this test case, one or more media flows share the bottleneck link
   with at least one long lived TCP flow.  Long lived TCP flows download
   data throughout the session and are expected to have infinite amount
   of data to send and receive.  This is a scenario where a multimedia
   application co-exists with a large file download.  The test case
   measures the adaptivity of the candidate algorithm to competing
   traffic.  It addresses the requirement 3 in
   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements].

   Expected behavior: depending on the convergence observed in test case
   5.1 and 5.2, the candidate algorithm may be able to avoid congestion
   collapse.  In the worst case, the media stream will fall to the
   minimum media bit rate.

   Evaluation metrics : following metrics in addition to as described in
   Section 4.1.

   1.  Flow level:

       A.  TCP throughput.

       B.  Loss for the TCP flow

   Testbed topology: One (1) media source S1 is connected to the
   corresponding media sink, R1.  In addition, there is a long-live TCP
   flow sharing the same bottleneck link.  The media traffic is
   transported over the forward path and corresponding feedback/control
   traffic is transported over the backward path.  The TCP traffic goes




Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   over the forward path from, S_tcp with acknowledgment packets go over
   the backward path from, R_tcp.

          +--+                                                     +--+
          |S1|===== \              Forward -->              / =====|R1|
          +--+      \\                                     //      +--+
                     \\                                   //
                     +-----+                             +-----+
                     |  A  |---------------------------->|  B  |
                     |     |<----------------------------|     |
                     +-----+                             +-----+
                     //        <-- Backward               \\
         +-----+    //                                     \\    +-----+
         |S_tcp|=== /                                       \ ===|R_tcp|
         +-----+                                                 +-----+

     Figure 6: Testbed Topology for TCP vs congestion controlled media
                                   Flows

   Testbed attributes:

   o  Test duration: 120s

   o  Path characteristics:

      *  Reference bottleneck capacity: 2Mbps

      *  Path capacity ratio: 1.0

      *  Bottleneck queue size: [300ms, 1000ms]

   o  Application-related:

      *  Media Source:

         +  Media type: Video

            -  Media direction: forward

            -  Number of media sources: one (1)

            -  Media timeline:

               o  Start time: 5s.

               o  End time: 119s.

         +  Media type: Audio



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


            -  Media direction: forward

            -  Number of media sources: one (1)

            -  Media timeline:

               o  Start time: 5s.

               o  End time: 119s.

      *  Additionally, implementers are encouraged to run the experiment
         with multiple media sources.

      *  Competing traffic:

         +  Number and Types of sources : one (1) and long-lived TCP

         +  Traffic direction : forward

         +  Congestion control: default TCP congestion control[RFC5681].
            Implementers are also encouraged to run the experiment with
            alternative TCP congestion control algorithm.

         +  Traffic timeline:

            -  Start time: 0s.

            -  End time: 119s.

   o  Test Specific Information: none

5.7.  Media Flow Competing with Short TCP Flows

   In this test case, one or more congestion controlled media flow
   shares the bottleneck link with multiple short-lived TCP flows.
   Short-lived TCP flows resemble the on/off pattern observed in the web
   traffic, wherein clients (for example, browsers) connect to a server
   and download a resource (typically a web page, few images, text
   files, etc.) using several TCP connections.  This scenario shows the
   performance of a multimedia application when several browser windows
   are active.  The test case measures the adaptivity of the candidate
   algorithm to competing web traffic, it addresses the requirements 1.E
   in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements].

   Depending on the number of short TCP flows, the cross-traffic either
   appears as a short burst flow or resembles a long TCP flow.  The
   intention of this test is to observe the impact of short-term burst
   on the behavior of the candidate algorithm.



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   Expected behavior: The candidate algorithm is expected to avoid flow
   starvation during the presence of short and bursty competing TCP
   flows, streaming at least at the minimum media bit rate.  After
   competing TCP flows terminate, the media streams are expected to be
   robust enough to eventually recover to previous steady state
   behavior, and at the very least, avoid persistent starvation.

   Evaluation metrics : following metrics in addition to as described in
   Section 4.1.

   1.  Flow level:

       A.  Variation in the sending rate of the TCP flow.

       B.  TCP throughput.

   Testbed topology: The topology described here is same as the one
   described in Figure 6.

   Testbed attributes:

   o  Test duration: 300s

   o  Path characteristics:

      *  Reference bottleneck capacity: 2.0Mbps

      *  Path capacity ratio: 1.0

   o  Application-related:

      *  Media source:

         +  Media type: Video

            -  Media direction: forward

            -  Number of media sources: two (2)

            -  Media timeline:

               o  Start time: 5s.

               o  End time: 299s.

         +  Media type: Audio

            -  Media direction: forward



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


            -  Number of media sources: two (2)

            -  Media timeline:

               o  Start time: 5s.

               o  End time: 299s.

      *  Competing traffic:

         +  Number and Types of sources : ten (10), short-lived TCP
            flows.

         +  Traffic direction : forward

         +  Congestion algorithm: default TCP Congestion control
            [RFC5681].  Implementers are also encouraged to run the
            experiment with alternative TCP congestion control
            algorithm.

         +  Traffic timeline: each short TCP flow is modeled as a
            sequence of file downloads interleaved with idle periods.
            Not all short TCP flows start at the same time, 2 of them
            start in the ON state while rest of the 8 flows start in an
            OFF state.  For description of short TCP flow model see test
            specific information below.

   o  Test Specific Information:

      *  Short-TCP traffic model: The short TCP model to be used in this
         test is described in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria].

5.8.  Media Pause and Resume

   In this test case, more than one real-time interactive media flows
   share the link bandwidth and all flows reach to a steady state by
   utilizing the link capacity in an optimum way.  At this stage one of
   the media flows is paused for a moment.  This event will result in
   more available bandwidth for the rest of the flows as they are on a
   shared link.  When the paused media flow resumes it would no longer
   have the same bandwidth share on the link.  It has to make its way
   through the other existing flows in the link to achieve a fair share
   of the link capacity.  This test case is important specially for
   real-time interactive media which consists of more than one media
   flows and can pause/resume media flows at any point of time during
   the session.  This test case directly addresses the requirement
   number 5 in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements].  One can think it as a
   variation of test case defined in Section 5.4.  However, it is



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   different as the candidate algorithms can use different strategies to
   increase its efficiency, for example in terms of fairness,
   convergence time, reduce oscillation etc, by capitalizing the fact
   that they have previous information of the link.

   Expected behavior: During the period where the third stream is
   paused, the two remaining flows are expected to increase their rates
   and reach the maximum media bit rate.  When the third stream resumes,
   all three flows are expected to converge to the same original fair
   share of rates prior to the media pause/resume event.

   Evaluation metrics : following metrics in addition to as described in
   Section 4.1.

   1.  Flow level:

       A.  Variation in sending bit rate and throughput.  Mainly
           observing the frequency and magnitude of oscillations.

   Testbed Topology: Same as test case defined in Section 5.4

   Testbed attributes: The general description of the testbed parameters
   are same as Section 5.4 with changes in the test specific setup as
   below-

   o  Other test specific setup:

      *  Media flow timeline:

         +  Flow ID: one (1)

         +  Start time: 0s

         +  Flow duration: 119s

         +  Pause time: not required

         +  Resume time: not required

      *  Media flow timeline:

         +  Flow ID: two (2)

         +  Start time: 0s

         +  Flow duration: 119s

         +  Pause time: at 40s



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


         +  Resume time: at 60s

      *  Media flow timeline:

         +  Flow ID: three (3)

         +  Start time: 0s

         +  Flow duration:119s

         +  Pause time: not required

         +  Resume time: not required

6.  Other potential test cases

   It has been noticed that there are other interesting test cases
   besides the basic test cases listed above.  In many aspects, these
   additional test cases can help further evaluation of the candidate
   algorithm.  They are listed as below.

6.1.  Media Flows with Priority

   In this test case media flows will have different priority levels.
   This will be an extension of Section 5.4 where the same test will be
   run with different priority levels imposed on each of the media
   flows.  For example, the first flow (S1) is assigned a priority of 2
   whereas the remaining two flows (S2 and S3) are assigned a priority
   of 1.  The candidate algorithm must reflect the relative priorities
   assigned to each media flow.  In this case, the first flow (S1) must
   arrive at a steady-state rate approximately twice of that of the
   other two flows (S2 and S3).

   The candidate algorithm can use a coupled congestion control
   mechanism [I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc] or use a weighted priority
   scheduler for the bandwidth distribution according to the respective
   media flow priority or use.

6.2.  Explicit Congestion Notification Usage

   This test case requires to run all the basic test cases with the
   availability of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC6679]
   feature enabled.  The goal of this test is to exhibit that the
   candidate algorithms do not fail when ECN signals are available.
   With ECN signals enabled the algorithms are expected to perform
   better than their delay-based variants.





Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


6.3.  Multiple Bottlenecks

   In this test case one congestion controlled media flow, S1->R1,
   traverses a path with multiple bottlenecks.  As illustrated in
   Figure 7, the first flow (S1->R1) competes with the second congestion
   controlled media flow (S2->R2) over the link between A and B which is
   close to the sender side; again, that flow (S1->R1) competes with the
   third congestion controlled media flow (S3->R3) over the link between
   C and D which is close to the receiver side.  The goal of this test
   is to ensure that the candidate algorithms work properly in the
   presence of multiple bottleneck links on the end to end path.

   Expected behavior: The candidate algorithm is expected to achieve
   full utilization at both bottleneck links without starving any of the
   three congestion controlled media flows and ensuring fair share of
   the available bandwidth at each bottlenecks.



                               Forward ---->


               +---+          +---+        +---+      +---+
               |S2 |          |R2 |        |S3 |      |R3 |
               +---+          +---+        +---+      +---+
                 |              |            |          |
                 |              |            |          |
  +---+       +-----+       +-----+      +-----+     +-----+       +---+
  |S1 |=======|  A  |------>|  B  |----->|  C  |---->|  D  |=======|R1 |
  +---+       |     |<------|     |<-----|     |<----|     |       +---+
              +-----+       +-----+      +-----+     +-----+

                       1st                       2nd
                Bottleneck (A->B)          Bottleneck (C->D)

                             <------ Backward




            Figure 7: Testbed Topology for Multiple Bottlenecks

   Testbed topology: Three media sources S1, S2, and S3 are connected to
   respective destinations R1, R2, and R3.  For all three flows the
   media traffic is transported over the forward path and corresponding
   feedback/control traffic is transported over the backward path.

   Testbed attributes:



Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   o  Test duration: 300s

   o  Path characteristics:

      *  Reference bottleneck capacity: 2Mbps.

      *  Path capacity ratio between A and B: 1.0

      *  Path capacity ratio between B and C: 4.0.

      *  Path capacity ratio between C and D: 0.75.

      *  One-Way propagation delay:

         1.  Between S1 and R1: 100ms

         2.  Between S2 and R2: 40ms

         3.  Between S3 and R3: 40ms

   o  Application-related:

      *  Media Source:

         +  Media type: Video

            -  Media direction: Forward

            -  Number of media sources: Three (3)

            -  Media timeline:

               o  Start time: 0s.

               o  End time: 299s.

         +  Media type: Audio

            -  Media direction: Forward

            -  Number of media sources: Three (3)

            -  Media timeline:

               o  Start time: 0s.

               o  End time: 299s.




Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


      *  Competing traffic:

         +  Number of sources : Zero (0)

7.  Wireless Access Links

   Additional wireless network (both cellular network and WiFi network)
   specific test cases are defined in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests].

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria] and the
   relevant congestion control algorithms apply.  The principles for
   congestion control are described in [RFC2914], and in particular any
   new method must implement safeguards to avoid congestion collapse of
   the Internet.

   The evaluation of the test cases are intended to be run in a
   controlled lab environment.  Hence, the applications, simulators and
   network nodes ought to be well-behaved and should not impact the
   desired results.  Moreover, proper measures must be taken to avoid
   leaking non-responsive traffic from unproven congestion avoidance
   techniques onto the open Internet.

9.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA impacts in this memo.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Much of this document is derived from previous work on congestion
   control at the IETF.

   The content and concepts within this document are a product of the
   discussion carried out in the Design Team.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]
              Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, "Congestion Control Requirements
              for Interactive Real-Time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-
              requirements-09 (work in progress), December 2014.







Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria]
              Singh, V., Ott, J., and S. Holmer, "Evaluating Congestion
              Control for Interactive Real-time Media", draft-ietf-
              rmcat-eval-criteria-08 (work in progress), November 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model]
              Zhu, X., Cruz, S., and Z. Sarker, "Video Traffic Models
              for RTP Congestion Control Evaluations", draft-ietf-rmcat-
              video-traffic-model-07 (work in progress), February 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests]
              Sarker, Z., Johansson, I., Zhu, X., Fu, J., Tan, W., and
              M. Ramalho, "Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real-
              Time Media over Wireless Networks", draft-ietf-rmcat-
              wireless-tests-06 (work in progress), December 2018.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
              July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.

   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3551>.

   [RFC3611]  Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
              "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
              RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>.

   [RFC4585]  Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
              "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
              Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.

   [RFC5506]  Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
              Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
              and Consequences", RFC 5506, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>.

   [RFC5681]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.






Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   [RFC6679]  Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P.,
              and K. Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
              for RTP over UDP", RFC 6679, DOI 10.17487/RFC6679, August
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6679>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [HEVC-seq]
              HEVC, "Test Sequences",
              http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/test_sequences/ .

   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc]
              Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion
              control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-08
              (work in progress), January 2019.

   [RFC2914]  Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
              RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.

   [RFC7567]  Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
              Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
              BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC7567, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7567>.

   [RFC8033]  Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and G. White,
              "Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A
              Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat
              Problem", RFC 8033, DOI 10.17487/RFC8033, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8033>.

   [RFC8290]  Hoeiland-Joergensen, T., McKenney, P., Taht, D., Gettys,
              J., and E. Dumazet, "The Flow Queue CoDel Packet Scheduler
              and Active Queue Management Algorithm", RFC 8290,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8290, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8290>.

   [xiph-seq]
              Xiph.org, "Video Test Media",
              http://media.xiph.org/video/derf/ .

Authors' Addresses









Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT                May 2019


   Zaheduzzaman Sarker
   Ericsson AB
   Torshamnsgatan 23
   Stockholm, SE  164 83
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 10 717 37 43
   Email: zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com


   Varun Singh
   Nemu Dialogue Systems Oy
   Runeberginkatu 4c A 4
   Helsinki  00100
   Finland

   Email: varun.singh@iki.fi
   URI:   http://www.callstats.io/


   Xiaoqing Zhu
   Cisco Systems
   12515 Research Blvd
   Austing, TX  78759
   USA

   Email: xiaoqzhu@cisco.com


   Michael A. Ramalho
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   6310 Watercrest Way Unit 203
   Lakewood Ranch, FL  34202-5211
   USA

   Phone: +1 919 476 2038
   Email: mramalho@cisco.com














Sarker, et al.          Expires November 24, 2019              [Page 33]
