]>
Shared Bottleneck Detection for Coupled Congestion Control for
RTP Media.
Simula Research LaboratoryP.O. Box 134Lysaker1325Norwaydavidh@simula.nosimone@ferlin.ioUniversity of OsloPO Box 1080 BlindernOsloN-0316Norwaymichawe@ifi.uio.noUniversity of OsloPO Box 1080 BlindernOsloN-0316Norwaykristahi@ifi.uio.no
General
RTP Media Congestion Avoidance TechniquesSBDThis document describes a mechanism to detect whether end-to-end data flows share
a common bottleneck. It relies on summary statistics that are calculated based on
continuous measurements and used as input to a grouping algorithm that runs wherever
the knowledge is needed.In the Internet, it is not normally known if flows (e.g., TCP connections or UDP data streams)
traverse the same bottlenecks. Even flows that have the same sender and receiver may take
different paths and may or may not share a bottleneck. Flows that share a bottleneck link usually
compete with one another for their share of the capacity. This competition has the potential
to increase packet loss and delays. This is especially relevant for interactive applications
that communicate simultaneously with multiple peers (such as multi-party video). For RTP
media applications such as RTCWEB, describes
a scheme that combines
the congestion controllers of flows in order to honor their priorities and avoid unnecessary
packet loss as well as delay.
This mechanism relies on some form of Shared Bottleneck Detection (SBD); here, a
measurement-based SBD approach is described.The mechanism groups flows that have similar statistical characteristics
together. describes a simple method for achieving
this, however, a major part of this draft is concerned with collecting suitable
statistics for this purpose.The current Internet is unable to explicitly inform endpoints as to which
flows share bottlenecks, so endpoints need to infer this from whatever
information is available to them. The mechanism described here currently
utilizes packet loss and packet delay, but is not restricted to these. As ECN
becomes more prevalent it too will become a valuable base signal.Packet loss is often a relatively infrequent indication that a flow
traverses a bottleneck.
Therefore, on its own it is of limited use for
SBD, however, it is a valuable supplementary measure when
it is more prevalent (refer to section 2.5 for
measuring packet loss).End-to-end delay measurements include noise from every
device along the path in addition to the delay
perturbation at the bottleneck device. The noise is
often significantly increased if the round-trip time is used. The
cleanest signal is obtained by using One-Way-Delay
(OWD) (refer to section 3
for a definition of OWD).Measuring absolute OWD is difficult since it requires
both the sender and receiver clocks to be
synchronized. However, since the statistics being
collected are relative to the mean OWD, a relative OWD
measurement is sufficient. Clock skew is not usually
significant over the time intervals used by this SBD
mechanism (see A.2 for a
discussion on clock skew and OWD measurements). However,
in circumstances where it is significant, outlines a way of adjusting the
calculations to cater for it.Each packet arriving at the bottleneck buffer may
experience very different queue lengths, and therefore different
waiting times. A single OWD sample does not, therefore,
characterize the path well. However,
multiple OWD measurements do reflect the distribution of
delays experienced at the bottleneck.Flows that share a common bottleneck may traverse
different paths, and these paths will often have different
base delays. This makes it difficult to correlate changes
in delay or loss. This technique uses the long term shape
of the delay distribution as a base for comparison to
counter this.The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14RFC2119RFC8174 when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.Acronyms used in this document:
One Way Delay Mean Absolute Deviation Round Trip Time Shared Bottleneck DetectionConventions used in this document:
the base time interval over which measurements
are made the number of base time, T, intervals
used in some calculations the number of base time, T, intervals
used in some calculations, where M <= N summation of terms of the variable in parentheses summation of all the
measurements of the variable in parentheses taken over the
interval T summation of all
measurements taken over the interval N*T summation of all
measurements taken over the interval M*T the expectation or mean of the
measurements of the variable in parentheses over T the expectation or mean of the last N values of
the variable in parentheses the expectation or mean of the last M values of
the variable in parentheses the count of measurements of the
variable in parentheses taken in the interval T the count of measurements of the
variable in parentheses taken in the interval NT a boolean variable indicating the
particular flow was identified transiting a bottleneck in
the previous interval T (i.e. Previously Bottleneck) a measure of skewness in a OWD
distribution a variable used as an
intermediate step in calculating skew_est a measure of variability in
OWD measurements a variable used as an
intermediate step in calculating var_est a measure of low frequency
oscillation in the OWD measurements a measure of the proportion of packets lost various
thresholds used in the mechanism number of values related to N T should be long enough so that there are
enough packets received during T for a useful estimate of
short term mean OWD and variation statistics. Making T too
large can limit the efficacy of freq_est. It will
also increase the response time of the mechanism. Making T
too small will make the metrics noisier. N should be large enough to provide a
stable estimate of oscillations in OWD. Usually M=N, though
having M<N may be beneficial in certain circumstances.
M*T needs to be long enough to provide stable estimates of
skewness and MAD. F determines the number of intervals
over which statistics are considered to be equally
weighted. When F=M recent and older measurements are
considered equal. Making F<M can increase the
responsiveness of the SBD mechanism. If F is too small,
statistics will be too noisy. c_s is the threshold in skew_est used for determining whether
a flow is transiting a bottleneck or not. Lower values of c_s require
bottlenecks to be more congested to be considered for grouping by the
mechanism. c_s should be set within the range of +0.2 to -0.1; low enough so that
lightly loaded paths do not give a false indication. p_l is the threshold in pkt_loss used for
determining whether a flow is transiting a bottleneck or
not. When pkt_loss is high it becomes a better indicator of
congestion than skew_est. c_h adds hysteresis to the bottleneck
determination. It should be large enough to avoid constant
switching in the determination, but low enough to ensure
that grouping is not attempted when there is no bottleneck
and the delay and loss signals cannot be relied upon. p_v determines the sensitivity of freq_est
to noise. Making it smaller will yield higher but noisier
values for freq_est. Making it too large will render it
ineffective for determining groups. Flows are separated when the
skew_est|var_est|freq_est|pkt_loss measure is greater than
p_s|p_mad|p_f|p_d. Adjusting these is a compromise
between false grouping of flows that do not share a
bottleneck and false splitting of flows that do. Making them
larger can help if the measures are very noisy, but reducing
the noise in the statistical measures by adjusting T and N|M
may be a better solution.Reference uses T=350ms,
N=50, p_l=0.1. The other parameters have been tightened to
reflect minor enhancements to the algorithm outlined in
:
c_s=0.1, p_f=p_d=0.1, p_s=0.15,
p_mad=0.1, p_v=0.7. M=30, F=20, and c_h = 0.3 are additional
parameters defined in the document.
These are values that seem to work well over a wide range of practical
Internet conditions.The mechanism described in this document is based on the
observation that the distribution of delay measurements of
packets that traverse a
common bottleneck have similar shape characteristics. These
shape characteristics are described using 3 key summary
statistics:
variability (estimate var_est, see )skewness (estimate skew_est, see )oscillation (estimate freq_est, see )
with packet loss (estimate pkt_loss, see ) used as a supplementary statistic.Summary statistics help to address both the noise and the path lag problems by
describing the general shape over a relatively long period of time. Each summary
statistic portrays a "view" of the bottleneck link characteristics, and when used
together, they provide a robust discrimination for grouping flows. An RTP Media
device may be both a sender and a receiver and SBD can be performed at either a
sender or a receiver or both.In , there are two possible locations
for shared bottleneck detection: sender-side and
receiver-side.
Sender-side: consider a situation where host H1 sends media
streams to hosts H2 and H3, and L1 is a shared bottleneck.
H2 and H3 measure the OWD and packet loss and either send
back this raw data, or the calculated summary statistics, periodically
to H1 every T. H1, having this knowledge,
can determine the shared bottleneck and accordingly control
the send rates.Receiver-side: consider that H2 is also sending media to
H3, and L3 is a shared bottleneck. If H3 sends summary
statistics to H1 and H2, neither H1 nor H2 alone obtain
enough knowledge to detect this shared bottleneck; H3 can
however determine it by combining the summary statistics
related to H1 and H2, respectively.There are three possible scenarios each with different
feedback requirements:
Both summary statistic calculations and SBD are performed at senders
only. When sender-based congestion control is implemented, this method is
RECOMMENDED.Summary statistics calculated on the receivers and SBD at
the senders.Summary statistic calculations on receivers, and SBD
performed at both senders and receivers (beyond the current
scope, but allows cooperative detection of bottlenecks).All three possibilities are discussed for completeness in this document,
however, it is expected that feedback will take the form of scenario 1 and operate in
conjunction with sender-based congestion control mechanisms.Having the sender calculate the summary statistics and
determine the shared bottlenecks based on them has the
advantage of placing most of the functionality in one place --
the sender.For every packet, the sender requires accurate relative OWD measurements of
adequate precision, along with an indication of lost packets (or the proportion
of packets lost over an interval). An method to provide such measurement data
with RTCP is described in .Sums, var_base_T and skew_base_T are calculated incrementally as relative OWD
measurements are determined from the feedback messages. When the mechanism has received
sufficient measurements to cover the T base time interval for all flows, the
summary statistics (see ) are calculated for
that T interval and flows are grouped (see ). The exact timing of these calculations will
depend on the frequency of the feedback message.This scenario minimizes feedback, but requires receivers to
send selected summary statistics at an agreed regular
interval. We envisage the following exchange of information to
initialize the system:
An initialization message from the sender to the receiver
will contain the following information:
A list of which key metrics should be collected and
relayed back to the sender out of a possibly extensible set
(pkt_loss, var_est, skew_est, freq_est). The grouping
algorithm described in this document requires all four of
these metrics, and receivers MUST be able to provide them, but
future algorithms may be able to exploit other metrics
(e.g. metrics based on explicit network signals). The values of T, N, M, and the necessary resolution and
precision of the relayed statistics.A response message from the receiver acknowledges this message
with a list of key metrics it supports (subset of the senders list)
and is able to relay back to the sender.This initialization exchange may be repeated to finalize the
agreed metrics should not all be supported by all
receivers. It is also recommendable to include an identifier
for the SBD algorithm version in the initialization message from
the sender, so that potential advances in SBD
technology can be easily deployed. For reference, the mechanism
outlined in this document has the identifier SBD=01.After initialization the agreed summary statistics are
fed back to the sender (nominally every T).This type of mechanism is currently beyond the scope of
the SBD algorithm described in this document. It is mentioned here to ensure more advanced
sender/receiver cooperative shared bottleneck determination mechanisms
remain possible in the future.It is envisaged that such a mechanism would be
initialized in a similar manner to that described in . After initialization both summary statistics and shared
bottleneck determinations should be exchanged, nominally every
T.Measurements are calculated over a base interval, T and
summarized over N or M such intervals. All summary statistics
can be calculated incrementally.
The mean delay is not a useful signal for comparisons
between flows since flows may traverse quite different paths
and clocks will not necessarily be synchronized. However, it
is a base measure for the 3 summary statistics. The mean
delay, E_T(OWD), is the average one way delay measured over
T.To facilitate the other calculations, the last N
E_T(OWD) values will need to be stored in a cyclic buffer
along with the moving
average of E_T(OWD):
mean_delay = E_M(E_T(OWD)) = sum_M(E_T(OWD)) / M
where M ≤ N. Setting M to be less than N
allows the mechanism to be more responsive to changes, but
potentially at the expense of a higher error rate (see for a discussion on improving
the responsiveness of the mechanism.) Skewness is difficult to calculate efficiently and
accurately. Ideally it should be calculated over the entire
period (M * T) from the mean OWD over that period. However this
would require storing every delay measurement over the
period. Instead, an estimate is made over M * T based on a
calculation every T using the previous T's calculation of
mean_delay.The base for the skewness calculation is estimated using a counter initialized
every T. It increments for one way delay (OWD) samples below the mean and
decrements for OWD above the mean. So for each OWD sample:
if (OWD < mean_delay) skew_base_T++if (OWD > mean_delay) skew_base_T--The mean_delay does not include the mean of the
current T interval to enable it to be calculated iteratively.skew_est = sum_MT(skew_base_T)/num_MT(OWD)
where skew_est is a number between -1 and 1Note: Care must be taken when implementing the
comparisons to ensure that rounding does not bias
skew_est. It is important that the mean is calculated
with a higher precision than the samples.
Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) delay is a robust
variability measure that copes well with different send
rates. It can be implemented in an online manner as follows:
var_base_T = sum_T(|OWD - E_T(OWD)|)
where
|x| is the absolute value of xE_T(OWD) is the mean OWD calculated in the previous
Tvar_est = MAD_MT = sum_MT(var_base_T)/num_MT(OWD) An estimate of the low frequency oscillation of the delay
signal is calculated by counting and normalizing the significant mean,
E_T(OWD), crossings of mean_delay:
freq_est = number_of_crossings / N
where we define a significant mean
crossing as a crossing that extends p_v * var_est from
mean_delay. In our experiments we have found that p_v =
0.7 is a good value.
Freq_est is a number between 0 and 1. Freq_est
can be approximated incrementally as follows:
With each new calculation of E_T(OWD) a decision is
made as to whether this value of E_T(OWD) significantly
crosses the current long term mean, mean_delay, with respect to
the previous significant mean crossing.A cyclic buffer, last_N_crossings, records a 1 if there is a significant
mean crossing, otherwise a 0.The counter, number_of_crossings, is incremented when there
is a significant mean crossing and decremented when a
non-zero value is removed from the last_N_crossings.
This approximation of freq_est was not used in , which calculated freq_est every T
using the current E_N(E_T(OWD)). Our tests show that
this approximation of freq_est yields results that are almost
identical to when the full calculation is performed every
T.The proportion of packets lost over the period NT is used
as a supplementary measure:
pkt_loss = sum_NT(lost packets) / sum_NT(total
packets)
Note: When pkt_loss is small it is very variable, however,
when pkt_loss is high it becomes a stable measure for
making grouping decisions.The following grouping algorithm is RECOMMENDED for use
of SBD with coupled congestion control for RTP media
and is sufficient and
efficient for small to
moderate numbers of flows. For very large numbers of flows
(e.g. hundreds), a more complex clustering algorithm may be
substituted.Since no single metric is precise enough to group flows
(due to noise), the algorithm uses multiple metrics. Each
metric offers a different "view" of the bottleneck link
characteristics, and used together they enable a more precise
grouping of flows than would otherwise be possible.Flows determined to be transiting a bottleneck are
successively divided into groups based on freq_est,
var_est, skew_est and pkt_loss.The first step is to determine which flows are
transiting a bottleneck. This is important, since if a flow
is not transiting a bottleneck its delay based metrics will
not describe the bottleneck, but the "noise" from the rest
of the path. Skewness, with proportion of packet loss as a
supplementary measure, is used to do this:Grouping will be performed on flows that are inferred
to be traversing a bottleneck by:
skew_est < c_s
|| ( skew_est < c_h &
PB ) || pkt_loss > p_lThe parameter c_s controls how sensitive the mechanism is
in detecting a bottleneck. c_s = 0.0 was used in . A value of c_s = 0.1 is a little
more sensitive, and c_s = -0.1 is a little less
sensitive. c_h controls the hysteresis on flows that were
grouped as transiting a bottleneck last time. If the test
result is TRUE, PB=TRUE, otherwise PB=FALSE.These flows, flows transiting a bottleneck, are then
progressively divided into groups based on the freq_est, var_est,
and skew_est summary statistics. The process proceeds
according to the following steps:
Group flows whose difference in sorted freq_est is less than a
threshold:
diff(freq_est) < p_fSubdivide the groups obtained in 2. by grouping flows whose difference in sorted E_M(var_est)
(highest to lowest) is less than a threshold:
diff(var_est) < (p_mad * var_est) The threshold, (p_mad * var_est), is with respect
to the highest value in the difference.Subdivide the groups obtained in 3. by grouping flows whose difference in sorted skew_est is less
than a threshold:
diff(skew_est) < p_s When packet loss is high enough to be reliable
(pkt_loss > p_l), Subdivide the groups obtained in 4. by grouping flows whose difference is less
than a threshold
diff(pkt_loss) < (p_d * pkt_loss) The threshold, (p_d * pkt_loss), is with respect
to the highest value in the difference.This procedure involves sorting estimates from highest to
lowest. It is simple to implement, and efficient for small
numbers of flows (up to 10-20). illustrates this algorithm.Grouping decisions can be made every T from the second T,
however they will not attain their full design accuracy until
after the 2*N'th T interval. We recommend that grouping
decisions are not made until 2*M T intervals.Network conditions, and even the congestion controllers,
can cause bottlenecks to fluctuate. A coupled congestion
controller MAY decide only to couple groups that remain
stable, say grouped together 90% of the time, depending on
its objectives. Recommendations concerning this are beyond
the scope of this document and will be specific to the coupled
congestion controller's objectives.The SBD algorithm as specified in was found
to work well for a broad variety of conditions. The following enhancements to the
basic mechanisms have been
found to significantly improve the algorithm's performance under some
circumstances and SHOULD be implemented. These
"tweaks" are described separately to keep the main description
succinct. This section describes how to improve the responsiveness of the basic
algorithm.Measurement based shared bottleneck detection makes
decisions in the present based on what has been measured in the
past. This means that there is always a lag in responding to
changing conditions. This mechanism is based on summary
statistics taken over (N*T) seconds. This mechanism can be made more
responsive to changing conditions by:
Reducing N and/or M -- but at
the expense of having less accurate metrics, and/orExploiting the fact that more recent measurements are more
valuable than older measurements and weighting them
accordingly.Although more recent measurements are more valuable,
older measurements are still needed to gain an accurate
estimate of the distribution descriptor we are measuring.
Unfortunately, the simple exponentially weighted moving
average weights drop off too quickly for our requirements
and have an infinite tail. A simple linearly declining
weighted moving average also does not provide enough weight
to the most recent measurements. We propose a piecewise
linear distribution of weights, such that the first section
(samples 1:F)
is flat as in a simple moving average, and the second
section (samples F+1:M) is linearly declining weights to the end of the
averaging window. We choose integer weights, which allows
incremental calculation without introducing rounding
errors.The weighted moving average for skew_est, based on
skew_est in , can be calculated as follows:
((M-F+1)*sum(skew_base_T(1:F))
+ sum([(M-F):1].*skew_base_T(F+1:M))) / ((M-F+1)*sum(numsampT(1:F))
+ sum([(M-F):1].*numsampT(F+1:M)))where numsampT is an array of the number of OWD samples
in each T (i.e. num_T(OWD)), and numsampT(1) is the most
recent; skew_base_T(1) is the most recent calculation of
skew_base_T; 1:F refers to the integer values 1 through to F, and
[(M-F):1] refers to an array of the integer values (M-F) declining through
to 1; and ".*" is the array scalar dot product operator.To calculate this weighted skew_est incrementally:
F_ - flat portion, D_ - declining
portion, W_ - weighted componentsum_skewbase = 0, F_skewbase=0, W_D_skewbase=0skewbase_hist = buffer length M initialize to 0numsampT = buffer length M initialized to 0old_skewbase = skewbase_hist(M)old_numsampT = numsampT(M)cycle(skewbase_hist)cycle(numsampT)numsampT(1) = num_T(OWD)skewbase_hist(1) = skew_base_TF_skewbase = F_skewbase + skew_base_T - skewbase_hist(F+1)W_D_skewbase = W_D_skewbase + (M-F)*skewbase_hist(F+1) - sum_skewbaseW_D_numsamp =
W_D_numsamp + (M-F)*numsampT(F+1) - sum_numsamp + F_numsampF_numsamp = F_numsamp + numsampT(1) - numsampT(F+1)sum_skewbase = sum_skewbase + skewbase_hist(F+1) - old_skewbasesum_numsamp = sum_numsamp + numsampT(1) - old_numsampTskew_est = ((M-F+1)*F_skewbase +
W_D_skewbase) / ((M-F+1)*F_numsamp+W_D_numsamp)
Where cycle(....) refers to the operation on a cyclic buffer
where the start of the buffer is now the next element in the
buffer.Similarly the weighted moving average for var_est can be
calculated as follows:
((M-F+1)*sum(var_base_T(1:F))
+ sum([(M-F):1].*var_base_T(F+1:M))) / ((M-F+1)*sum(numsampT(1:F))
+ sum([(M-F):1].*numsampT(F+1:M)))where numsampT is an array of the number of OWD samples
in each T (i.e. num_T(OWD)), and numsampT(1) is the most
recent; skew_base_T(1) is the most recent calculation of
skew_base_T; 1:F refers to the integer values 1 through to F, and
[(M-F):1] refers to an array of the integer values (M-F) declining through
to 1; and ".*" is the array scalar dot product operator.
When removing oscillation noise (see ) this
calculation must be adjusted to allow for invalid var_base_T
records.Var_est can be calculated incrementally in the same way
as skew_est in . However, note
that the buffer numsampT is used for both calculations so
the operations on it should not be repeated.When a path has no bottleneck, var_est will be very small and
the recorded significant mean crossings will be the result
of path noise. Thus up to N-1 meaningless mean crossings can
be a source of error at the point a link becomes a
bottleneck and flows traversing it begin to be grouped.To remove this source of noise from freq_est:
Set the current var_base_T = NaN (a value representing
an invalid record, i.e. Not a Number) for flows that are
deemed to not be transiting a bottleneck by the first
skew_est based grouping test (see ). Then var_est = sum_MT(var_base_T != NaN) / num_MT(OWD) For freq_est, only record a significant mean crossing
if flow deemed to be transiting a bottleneck.
These three changes can help to remove the non-bottleneck noise
from freq_est. This section discusses the OWD measurements required for this
algorithm to detect shared bottlenecks.
The SBD mechanism described in
this document relies on differences between OWD measurements to avoid the
practical problems with measuring absolute OWD (see section IIIC). Since all summary statistics are
relative to the mean OWD and sender/receiver clock offsets
should be approximately constant over the measurement periods, the
offset is subtracted out in the calculation.The SBD mechanism requires timing information precise enough
to be able to make comparisons. As a rule of thumb, the time
resolution should be less than one hundredth of a typical path's range
of delays. In general, the coarser the time resolution, the more
care that needs to be taken to ensure rounding errors do not bias the
skewness calculation. Frequent timing information in millisecond resolution
as described by should be sufficient for the
sender to calculate relative OWD.Generally sender and receiver clock skew will be too
small to cause significant errors in the
estimators. Skew_est and freq_est are the most sensitive to this type of
noise due to their use of a mean OWD calculated over a
longer interval. In circumstances where clock skew is high, basing
skew_est only on the previous T's mean and ignoring freq_est
provides a noisier but reliable signal.A more sophisticated method is to estimate the effect the clock
skew is having on the summary statistics, and then adjust
statistics accordingly. There are a number of techniques in
the literature, including .The algorithm described in this memo has so far been evaluated using
simulations and small scale experiments. Real network tests using
RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques (RMCAT) congestion control algorithms
will help confirm the default parameter choice. For example, the time interval T may
need to be made longer if the packet rate is very low. Implementers and testers are
invited to document their findings in an Internet draft.This work was part-funded by the
European Community under its Seventh Framework Programme through
the Reducing Internet Transport Latency (RITE) project
(ICT-317700). The views expressed are solely those of the
authors. This memo includes no request to IANA.The security considerations of RFC
3550, RFC 4585, and RFC 5124 are
expected to apply.Non-authenticated RTCP packets carrying OWD measurements, shared bottleneck indications, and/or summary
statistics could allow attackers to alter the bottleneck sharing
characteristics for private gain or disruption of other parties'
communication. When using SBD for coupled congestion control as
described in , the
security considerations of apply.XX RFC ED - PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION XXXChanges made to this document:
Genart review addressed.AD review addressed.Removed definitions that are no longer used. Added
pkt_loss definition. Refined c_s recommendation.Updates addressing
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmcat/current/msg01671.html
Mainly clarifications. Updates addressing
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/80B6q4nI7carGcf_ddBwx7nKvOw.
Mainly clarifications.
to supplement grouping algorithm description. Updates addressing WG reviews
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/-1JdrTMq1Y5T6ZNlOkrQJQ27TzE and
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/eI2Q1f8NL2SxbJgjFLR4_rEmJ_g. This has mainly
involved minor clarifications, including the moving of 3.4.1 and 3.5 into the new , and 3.4.1 into Fix ToC formatting. Add section on expected feedback
from experiments replacing short section on implementation status. Added comment
on ECN as a signal. Clarification of lost packet signaling. Change term "draft" to
"document" where appropriate. American spelling. Some tightening of the text.Add M to terminology table, suggest
skew_est based on previous T and no freq_est in clock skew section, feedback
requirements as a separate sub section.Correct misspelled authorRemoved ambiguity associated
with the term "congestion". Expanded the description of
initialization messages. Removed PDV metric. Added description
of incremental weighted metric calculations for
skew_est. Various clarifications based on implementation
work. Fixed typos and tuned parameters.Moved unbiased skew section to
replace skew estimate, more robust variability estimator, the
term variance replaced with variability, clock drift term
corrected to clock skew,
revision to clock skew section with a place holder, description
of parameters.Fixed missing 0.5 in 3.3.2 and
missing brace in 3.3.3 New section describing improvements
to the key metric calculations that help to remove noise,
bias, and reduce lag. Some revisions to the notation to make
it clearer. Some
tightening of the thresholds.Revisions to terminology for
clarity
&RFC2119;
&RFC2680;
&RFC3550;
&RFC4585;
&RFC5124;
&RFC6817;
&RFC7679;
&RFC8174;
&I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc;
&I-D.ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message;
Practical Passive Shared Bottleneck Detection using Shape Summary StatisticsUniversity of OsloSimula Research LaboratoryUniversity of OsloClock synchronization algorithms for network measurementsIBM T. J. Watson Research Center