Code change:
If cross traffic that also traverses part or all of the same path topology increases or decreases, especially if this new cross <del> traffic is "inelastic," and does not, itself, respond to indications of path congestion. To recognize that a path carrying streaming media is not behaving the way it normally does, having an expected baseline that describes the way it normally does is fundamental.  Analytics that aid in that recognition can be more or less sophisticated and can be as simple as noticing that the apparent round trip times for media traffic carried over TCP transport on some paths are suddenly and significantly longer than usual.  Passive monitors can detect changes in the elapsed time between the acknowledgements for specific TCP segments from a TCP receiver since TCP octet sequence numbers and acknowledgements for those sequence numbers are carried in the clear, even if the TCP payload itself is encrypted.  See reliable-behavior for more information. As transport protocols evolve to encrypt their transport header fields, one side effect of increasing encryption is the kind of passive monitoring, or even "performance enhancement" (RFC3135) that was possible with the older transport protocols (UDP, described in unreliable-behavior and TCP, described in reliable-behavior) is no longer possible with newer transport protocols such as QUIC (described in quic-behavior).  The IETF has specified a "latency spin bit" mechanism in Section 17.4 of RFC9000 to allow passive latency monitoring from observation points on the network path throughout the duration of a connection, but currently chartered work in the IETF is focusing on endpoint monitoring and reporting, rather than on passive monitoring. One example is the "qlog" mechanism I-D.ietf-quic-qlog-main-schema, a protocol-agnostic mechanism used to provide better visibility for encrypted protocols such as QUIC (I-D.ietf-quic-qlog-quic-events) and for HTTP/3 (I-D.ietf-quic-qlog-h3-events). </del> <ins> traffic is "inelastic," and does not respond to indications of path congestion. Wireless links (Wi-Fi, 5G, LTE, etc.) often see rapid changes to capacity from changes in radio interference and signal strength as endpoints move. To recognize that a path carrying streaming media has experienced a change, maintaining a baseline that captures its prior properties is fundamental.  Analytics that aid in that recognition can be more or less sophisticated and can usefully operate on several different time scales, from milliseconds to hours or days. Useful properties to monitor for changes can include: round-trip times loss rate (and explicit congestion notification (ECN) (RFC3168 when in use) out of order packet rate packet and byte receive rate application level goodput properties of other connections carrying competing traffic, in addition to the connections carrying the streaming media externally provided measurements, for example from network cards or metrics collected by the operating system </ins> 3.3.

Related discussion:
text: The text could also better distinguish between what matters to endpoints and considerations relevant only for middleboxes (such as passive monitors). Section 3.3 Path Requirements The statement "to find the bandwidth requirements for a router on the delivery path" may assume that the bottleneck on the path will be routers. Yet, on a path the bottlenecks could also be a link layer device (e.g., an Ethernet Switch, a Wifi access point, etc.). RFC 6077 (specifically Section 3.1.3) also explains that issue. A better wording may be "to find the bandwidth requirements for a delivery path". Section 3.6. Unpredictable Usage Profiles / Section 3.7. Extremely Unpredictable Usage Profiles I am not fully convinced by the distinction between "unpredictable" and "extremely unpredictable". To me, these two sections could be merged and maybe also be shortened. More specifically, Section 3.7 lists a lot of statistics from the past. What is IMHO a bit missing in Section 3.7 are actual operational considerations. For instance, are there any lessons learnt for the future? Note that Section 3.6 has a reasonable conclusion at the end. Section 4. Latency Considerations and Section 4.1. Ultra Low-Latency I am surprised by the definition "ultra low-latency (less than 1 second)", as well as some of the other numbers. For other real-time communication use cases, "ultra low-latency" would probably imply a latency requirement of the order of one millisecond. For instance, isochronous traffic for motion control in industrial networks may require a latency of 1 ms, and such "ultra-low latency" requirements are discussed elsewhere, e.g., in the DetNet WG. The terminology in this section should be better explained to readers dealing with networked systems with much harder latency requirements. And a reference should be added for these definitions in the context of video streaming. Section 5.5.2 Head-of-Line Blocking If Head-of-Line Blocking is indeed a relevant operational problem, it would be useful to add a corresponding reference (e.g., with measurements). Section 5.5.3.