Original text:
6. <del> Because networking resources are shared between users, a good place to start our discussion is how contention between users, and mechanisms to resolve that contention in ways that are "fair" between users, impact streaming media users.  These topics are closely tied to transport protocol behaviors. As noted in sec-abr, ABR response strategies such as HLS RFC8216 or DASH MPEG-DASH are attempting to respond to changing path characteristics, and underlying transport protocols are also attempting to respond to changing path characteristics. For most of the history of the Internet, these transport protocols, described in udp-behavior and tcp-behavior, have had relatively consistent behaviors that have changed slowly, if at all, over time. Newly standardized transport protocols like QUIC RFC9000 can behave differently from existing transport protocols, and these behaviors may evolve over time more rapidly than currently-used transport protocols. For this reason, we have included a description of how the path characteristics that streaming media providers may see are likely to evolve over time. 6.1. Within sec-trans, the term "Media Transport Protocol" is used to describe to describe the protocol of interest.  This is easier to understand if the reader assumes a protocol stack that looks something like this: </del>  where  "Media Format" would be something like an RTP payload format <del> RFC2736 or ISOBMFF ISOBMFF, </del>  <del> "Media Transport Protocol" would be something like RTP or HTTP, and </del>  <del> "Transport Protocol" would be something like TCP or UDP. </del>  Not all possible streaming media applications follow this model, but <del> for the ones that do, it seems useful to have names for the protocol layers between Media Format and Transport Layer </del>  <del> It is worth noting explicitly that the Media Transport Protocol and Transport Protocol layers might each include more than one protocol. For example, a Media Transport Protocol might run over HTTP, or over WebTransport, which in turn runs over HTTP. </del>  It is worth noting explicitly that more complex network protocol <del> stacks are certainly possible - for instance, packets with this protocol stack may be carried in a tunnel, or in a VPN.  If these </del>  environments are present, streaming media operators may need to analyze their effects on applications as well.  6.2. Because UDP does not provide any feedback mechanism to senders to

Reviewer comments:
…transport protocols Also tighten up description of the assumed protocol stack in (what is now) Section 6.1. Note that the UDP and TCP sections have been flipped in order, to improve section flow and clarity.
NAME - If you have a moment before our call on Friday to take a look at this PR, I'd appreciate it. I think it's important to to get that right, in order to address both the INTDIR and TSVART reviews.
From NAME As a bit of transport commentary, I don't find the setup of Section 6 compelling. While UDP is a transport in a technical sense, for the purpose of media, it is almost always a layer upon which the protocol doing the congestion control work runs. To that end, QUIC is just another more standardized case of this, just like SCTP over UDP. Rather than talking about "UDP's behavior" vs "TCP's behavior", I suggest talking about how applications over UDP for media behave vs applications over TCP for media behave.
NAME - I need to look at this more closely. I understand your point about UDP, but (because UDP is not a real transport layer, while TCP and QUIC are), I suspect (without looking closely yet) I'm going to be making sure that I explain this more clearly, without trying to explain the behavior(s) of applications running over TCP and QUIC. As an aside, I'm trying to make this clearer in drafts I'm targeting forwards Media Over QUIC/MOQ, so I actually DO believe you ... Please await results.
A +1 from NAME 's review (URL): Section 6. Evolution of Transport Protocols and Transport Protocol Behaviors I really wonder whether UDP vs. TCP vs. QUIC is actually the relevant distinction. What may actually matter are the transport services provided by the protocol stack (e.g., RFC 8095). I fully agree to a related comment in the INTDIR review.
After looking at this issue. I agree with both NAME and NAME that the emphasis should be on the interaction between (see new section describing this) media transport protocols and the transport services provided by underlying transport protocols. I'm moving the formerly-UDP section below the formerly-TCP section, because it's easier to describe what UDP is NOT doing after describing what TCP IS doing. I'm also moving one paragraph into the formerly-TCP section from Section 6, because it is specific to ABR strategies that assume a reliable transport. More news to come, when I create a PR for this issue ...
We think is now mergrable. Reviewer: Michael Scharf Review result: Ready with Issues This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC EMAIL if you reply to or forward this review. This informational document surveys network and transport protocol issues that affect quality of experience for streaming applications, in particular video. The overview covers many topics across different technologies. Readers may only be familiar with a subset of these topics and could therefore learn quite a bit from this kind of tutorial. Nonetheless, it remains somewhat unclear what the actual objective of some of the text is. For some topics, quite a bit of technical background is provided, but the discussion is not really comprehensive. In many sections, the document neither derives technical challenges, nor system/protocol requirements, nor practical usage guidance. It is just a kind of tutorial. Quite a bit of text also presents ongoing IETF work, and an RFC with this scope may thus get outdated soon. Section 6.2 deals with topics owned by TCPM. In similar past documents, I have asked for a TCPM presentation prior to an IETF last call in order to ensure that owners of running code are in the loop. I believe this strategy has worked well in the past. Having said this, as TSV-ART reviewer I don't strongly disagree with a publication. All these issues may just be OK for an informational RFC. Some more specific comments: Section 3.2.1. Recognizing Changes from an Expected Baseline This section apparently assumes relatively static path properties, e.g., fixed network connectivity. It would be more useful to analyze the impact of Wifi and 4G/5G networks in one place. Some of this follows later in sections 3.2.1 and Yet, the split between these three sections is unclear. Having a discussion about today's Internet path characteristics and the dynamics at one place could be more useful. 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. Wide and Rapid Variation in Path Capacity The statement "As many end devices have moved to wireless connectivity for the final hop (Wi-Fi, 5G, or LTE), new problems in bandwidth detction have emerged from radio interference and signal strength effects." could be moved to earlier parts of the document. Quite a bit of new computers apparently only have Wifi connectivity and no Ethernet port, i.e., Wifi may just be their default. Also, wireless may not only be used on the last hop, for instance in meshed setups. This may make the problem even harder. Section 6. Evolution of Transport Protocols and Transport Protocol Behaviors I really wonder whether UDP vs. TCP vs. QUIC is actually the relevant distinction. What may actually matter are the transport services provided by the protocol stack (e.g., RFC 8095). I fully agree to a related comment in the INTDIR review. Section 6.1. UDP and Its Behavior UDP is also used for encrypted tunnels (OpenVPN, Wireguard, etc.). Does encrypted tunneling really have no operational impact on streaming apps other than circuit breakers? (I am thinking about 4K streaming over OpenVPN and the like.) Section 6.2. TCP and Its Behavior This text should IMHO be presented and be discussed in TCPM. Personally, I am not convinced that this document is a good place for discussing the long history of TCP congestion control. If the objective of the document is to provide a tutorial, IMHO it would be more useful to briefly explain the state-of-the-art in year 2022. Some further specific comments on TCP congestion control: It is surprising that RFC 5681 is not referenced.793bis has normative statements regarding congestion control, and most stacks are compatible to what is written in 793bis. Several operating systems use CUBIC by default and support standard Reno. Another general good reference for TCP standards is RFC 7414.Does ECN, DCTCP, etc. really not matter at all, for instance, if a data center hosts video playout servers? Section 6.3. QUIC and Its Behavior As already noted, the discussion about head-of-line-blocking would really benefit from backing by a reference. Section 7. Streaming Encrypted Media As far as I know, streaming users sometimes use encrypted tunnels such as OpenVPN or WireGuard (or IPsec) to access video content. I may miss something, but it is unclear to me how that fits into the categories presented in Section

Revised text:
6.  <ins> Within this document, the term "Media Transport Protocol" is used to describe any protocol that carries media metadata and media in its payload, and the term "Transport Protocol" describes any protocol that carries a Media Transport Protocol, or another Transport Protocol, in its payload.  This is easier to understand if the reader assumes a protocol stack that looks something like this: </ins> where <ins> "Media" would be something like the output of a codec, or other media source such as closed-captioning, </ins> "Media Format" would be something like an RTP payload format  <ins> RFC2736 or an ISOBMFF ISOBMFF profile, </ins>  <ins> "Media Transport Protocol" would be something like RTP or DASH MPEG-DASH, and </ins>  <ins> "Transport Protocol" would be a protocol that provides appropriate transport services, as described in Section 5 of RFC8095. </ins> Not all possible streaming media applications follow this model, but  <ins> for the ones that do, it seems useful to distinguish between the protocol layer that is aware it is transporting media, and underlying protocol layers that are not aware. As described in the RFC8095 Abstract, the IETF has standardized a number of protocols that provide transport services.  Although these protocols, taken in total, provide a wide variety of transport services, sec-trans will distinguish between two extremes: Transport protocols used to provide reliable, in-order media delivery to an endpoint, typically providing flow control and congestion control (reliable-behavior) and Transport protocols used to provide unreliable, unordered media delivery to an endpoint, without flow control or congestion control (unreliable-behavior). Because newly standardized transport protocols such as QUIC RFC9000 can evolve their transport behavior more rapidly than currently-used transport protocols, we have included a description of how the path characteristics that streaming media providers may see are likely to evolve in quic-behavior. </ins>  <ins> It is worth noting explicitly that the Transport Protocol layer might include more than one protocol.  For example, a specific Media Transport Protocol might run over HTTP, or over WebTransport, which in turn runs over HTTP. </ins> It is worth noting explicitly that more complex network protocol  <ins> stacks are certainly possible - for instance, when packets with this protocol stack are carried in a tunnel or in a VPN, the entire packet would likely appear in the payload of other protocols.  If these </ins> environments are present, streaming media operators may need to analyze their effects on applications as well. <ins> 6.1. The HLS RFC8216 and DASH MPEG-DASH media transport protocols are typically carried over HTTP, and HTTP has used TCP as its only standardized transport protocol until HTTP/3 RFC9114.  These media transport protocols use ABR response strategies as described in sec- abr to respond to changing path characteristics, and underlying transport protocols are also attempting to respond to changing path characteristics. The past success of the largely TCP-based Internet is evidence that the various flow control and congestion control mechanisms TCP has used to achieve equilibrium quickly, at a point where TCP senders do not interfere with other TCP senders for sustained periods of time (RFC5681), have been largely successful.  The Internet has continued to work even when the specific TCP mechanisms used to reach equilibrium changed over time (RFC7414).  Because TCP provided a common tool to avoid contention, even when significant TCP-based applications like FTP were largely replaced by other significant TCP- based applications like HTTP, the transport behavior remained safe for the Internet. Modern TCP implementations (I-D.ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis) continue to probe for available bandwidth, and "back off" when a network path is saturated, but may also work to avoid growing queues along network paths, which can prevent older TCP senders from detecting quickly when a network path is becoming saturated.  Congestion control mechanisms such as COPA COPA18 and BBR I-D.cardwell-iccrg-bbr- congestion-control make these decisions based on measured path delays, assuming that if the measured path delay is increasing, the sender is injecting packets onto the network path faster than the network can forward them (or the receiver can accept them) so the sender should adjust its sending rate accordingly. Although common TCP behavior has changed significantly since the days of Jacobson-Karels and RFC2001, even adding new congestion controllers such as CUBIC RFC8312, the common practice of implementing TCP as part of an operating system kernel has acted to limit how quickly TCP behavior can change.  Even with the widespread use of automated operating system update installation on many end- user systems, streaming media providers could have a reasonable expectation that they could understand TCP transport protocol behaviors, and that those behaviors would remain relatively stable in the short term. </ins> 6.2. Because UDP does not provide any feedback mechanism to senders to