Draft: draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons

Commentary: Please note - I have one outstanding question for asked on the mailing list . Reviews are welcome , but let 's not merge the PR until we hear back from  . 
 - I 've updated this PR after hearing from Please review it and see if you think it 's ready to merge . 
 From Sent to mailing list here 
 LGTM
Mailing list commentary: As usual , before going to the next publication step ( the IETF last call ) , I do my own AD review . Sorry for this belated review but " just in time " for the MOPS meeting at IETF-113 ;-) First , thank you to Jake , , and for writing the document and to the whole WG for providing comments and reviews . The document is easy to read and is also an excellent tutorial , I learned a lot around the interactions of app & transport layer interactions . Please find below some comments , feel free to ignore my suggestions but I would appreciate a reply on all of them . I also have an action item about ' living documents ' ... Hope this helps Regards
Paragraph (version A):
This document examines networking and transport protocol issues as
they relate to quality of experience in Internet media delivery,
especially focusing on capturing characteristics of streaming video
delivery that have surprised network designers or transport experts
who lack specific video expertise, since streaming media highlights
key differences between common assumptions in existing networking
practices and observations of video delivery issues encountered when
streaming media over those existing networks.
Paragraph (version B):
This document examines networking and transport protocol issues as
they relate to quality of experience (QOE) in Internet media
delivery, especially focusing on capturing characteristics of
streaming video delivery that have surprised network designers or
transport experts who lack specific video expertise, since streaming
media highlights key differences between common assumptions in
existing networking practices and observations of video delivery
issues encountered when streaming media over those existing networks.
Paragraph (version A):
The result is that these two (potentially competing) "helpful"
mechanisms each respond to the same bottleneck with no coordination
between themselves, so that each is unaware of actions taken by the
other, and this can result in a quality of experience for users that
is significantly lower than what could have been achieved.
Paragraph (version B):
The result is that these two (potentially competing) "helpful"
mechanisms each respond to the same bottleneck with no coordination
between themselves, so that each is unaware of actions taken by the
other, and this can result in QOE for users that is significantly
lower than what could have been achieved.
Paragraph (version A):
At the IXP-level, it was observed that port utilization increased.
This phenomenon is mostly explained by a higher traffic demand
from residential users.
Paragraph (version B):
At the IXP-level, it was observed that port utilization increased.
This phenomenon could probably be explained by a higher level of
uncacheable traffic such as videoconferencing and VPNs from
residential users as they stopped commuting and switched to work-
at-home.
Paragraph (version A):
These effects and others that cause transport behavior to diverge
from lab modeling can sometimes have a significant impact on bitrate
selection and on user quality of experience, especially where players
use naive measurement strategies and selection algorithms that don't
account for the likelihood of bandwidth measurements that diverge
from the true path capacity.
Paragraph (version B):
These effects and others that cause transport behavior to diverge
from lab modeling can sometimes have a significant impact on bitrate
selection and on user QOE, especially where players use naive
measurement strategies and selection algorithms that don't account
for the likelihood of bandwidth measurements that diverge from the
true path capacity.
Paragraph (version A):
CTA-2066 specifies a set of media player events, properties, quality
of experience (QoE) metrics and associated terminology for
representing streaming media quality of experience across systems,
media players and analytics vendors.  While all these events,
properties, metrics and associated terminology is used across a
number of proprietary analytics and measurement solutions, they were
used in slightly (or vastly) different ways that led to
interoperability issues.  CTA-2066 attempts to address this issue by
defining a common terminology as well as how each metric should be
computed for consistent reporting.
Paragraph (version B):
CTA-2066 specifies a set of media player events, properties, QOE
metrics and associated terminology for representing streaming media
QOE across systems, media players and analytics vendors.  While all
these events, properties, metrics and associated terminology is used
across a number of proprietary analytics and measurement solutions,
they were used in slightly (or vastly) different ways that led to
interoperability issues.  CTA-2066 attempts to address this issue by
defining a common terminology as well as how each metric should be
computed for consistent reporting.
Paragraph (version A):
Congestion avoidance strategies for deployments using unreliable
transport protocols vary widely in practice, ranging from being
entirely unresponsive to congestion, to using feedback signaling to
change encoder settings (as in RFC5762), to using fewer enhancement
layers (as in RFC6190), to using proprietary methods to detect
"quality of experience" issues and turn off video in order to allow
less bandwidth-intensive media such as audio to be delivered.
Paragraph (version B):
Congestion avoidance strategies for deployments using unreliable
transport protocols vary widely in practice, ranging from being
entirely unresponsive to congestion, to using feedback signaling to
change encoder settings (as in RFC5762), to using fewer enhancement
layers (as in RFC6190), to using proprietary methods to detect QOE
issues and turn off video in order to allow less bandwidth-intensive
media such as audio to be delivered.
Paragraph (version A):
"End-to-end" media encryption offers the potential of providing
privacy for streaming media consumers, with the idea being that if an
unauthorized intermediary can't decrypt streaming media, the
intermediary can't use Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) to examine HTTP
request and response headers and identify the media content being
streamed.
Paragraph (version B):
"End-to-end" media encryption offers the potential of providing
privacy for streaming media consumers, with the idea being that if an
unauthorized intermediary can't decrypt streaming media, the
intermediary can't use Deep Packet Inspection to examine HTTP request
and response headers and identify the media content being streamed.