ICNRGInternet Research Task Force (IRTF) C. Westphal, Ed.Internet DraftRequest for Comments: 7933 HuaweiIntended status:Category: Informational S. LedererExpires: October 26, 2016ISSN: 2070-1721 D.PoshPosch C. Timmerer Alpen-Adria University KlagenfurtAytacA. AzginS.W. Liu Huawei C. MuellerBitmovin A.DettiBitMovin A. Detti University of Rome Tor Vergata D. CorujoUniversity ofInstituto de Telecomunicacoes Aveiro J. Wang City University ofHong-Kong Marie-JoseHong Kong M. MontpetitNiallMIT N. Murray Athlone Institute of TechnologyApril 27,August 2016 Adaptive Video Streaming overICN draft-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming-08.txt Status of this MemoInformation-Centric Networking (ICN) Abstract ThisInternet-Draft is submitteddocument considers the consequences of moving the underlying network architecture from the current Internet to an Information- Centric Networking (ICN) architecture on video distribution. As most of the traffic infull conformance withfuture networks is expected to be video, we consider how to modify theprovisionsexisting video streaming mechanisms. Several important topics related to video distribution over ICN are presented. The wide range ofBCP 78scenarios covered includes the following: evolving Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) to work over ICN andBCP 79. This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance withleverage the recent ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) standard, layering encoding over ICN, introducing distinct requirements for video using Peer-to-Peer (P2P) mechanisms, adapting theprovisionsPeer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP) for ICN, creating more stringent requirements over ICN because ofBCP 78delay constraints added by Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), andBCP 79. This document may notmanaging digital rights in ICN. Finally, in addition to considering how existing mechanisms would bemodified, and derivative worksimpacted by ICN, this document lists some research issues to design ICN-specific video streaming mechanisms. Status ofit mayThis Memo This document is notbe created, andan Internet Standards Track specification; itmay not beis publishedexcept as an Internet-Draft.for informational purposes. ThisInternet-Draftdocument issubmitted in full conformance witha product of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes theprovisionsresults ofBCP 78Internet-related research andBCP 79. This document maydevelopment activities. These results might not bemodified, and derivative workssuitable for deployment. This RFC represents the consensus ofit may not be created, except to publish it as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outsidetheIETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Internet-Drafts are working documentsInformation- Centric Networking Research Group of the InternetEngineeringResearch Task Force(IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid(IRTF). Documents approved fora maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoletedpublication byother documents atthe IRSG are not a candidate for anytime. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The listlevel of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the currentInternet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The liststatus ofInternet-Draft Shadow Directories canthis document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may beaccessedobtained athttp://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on October 27, 2016.http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7933. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://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 to this document.Abstract This document considers the consequences of moving the underlying network architecture from the current Internet to an Information- Centric Network (ICN) architecture on video distribution. As mostTable ofthe trafficContents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions Used infuture networks is expected to be video, we consider how to modify the existing video streaming mechanisms. Several important topics related to video distribution over ICN are presented, covering a wide range of scenarios: we look at how to evolve DASH to work over ICN, and leverage the recent ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) standard; we consider layered encoding over ICN; Peer-to-Peer (P2P) mechanisms introduce distinct requirements for video and we look at how to adapt PPSP for ICN; Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) adds delay constraints, and this will create more stringent requirements over ICN as well. As part of the discussion on video, we discuss Digital Rights Management (DRM) in ICN. Finally, in addition to considering how existing mechanisms would be impacted by ICN, this document lists some research issues to design ICN specific video streaming mechanisms. Table of Contents 1. Introduction.......................................................This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. Conventions used in this document.................................. 53. Usecase scenariosCase Scenarios for ICN and VideoStreaming.....................Streaming . . . . . . . 5 4. Videodownload..................................................... 7Download . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. VideostreamingStreaming andICN............................................ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Introduction toclient-driven streamingClient-Driven Streaming and DASH................ . . . 7 5.2. Layered Encoding............................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Interactions of Video Streaming with ICN....................... 9. . . . . . . . 8 5.3.1.InteractionInteractions of DASHandwith ICN................................ 9. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3.2. Interaction of ICN with Layered Encoding................... . . . . . 10 5.4. Possible Integration of Video Streaming and ICN Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115.4. Possible Integration of Video streaming and ICN architecture .. 125.4.1. DASH over CCN............................................. 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4.2. Testbed,Open SourceOpen-Source Tools, and Dataset................... 14. . . . . . . 13 6. P2Pvideo distributionVideo Distribution andICN.................................... 15ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1. Introduction to PPSP.......................................... 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2. PPSP over ICN:deployment concepts ............................Deployment Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.2.1. PPSPshort background .....................................Short Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.2.2. From PPSPmessagesMessages to ICNnamed-data ...................... 17Named-Data . . . . . . . . 16 6.2.3. Support of PPSPinteractionInteraction through apull-basedPull-Based ICN API.. 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.2.4. AbstractlayeringLayering for PPSP over ICN........................ . . . . . . . . 18 6.2.5. PPSPinteractionInteraction with the ICNrouting plane ...............Routing Plane . . . . . 19 6.2.6. ICNdeploymentDeployment for PPSP................................... 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.3. Impact ofMPEG DASH coding schemes ............................MPEG-DASH Coding Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. IPTV and ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.1. IPTV Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217. IPTV and ICN...................................................... 22 7.1. IPTV challenges ............................................... 227.2. ICNbenefitsBenefits for IPTVdelivery ................................ 23Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8. Digital RightsManagementsManagement inICN................................. 25ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8.1. Broadcast Encryption for DRM in ICN........................... 25. . . . . . . . . . . 24 8.2.AAA BasedAAA-Based DRM for ICN Networks................................ 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.2.1. Overview.................................................. 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.2.2. Implementation............................................ 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9. Future Steps for Video inICN..................................... 30ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.1.Large ScaleLarge-Scale Live Events....................................... 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.2. Video Conferencing and Real-Time Communications............... 30. . . . . 29 9.3. Store-and-Forward Optimized Rate Adaptation................... 30. . . . . . 29 9.4. Heterogeneous Wireless Environment Dynamics................... 31. . . . . . 30 9.5. Network Coding for Video Distribution in ICN.................. 33. . . . . . 32 9.6. Synchronization Issues for Video Distribution in ICN.......... 33. . 32 10. SecurityConsiderations.......................................... 34Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 11.IANA Considerations.............................................. 34Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 12.Conclusions......................................................References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3413. References....................................................... 35 13.1.12.1. Normative References......................................... 35 13.2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 12.2. Informative References....................................... 35 14.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Authors'Addresses............................................... 38 15. Acknowledgements.................................................Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 1. Introduction The unprecedented growth of video traffic has triggered a rethinking of how content is distributed, both in terms of the underlying Internet architecture and in terms of the streaming mechanisms to deliver video objects. In particular, the IRTF ICNRG research group has been chartered to study new architectures centered upon information; the main contributor to Internet traffic (and information dissemination) is video, and this is expected to stay the same in the near future. If ICN is expected to become prominent, it will have to support video streaming efficiently. As such, it is necessary to discussalonggoing in two separate directions:.Can the current video streaming mechanisms be leveraged and adapted to an ICN architecture?.Can (and should) new, ICN-specific video streaming mechanisms be designed to fully take advantage of the new abstractions exposed by the ICN architecture? This documentintends to focusfocuses on the firstquestion,question in an attempt to define the use cases for video streaming and some requirements.This documentIt also focuses on a fewscenarios, namelyscenarios (namely, Netflix-like video streaming,peer-to-peerP2P videosharingsharing, andIPTV,IPTV) and identifies how the existing protocols can be adapted to an ICN architecture. In doing so, it also identifies the main issues with these protocols in this ICN context.Some documents have startedIn addition toconsider the ICN-specific requirementsthis document, other works have considered specific aspects of dynamic adaptive streaming[2][3][4][6].in ICN [Lederer13b] [Lederer13a] [Grandl13] [Detti12]. This document is informed by these works, as well as others. In this document, we give a brief overview of the existing solutions for the selected scenarios. We thenconsiderexamine the interactions of such existing mechanisms with the ICN architecture and list some of the interactions any video streaming mechanism will have to consider.We thenFinally, we identify some areas for future research. 2. ConventionsusedUsed inthis documentThis Document In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client andserverserver, respectively. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described inRFC-2119[RFC2119]. In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when in ALL CAPS.Lower caseLowercase uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carryingRFC-2119 significance.the significance described in RFC 2119. 3. Usecase scenariosCase Scenarios for ICN and Video Streaming ForICN specificICN-specific descriptions, we refer to the other research groupdocuments.documents [RFC7476]. For our purpose, we assume here thatICN means"ICN" refers to an architecture where content is retrieved by name and with no binding of content to a specific network location.TheBoth live and on-demand consumption of multimedia contentcomes alongcome with timing requirements for the delivery of thecontent, for both, live and on- demand consumption.content. Additionally, real-time use casessuch(such asaudio- /videoaudio-video conferencing[7],[Jacobson09a], game streaming,etc.,etc.) comealongwithmore strictstricter timing requirements. Long startup delays, bufferingperiods orperiods, poor video quality, etc., should be avoided to achieve agoodbetter Quality of Experience (QoE)tofor the consumer of the content.(ForFor a definition of QoE in the context of video distribution, please refer to[25].[LeCallet13]. The working definitionis: "Qualityis as follows: Quality of Experience (QoE) is the degree of delight or annoyance of the user of an application or service. It results from the fulfillment of his or her expectations with respect to the utilityand / orand/or enjoyment of the application or service in the light of the user's personality and currentstate.")state. Of course, these requirements are heavily influenced by routing decisions and caching, which are central parts of ICN andwhichthat have to be considered when streaming video in such infrastructures. Due to this range of requirements, we find it useful to narrow the focusonto four scenarios (more can be included later):-o a video download architecture similar to that of AppleiTtunes(R),iTunes, where the whole file is being downloaded to the client and can be replayed there multiple times;-o a video streaming architecture for playing backmovies; thismovies, which is relevant for the naming and caching aspects ofICN,ICN as well as the interaction with the rate adaptation mechanism necessary to deliver the best QoE to theend-user; -end user; o apeer-to-peerP2P architecture for sharingvideos; thisvideos, which introduces more stringent routing requirements in terms of locating copies of thecontent,content as the location of the peers evolves and peers join and leave the swarm they use to exchange video chunks (forPeer- to-PeerP2P definitions and taxonomy, please refer toRFC5694); - IPTV; thisRFC 5694; and o IPTV, which introduces requirements for multicasting and adds stronger delay constraints. Other scenarios, such asvideo-conferencingvideo conferencing and real-time videocommunicationscommunications, are not explicitly discussed in thisdocument, whiledocument even though they are in scope. Also, events of mass-media distribution, such as a large crowdinat a live event,are also addingadd new requirements to be included in laterversion. We discuss how theversions. The current state-of-the-art protocols in an IP context can be modified for the ICN architecture. The remainder of this document is organized asfollows. In the next section, we considerfollows: Section 4 discusses videodownload. Then indownload; Section5, we5 brieflydescribedescribes DASH[1],[ISO-DASH] and Layered Encoding(MDC, SVC). P2P is the focus of(Modification Detection Code (MDC), Scalable Video Coding (SVC)); Section6, where we describe PPSP.6 focuses on P2P and PPSP; Section 7 highlights the requirements ofIPTV, whileIPTV; Section 8 describes the issues ofDRM.DRM; and Section 9 lists some research issues to be solved for ICN-specific video delivery mechanisms.VideoconferencingVideo-conferencing andreal-time videoreal-time-video communications will bedetailed moredescribed in further detail in futureversions of this document; as well as the massworks. Mass distribution of content atlivelive, large-scale events(stadium,(stadiums, concerthall, etc)halls, etc.) for which there is no clearly adopted existingprotocol.protocol is another topic for further research. 4. VideodownloadDownload Video download, namely the fetching of a video file from a server or a cache down to the user's local storage, is a natural application of ICN. It should be supported natively without requiring any specific considerations. This is supported now by a host of protocols (say,SCP,Secure Copy (SCP), FTP, or over HTTP), which would need to be replaced bythenew ICN- specific protocols to retrieve content in ICNs. However, current mechanisms are built atop existing transport protocols. Some ICN proposals(say, CCN(Context-Centric Network (CCN) orNDNNamed Data Networking (NDN), for instance) attempt to leverage the work done upon these transportprotocol and it has been proposedprotocols. One proposal is to usemechanisms such asthe TCP congestion window (and the associated Adaptive Increase, Multiplicative Decrease- AIMD)(AIMD)) to decide how many object requests("interests"("Interests" in CCN/NDN terminology) should be in flight at any point in time. It should be noted that ICN intrinsically supports different transport mechanisms, which could achieve better performance than TCP, as they subsume TCP into a special case. For instance, one could imagine a link-by-link transport coupled with caching. This is enabled by the ICNarchitecture,architecture and would facilitate the point-to- point download of video files. 5. VideostreamingStreaming and ICN 5.1. Introduction toclient-driven streamingClient-Driven Streaming and DASH Media streaming overthe hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) andHTTP and, in a furtherconsequenceconsequence, streaming over thetransmission control protocol (TCP)TCP, has become omnipresent in today's Internet. Content providers such as Netflix, Hulu, and Vudu do not deploy their own streamingequipment butequipment: they use the existing Internet infrastructure as it is andtheysimply deploy their own servicesover the topOver The Top (OTT). This streaming approach works surprisingly well without any particular support from the underlying network due to the use of efficient video compression,content delivery networksContent Delivery Networks (CDNs), and adaptive video players. Earlier video streaming research mostly recommendedtouse of theuser datagram protocolUser Datagram Protocol (UDP) combined with thereal time transport protocolReal-time Transport Protocol (RTP). It assumed it would not be possible to transfer multimedia data smoothly with TCP, because of its throughput variations and large retransmission delays. This point of view has significantly evolved today. HTTP streaming, and especially its most simple form known as progressive download, has become very popular over the past few years because it has some major benefits compared to RTP streaming. As a consequence of the consistent use of HTTP for this streaming method, the existing Internetinfrastructure,infrastructure consisting of proxies,cachescaches, andCDNs,CDNs could be used. Originally, this architecture was designed to supportbest effortbest-effort delivery of files and notreal timereal-time transport of multimedia data. Nevertheless,real timereal-time streaming based on HTTP could also take advantage of this architecture, in comparison to RTP, which could not leverage any of the aforementioned components. Another benefit that results from the use of HTTP is that the media stream could easily pass firewalls ornetwork address translationNetwork Address Translation (NAT) gateways, which was definitely a key for the success of HTTP streaming. However, HTTP streaming is not the holy grail of streaming as it also introduces some drawbacks compared to RTP. Nevertheless, in an ICN-based video streaming architecture these aspects also have to be considered. The basic concept of DASH[1][ISO-DASH] is to use segments of media content, which can be encoded at different resolutions, bit rates, etc., as so-called representations. These segments are served by conventional HTTPWebweb servers and can be addressed via HTTP GET requests from the client. As a consequence, the streaming system is pull-based and the entire streaming logic is located on the client, which makes itscalable,scalable and allowsto adaptfor adaptation of the media stream to the client's capabilities. In addition to this, the content can be distributed using conventional CDNs and their HTTP infrastructure, which also scales very well. In order to specify the relationship between the contents' media segments and the associated bit rate, resolution, and timeline, the Media Presentation Description (MPD) is used, which isaan XML document. The MPD refers to the available media segments using HTTP URLs, which can be used by the client for retrieving them. 5.2. Layered Encoding Another approach for video streamingconsistconsists in using layered encoding. Namely, scalable video coding formats the video stream into different layers: a base layerwhichthat can be decoded to provide the lowest bit rate for the specificstream,stream and enhancement layerswhichthat can be transmitted separately if network conditions allow. The higher layers offer higher resolutions and enhancement of the video quality, while the layered approach allowsto adaptfor adaptation to the network conditions. This is used in MPEG-4 scalable profile or H.263+. H264SVC isavailable,available but not much deployed. JPEG2000 has a wavelet transform approach for layeredencoding,encoding but has not been deployed much either. It is not clear if the layered approach is fine-grained enough for rate control. 5.3. Interactions of Video Streaming with ICN 5.3.1.InteractionInteractions of DASHandwith ICN Videostreaming, and DASHstreaming (DASH inparticular, haveparticular) has been designed withgoalsa goal thatareis aligned with that of most ICNproposals. Namely,proposals: it is a client-basedmechanism, whichmechanism that requests items (in this case, chunks of a video stream) by name. ICN and MPEG-DASH[1][ISO-DASH] have several elements in common:-o the client-initiated pull approach;-o the content being dealt with in pieces (or chunks);-o the support of efficient replication and distribution of content pieces within the network;-o the scalable, session-free nature of the exchange between the client and the server at the streaming layer: the client is free to request any chunk from any location;-and o the support for potentially multiple source locations. For the last point, DASH may list multiple source URLs in a manifest, and ICN is agnostic to the location of a copy it is receiving. We do not imply that current video streaming mechanisms attempt to draw the content from multiple sources concurrently. This is a potential benefit ofICN,ICN but is not considered in the current approaches mentioned in this document. As ICN is a promising candidate for the Future Internet (FI) architecture, it is useful to investigate its suitability in combination with multimedia streaming standards like MPEG-DASH. In this context, the purpose of this section is to present the usage of ICN instead of HTTP inMPEG-DASHMPEG-DASH. However, there are some issues that arise from using a dynamic rate adaptation mechanism in an ICN architecture (note that some of the issues are related tocaching,caching and are not necessarily unique to ICN): o Naming of the data in DASH does not necessarily follow the ICN convention of any of the ICN proposals. Several chunks of the same video stream might currently go by different namesthatthat, forinstanceinstance, do not share a common prefix. There is a need to harmonize the naming of the chunks in DASH with the naming conventions of the ICN. The naming convention of using a filename/time/encoding formatcouldcould, forinstanceinstance, be made compatible with the convention of CCN. o While chunks can be retrieved from any server, the rate adaptation mechanism attempts to estimate the available network bandwidth so as to select the proper playback rate and keep its playback buffer at the proper level. Therefore, there is a need to either include some location semantics in the data chunks so as to properly assess the throughput to a specificlocation;location or to design a different mechanism to evaluate the available network bandwidth. o The typical issue of access control and accounting happens in this context, where chunks can be cached in the network outside of the administrative control of the content publisher. It might be a requirement from the owner of the video stream that access to these data chunks needs to be accounted/billed/monitored. o Dynamic streaming multiplies the representations of a given video stream, therefore diminishing the effectiveness of caching: namely, to get a hit for a chunk in the cache, it has to be for the same format and encoding values. Alternatively, to get the same hit rate asfora stream using a single encoding, the cache size must be scaled up to include all the possible representations. o Caching introduces oscillatory dynamics as it may modify the estimation of the available bandwidth between the end user and the repositorywherefrom which it is getting thechunks from.chunks. For instance, if an edge cache holds a low resolution representation near the user, the user gettingthisthese low resolution chunks will observe a goodperformance,performance and will then request higher resolution chunks. If those are hosted on a server with poor performance, then the client would have to switch back to the low representation. This oscillation may be detrimental to the perceived QoE of the user. o The ICN transport mechanism needs to be compatible to some extent with DASH. To take a CCN example, the rate at which interests are issued should be such that the chunks received in return arrive fast enough and with the proper encoding to keep the playback buffer above some threshold. o The usage of multiple network interfaces is possible in ICN, enabling a seamless handover between them. For the combination with DASH, an intelligent strategywhichthat should focus on trafficload balancingload-balancing between the available links may be necessary. This would increase the effective media throughput of DASH by leveraging the combined available bandwidth of alllinks,links; however, it could potentially lead to high variations of the media throughput. o DASH does not define how the MPD is retrieved; hence, this is compatible with CCN. However, the current profiles defined within MPEG-DASH require the MPD to containHTTP-URLs (incl. httpHTTP URLs (including HTTP andhttpsHTTPS URI schemes) to identify segments. To enable a more integrated approach as described in this document, an additional profile for DASH over CCN has to be defined, enabling ICN/CCN- based URIs to identify and request the media segments. We describe in Section 5.4 a potential implementation of a dynamic adaptive video stream over ICN, based upon DASH and CCN[5].[Jacobson09b]. 5.3.2. Interaction of ICN with Layered Encoding Issues of interest to anInformation-Centric networkICN architecture in the context of layered video streaming include:.o Caching of the multiple layers. The caching priority should go to the baselayer,layer and to defining caching policy in order to decide when to cache enhancement layers;.o Synchronization of multiple content streams, as the multiple layers may come from different sources in the network (for instance, the base layer might be cached locally while the enhancement layers may be stored in the origin server). Video andaudio videoaudio-video streams must be synchronized, and this includes both intra-layer synchronization (for the layers of the same video or audio stream) and inter-stream synchronization (see Section 9 for other synchronization aspects to be included in the "Future Steps for Video in ICN");.and o Naming of the different layers: when the client requests an object, the request can be satisfied with the base layer alone, aggregated with enhancement layers. Should one request be sufficient to provide different streams? In a CCNarchitecturearchitecture, for instance, this would violate a "one Interest, oneinterest-one data packetData packet" principle and the client would need to specify each layer it would like to receive. In a Pub/Sub architecture, therendezvous pointRendezvous Point would have to make a decision as to which layers (or which pointer to which layer's location) to return. 5.4. Possible Integration of VideostreamingStreaming and ICNarchitectureArchitecture 5.4.1. DASH over CCN DASH is intended to enable adaptive streaming, i.e., each content piece can be provided in different qualities, formats, languages, etc., to cope with the diversity oftodays'today's networks and devices. As this is an important requirement for Future Internet proposals like CCN, the combination of those two technologies seems to be obvious. Since those two proposals are located at different protocol layers--- DASH at the application and CCN at the network layer--- they can be combined very efficiently to leverage the advantages of both and potentially eliminate existing disadvantages. As CCN is not based on classical host-to-host connections, it is possible to consume content from different origin nodes as well as over different network links in parallel, which can be seen as an intrinsic error resilience featurew.r.t.with respect to the network. This is a useful feature of CCN for adaptive multimedia streaming within mobile environments since most mobile devices are equipped with multiple network links like 3G andWiFi.Wi-Fi. CCN offers this functionality out of theboxbox, which is beneficial when used for DASH-based services. In particular, it is possible to enable adaptive video streaming handling both bandwidth and network link changes. That is, CCN handles the network link decision and DASH is implemented on top of CCN to adapt the video stream to the available bandwidth. In principle, there are two options to integrate DASH and CCN: a proxy service acting as a broker between HTTP and CCN as proposed in[6],[Detti12], and the DASH client implementing a native CCN interface. The former transforms an HTTP request to a correspondinginterestInterest packet as well as adataData packet back to an HTTP response, including reliable transport as offered by TCP. This may be a good compromise to implement CCN in a managed network and to support legacy devices. Since such a proxy is already described in[6][Detti12], thisdraftdocument focuses on a more integrated approach, aiming at fully exploiting the potential of a CCN DASHClient.client. That is, we describe a native CCN interface within the DASH client, which adopts a CCN naming scheme (CCN URIs) to denote segments in theMedia Presentation Description (MPD).MPD. In this architecture, only the network access component on the client has to be modified and the segment URIs within MPD have to be updated according to the CCN naming scheme. Initially, the DASH client retrieves the MPD containing the CCN URIs of the content representations including the media segments. The naming scheme of the segments may reflect intrinsic features of CCN like versioning and segmentation support. Such segmentation support is already compulsory for multimedia streaming inCCN and,CCN; thus, it can also be leveraged for DASH-based streaming over CCN. The CCN versioning can be adopted in a further step to signal different representations of the DASH-based content, which enables an implicit adaptation of the requested content to the clients' bandwidth conditions. That is, theinterestInterest packet already provides the desired characteristics of a segment (such as bit rate, resolution, etc.) within the content name (or potentially within parameters defined as extra types in the packet formats). Additionally, if bandwidth conditions of the corresponding interfaces or routing paths allow so, DASH media segments could be aggregated automatically by the CCN nodes, which reduces the amount ofinterestInterest packets needed to request the content. However, such approaches need further research, specifically in terms of additional intelligence and processing power needed at the CCN nodes. After requesting the MPD, the DASH client will start to request particular segments. Therefore, CCNinterestInterest packets are generated by the CCN access component and forwarded to the available interfaces. Within the CCN, theseinterestInterest packets leverage the efficient interest aggregation for, e.g., popular content, as well as the implicit multicast support. Finally, theinterestInterest packets are satisfied by the correspondingdataData packets containing the video segment data, which are stored on the origin server or any CCN node, respectively. With an increasing popularity of the content, it will be distributed across the network resulting in lower transmission delays and reduced bandwidth requirements for origin servers and contentprovidersproviders, respectively. With the extensive usage of in-network caching, new drawbacks are introduced since the streaming logic is located at the client, i.e., clients are not aware of each other and the network infrastructure and cache states. Furthermore, negative effects are introduced when multiple clientsare competing forcompete in a bottleneck and when cachingis influencinginfluences this bandwidth competition. As mentioned above, the clients request individual portions of the content based on available bandwidth, which is calculated using throughput estimations. This uncontrolled distribution of the content influences the adaptation process of adaptive streaming clients. The impact of this falsified throughput estimation could be tremendous and leads to a wrong adaptation decisionwhichthat may impact theQuality of Experience (QoE)QoE at the client, as shown in[8].[Mueller12]. In ICN, the client does not have the knowledge from which source the requested content is actually served or how many origin servers of the content are available, as this is transparent and depends on the name-based routing. This introduces the challenge that the adaptation logic of the adaptive streaming client is not aware of the event when the ICN routing decides to switch to a different origin server or content is coming through a different link/interface. As most algorithms implementing the adaption logicare usinguse bandwidth measurements and related heuristics, the adaptation decisions are no longer valid when changing origin servers (orlinks)links), and these decisions potentially cause playback interruptions and, consequently, stalling. Additionally, ICN supports the usage of multiple interfaces. A seamless handover between these interfaces (and different sources for the content) comes together with changes in performance, e.g., due to switching between fixed and wireless, 3G/4G andWiFiWi-Fi networks,or betweendifferent types of servers (saywith/without SSD,with/ without Shared Secret Data (SSD) orwith/withouthardware acceleration), etc. Considering these characteristics of ICN, adaptation algorithms merely based on bandwidth measurements are not appropriate anymore, as potentially each segment can be transferred from another ICN node or interface, all with different bandwidth conditions. Thus, adaptation algorithms taking into account these intrinsic characteristics of ICN are preferred over algorithms based on mere bandwidth measurements. 5.4.2. Testbed,Open SourceOpen-Source Tools, and Dataset For the evaluations of DASH over CCN, a testbed withopen sourceopen-source tools and datasets is provided in[9].[ITEC-DASH]. In particular, it provides twoclient playerclient-player implementations, (i) a libdash extension for DASH over CCN and (ii) a VLC plugin implementing DASH over CCN. For bothimplementationsimplementations, the CCNx implementation has been used as a basis. The general architecture of libdash is organized inmodules,modules so that the library implements a MPD parser and an extensible connection manager. The library provides object-oriented interfaces for these modules to access the MPD and the downloadable segments. These components are extended to support DASH over CCN andavailableare located in a separate development branch of thegithubGitHub project available athttp://www.github.com/bitmovin/libdash.<http://www.github.com/bitmovin/libdash>. libdash comes together with a fully featured DASH player with a QT-basedfrontend,front end, demonstrating the usage of libdash and providing a scientific evaluation platform. As an alternative, patches for the DASH plugin of the VLC player are provided. These patches can be applied to the latest source code checkout of VLC resulting in aDASH over CCN-enabledDASH-over-CCN-enabled VLC player. Finally, aDASH over CCNDASH-over-CCN dataset is provided in the form of a CCNx repository. It includes 15 different quality representation of the well-known Big Buck Bunny Movie, ranging from 100 kbpsupto 4500 kbps. The content is split into segments of twoseconds,seconds and is described by an associated MPD using the presented naming scheme in Section4.1.5.1. This repository can be downloaded from[9],[ITEC-DASH] and is also provided by apublicpublicly accessible CCNx node. Associated routing commands for the CCNx namespaces of the content are provided via scripts coming together with the dataset and can be used as a public testbed. 6. P2Pvideo distributionVideo Distribution and ICNAnotherPeer-to-Peer distribution is another form of distributing content--- and video inparticular- whichparticular -- that ICNs need tosupport is Peer-to-Peer distribution (P2P).support. We see now how an existing protocol such as PPSP can be modified to work in an ICN environment. 6.1. Introduction to PPSP P2PvideoVideo Streaming(PPS)(P2PVS) is a popular approach to redistribute live media over the Internet. The proposed P2PVS solutions can be roughly classified in two classes:- Push/Tree based - Pull/Mesh basedo Push/Tree-based o Pull/Mesh-based ThePush/Tree basedPush/Tree-based solution creates an overlay network amongpeersPeers that has a tree shape[30].[Castro03]. Using a progressive encoding(e.g.(e.g., Multiple Description Coding or H.264 Scalable Video Coding), multiple trees could be set up to support video rate adaptation. On eachtreetree, an enhancement stream is sent. The higher the number of received streams, the higher the video quality. A peer controls the video rate by either fetching or not fetching the streams delivered over the distribution trees. ThePull/Mesh basedPull/Mesh-based solution is inspired by the BitTorrent file sharing mechanism. ATrackertracker collects information about the state of the swarm(i.e.(i.e., the set of participating peers). A peer forms a mesh overlay network with a subset ofpeers,peers andexchangeexchanges data with them. A peer announces what data items it disposes and requests missing data items that are announced by connected peers. In case of live streaming, the involved data set includes only a recent window of data items published by the source.AlsoAlso, in this case, the use of a progressive encoding can be exploited for video rate adaptation.Pull/Mesh basedPull/Mesh-based P2PVS solutions are the more promising candidate for the ICN deployment, since most of ICN approach provides a pull-based API[5][10][11][12].[Jacobson09b] [Detti11] [Chai11] [NETINF]. In addition,Pull/Mesh basedPull/Mesh-based P2PVS are more robust thanPush/Tree basedthe Push/Tree-based one[13][Magharei07], and thePeer to Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP)PPSP working group[14][IETF-PPSP] is also proposing aPull/Mesh basedPull/Mesh-based solution. +------------------------------------------------+ | | | +--------------------------------+ | | | Tracker | | | +--------------------------------+ | | | ^ ^ | |Tracker | | Tracker |Tracker | |Protocol| | Protocol |Protocol | | | | | | | V | | | | +---------+ Peer +---------+ | | | Peer |<----------->| Peer | | | +---------+ Protocol +---------+ | | | ^ | | | |Peer | | | |Protocol | | V | | | +---------------+ | | | Peer | | | +---------------+ | | | +------------------------------------------------+ Figure 1: PPSP System Architecture(source [RFC6972])[RFC6972] Figure 1 reports the PPSP architecture presented in [RFC6972]. PEERs announce and share video chunks and a TRACKER maintains a list of PEERs participating in a specificaudio/videoaudio-video channel or in the distribution of a streaming file. ThetrackerTRACKER functionality may be centralized in a server or distributed over the PEERs. PPSPstandardizestandardizes thePeerpeer and Tracker Protocols, which can run directly over UDP or TCP. This document discusses some preliminary concepts about the deployment of PPSP on top of an ICN that exposes a pull-based API, meanwhile considering the impact ofMPEG DASHMPEG-DASH streaming format. 6.2. PPSP over ICN:deployment conceptsDeployment Concepts 6.2.1. PPSPshort background PPSP specifies peer protocolShort Background The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)[15]is defined in [Bakker15] andtracker protocol (PPSP-TP)[16].the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Tracker Protocol (PPSP-TP) is defined in [RFC7846]. Some of the operations carried out by thetracker protocolTracker Protocol are thefollowings. Whenfollowing: when a peer wishes to join the streamingsessionsession, it contacts theTrackertracker (CONNECT message), obtains a PEER_ID and a list of PEER_IDs (and IP addresses) of other peers that are participating to the SWARM and that the tracker has singled out for the requesting peer (this may be a subset of the all peers of theSWARM). InSWARM); in addition to this join operation, a peer may contact the tracker to request to renew the list of participating peers (FIND message), to periodically update its status to the tracker (STAT_REPORT message),etc.and so on. Some of the operations carried out by thepeer protocol arePeer Protocol include thefollowing. Usingfollowing: using the list of peers delivered by the tracker, a peer establishes a session with them (HANDSHAKEmessage). Amessage); a peer periodically announces to neighboring peers which chunks it has available for download (HAVEmessage). Usingmessage); using these announcements, a peer requests missing chunks from neighboring peers (REQUEST messages), which willsendbe sent back to them (DATA message). 6.2.2. From PPSPmessagesMessages to ICNnamed-dataNamed-Data An ICN provides users with data items exposed by names. The bundle name and data item is usually referred asnamed-data, named-content,"named-data", "named- content", etc. To transfer PPSP messagesthoughthrough anICNICN, the messages should be wrapped as named-dataitems,items and receivers should request them by name. A PPSP entity receives messages from peers and/or a tracker. Some operations require gathering the messages generated by another specific host (peer or tracker). For instance, ifa peerPeer A wishes to gain information about video chunks available frompeerPeer B, the former shall fetch the PPSP HAVE messages specifically generated by thelater.latter. We refer to these kinds of named-data as "located-named-data",data" since they should be gathered from a specific location(e.g. peer(e.g., Peer B). For other PPSP operations, such as fetching a DATA message(i.e.(i.e., a video chunk), as long as a peer receives the requested content, it doesn't matter which endpoint generated thedata.Wedata. We refer to this information with the generic term "named-data". The naming scheme differentiates named-data and located-named-data items. In the case of named-data, the naming scheme only includes a content identifier(e.g.(e.g., the name of the videochunk),chunk) without any prefix identifying who provides the content. For instance, a DATA message containing the video chunk#1"#1" may be named as "ccnx:/swarmID/chunk/chunkID", where swarmID is a unique identifier of the streaming session, "chunk" is akeywordkeyword, and chunkID is the chunk identifier(e.g. a(e.g., an integer number). In case of located-named-data, the naming scheme includes alocation-prefix,location- prefix, which uniquely identifies the host generating the data item. This prefix may be the PEER_ID in case the host was a peer or a tracker identifier in case the host was the tracker. For instance, a HAVE message generated by apeerPeer B may be named as "ccnx:/swarmID/peer/PEER_ID/HAVE", where "peer" is a keyword, PEER_ID_B is the identifier ofpeer BPeer B, and HAVE is a keyword. 6.2.3. Support of PPSPinteractionInteraction through apull-basedPull-Based ICN API The PPSP procedures are based both on pull and push interactions. For instance, the distribution of chunks availability can be classified as a push-basedoperation,operation since a peer sendsan"unsolicited" information (HAVE message) to neighboring peers.ConverselyConversely, the procedure used to receive video chunks can be classified aspull-based,pull- based since it is supported by a request/response interaction(i.e.(i.e., REQUEST, DATA messages). As we said, we refer to an ICN architecturewhichthat provides a pull- based API. Accordingly, the mapping of PPSP pull-based procedure is quite simple. For instance, using the CCN architecture[5][Jacobson09b], a PPSP DATA message may be carried by a CCNDataDATA message and a REQUEST message can be transferred by a CCN Interest. Conversely, the support of push-based PPSP operations may be more difficult. We needofan adaptation functionality that carries out a push-based operation using the underlying pull-based service primitives. For instance, a possible approach is to use therequest/response (i.e.request/ response (i.e., Interest/Data)four waysfour-way handshakes proposed in[7].[Jacobson09a]. Another possibility is that receivers periodically send out request messages of the named-data that neighbors will push and, when available, the sender inserts the pushed data within a response message. 6.2.4. AbstractlayeringLayering for PPSP over ICN +-----------------------------------+ | Application | +-----------------------------------+ | PPSP (TCP/IP) | +-----------------------------------+ | ICN - PPSP Adaptation Layer (AL) | +-----------------------------------+ | ICN Architecture | +-----------------------------------+ Figure 2: MediatorapproachApproach Figure 2 provides a possible abstract layering for PPSP over ICN. The Adaptation Layer acts as a mediator (proxy) between legacy PPSP entities based on TCP/IP and the ICN architecture. Infacts,fact, the role the mediator is to use ICN to transfer PPSP legacy messages. This approach makes it possible to merely reuse TCP/IP P2P applications whose software includes also PPSP functionality. This "all-in-one" development approach may be rather common since thePPSP-ApplicationPPSP application interface is not going to be specified. Moreover, if theOperating Systemoperating system will provide libraries that expose a PPSP API, these will be initially based onaan underlying TCP/IP API.AlsoAlso, in this case, the mediator approach would make it possible to easily reuse both the PPSP libraries and the Application on top of an ICN. +-----------------------------------+ | Application | +-----------------------------------+ | ICN-PPSP | +-----------------------------------+ | ICN Architecture | +-----------------------------------+ Figure 3:Clean-slate approachClean-Slate Approach Figure 3 sketches a clean-slate layering approach in which the application directly includes or interacts with a PPSP version based on ICN.LikelyIt's likely such a PPSP_ICN integration could yield asimplier development,simpler development also because it does not require implementing a TCP/IP to ICN translation as in the Mediator approach. However, theclean- slateclean-slate approach requires developing the application (in case of embedded PPSP functionality) or the PPSP library fromscratch,scratch without exploiting what might already exist for TCP/IP. Overall, the Mediator approach may be consideredasthe first step of a migration path towardsICN nativeICN-native PPSP applications. 6.2.5. PPSPinteractionInteraction with the ICNrouting planeRouting Plane Upon the ICNAPIAPI, a user (peer) requestsacontent and the ICN sends it back. The content is gathered by the ICN from any source, which could be the closest peer that disposes of the named-data item, an in-network cache, etc. Actually, "where" to gather the content is controlled by an underlying ICN routing plane, which sets up the ICN forwarding tables(e.g.(e.g., CCN FIB[5]).[Jacobson09b]). A cross-layer interaction between the ICN routing plane and the PPSP may be required to support a PPSP session. Indeed, ICN shall forward request messages(e.g.(e.g., CCN Interest) towards the proper peer that can handle them. Depending on the layering approach, this cross- layer interaction is controlled either by the Adaptation Layer or by the ICN-PPSP. For example, if apeerPeer A receives a HAVE message indicating thatpeerPeer B disposes of the video chunk named "ccnx:/swarmID/chunk/chunkID", then the former should insert in its ICN forwarding table an entry for the prefix"ccnx:/swarmID/chunk/chunkID""ccnx:/swarmID/chunk/ chunkID" whose next hop locator(e.g.(e.g., IP address) is the network address ofpeerPeer B[17].[Detti13]. 6.2.6. ICNdeploymentDeployment for PPSP The ICN functionality that supports a PPSP session may be "isolated" or "integrated" withtheoneoffrom a public ICN. In the isolated case, a PPSP session is supported by an instance of an ICN(e.g.(e.g., deployed on top ofIP),an IP) whose functionalities operate only on the limited set of nodes participating to the swarm,i.e.i.e., peers and the tracker. This approach resembles the one followed by a current P2P application, which usuallyformforms an overlay network among peers of a P2Papplication. Andapplication; intermediate public IP routers do not carry out P2P functionalities. In the integrated case, the nodes of a public ICN may be involved in the forwarding and in-network caching procedures. In doing so, the swarm may benefit from the presence of in-networkcaches socaches, thus limiting uplink traffic on peers and inter-domaintraffictraffic, too. These are distinctive advantages of using PPSP over a publicICN,ICN rather than over TCP/IP. In addition, such advantages aren't likely manifested in the case of isolated deployment. However, the possible interaction between the PPSP and the routing layer of a public ICN may be dramatic, both in terms of explosion of the forwarding tables and in terms of security. These issues specifically take place for those ICN architectures for which the name resolution(i.e.(i.e., name tonext-hop)next hop) occursen-route,en route, like the CCN architecture. For instance, using the CCN architecture, to fetch a named-data item offered by apeerPeer A the on-path public ICN entities have to route the request messages towards thepeerPeer A. This implies that the ICN forwarding tables of public ICN nodes may contain many entries,e.g.e.g., one entry per video chunk, and these entries are difficult to be aggregated since peers may have available only sparse parts of a big content, whose names have a same prefix(e.g.(e.g., "ccnx:/swarmID"). Another possibility is to wrap all PPSP messages into a located- named-data. In thiscasecase, the forwarding tables should contain "only" the PEER_ID prefixes(e.g.(e.g., "ccnx:/swarmID/peer/PEER_ID"),sothus scaling down the number of entries from number of chunks to number of peers. However, in thiscasecase, the ICN mechanisms recognizeathe same video chunk offered by different peers as differentcontents, so vanishingcontent, thus losing caching and multicasting ICN benefits.Moreover, inIn anycasecase, routing entries should be updated either on thebasebasis of the availability of named-data items on peers or on the presence of peers, and these events in a P2P sessionisare rapidly changingsoand possibly hampering the convergence of the routing plane. Finally, since peers have an impact on the ICN forwarding table of public nodes, this may open obvious security issues. 6.3. Impact ofMPEG DASH coding schemesMPEG-DASH Coding Schemes The introduction of video rate adaptation may significantly decrease the effectiveness of P2P cooperation and of in-network caching, depending of the kind of the video coding used by theMPEG DASHMPEG-DASH stream. In case ofa MPEG DASHan MPEG-DASH streaming with MPEG AVC encoding,athe same video chunk is independently encoded at different rates and the encoding output is a different file for each rate. For instance, in case of a video encoded at three differentrates R1,R2,R3,rates, R1, R2, and R3; for each segmentSS, we have three distinct files: S.R1, S.R2, and S.R3. These files are independent of each other. To fetch a segment coded at R2 kbps, a peer shall request the specific file S.R2.Receiver-drivenReceiver- driven algorithms, implemented by the video client, usually handle the estimation of the best coding rate. The independence among files associatedtowith different encoding rates and the heterogeneity of peerbandwidths,bandwidths may dramatically reduce the interaction among peers, the effectiveness of in-network caching (in case of integrated deployment), andconsequentlyconsequently, the ability of PPSP to offload the video server(i.e.(i.e., a seeder peer). Indeed, apeerPeer A may select a coding rate(e.g.(e.g., R1) different from the one selected by apeerPeer B(e.g. R2)(e.g., R2), and this prevents the formerto fetchfrom fetching video chunks from thelater,latter sincepeerPeer B only has chunks available that are coded at a rate different from the ones needed by Peer A. To overcome this issue, a common distributed rate selection algorithm could force peers to select the same coding rate[17]; nevertheless[Detti13]; nevertheless, this approach may be not feasible in theincase of many peers. The use of an SVC encoding (Annex G extension of the H.264/MPEG-4AVCAdvanced Video Coding (AVC) video compression standard) should make rate adaptationpossible, meanwhilepossible while neither reducing peer collaborations nor the in-network caching effectiveness. For a single video chunk,aan SVC encoder produces different files for the different rates (roughly "layers"), and these files are progressively related to each other. Starting from abase-layer whichbase layer that provides the minimum rate encoding, the next rates are encoded as an "enhancement layer" of the previous one. For instance, in case the video is coded with threeratesrates, R1(base-(base layer), R2(enhancement-layer(enhancement layer n.1), and R3(enhancement-layer(enhancement layer n.2), then for each DASHsegmentsegment, we have threefilesfiles: S.R1,S.R2S.R2, and S.R3. The file S.R1 is the segment coded at the minimum rate(base-layer).(base layer). The file S.R2 enhances S.R1, soasS.R1 and S.R2 can be combined to obtain a segment coded at rate R2. To get a segment coded at rate R2, a peer shall fetch both S.R1 and S.R2. This progressive dependence among files that encodeathe same segment at different rates makes peer cooperation possible, also in case peers player have autonomously selected different coding rates. For instance, ifpeerPeer A has selected the rate R1, the downloaded files S.R1 are useful also for apeerPeer B that has selected the rate R2, and vice versa. 7. IPTV and ICN 7.1. IPTVchallengesChallenges IPTV refers to the delivery of quality content broadcast over theInternet,Internet and is typically associated with strict quality requirements, i.e., with a perceived latency of less than 500 ms and a packet loss rate that is multiple orders lower than the current loss rates experienced in the most commonly used access networks (see[31]).[ATIS-IIF]). We can summarize the major challenges for the delivery of IPTV service as follows. Channel change latency represents a major concern for the IPTV service. Perceived latency during channel change should be less than500ms.500 ms. To achieve this objective over the IP infrastructure, we have multiple choices:(i) receivingi receive fast unicast streams from a dedicated server (most effective but not resource efficient);(ii) connectingii connect to other peers in the network (efficiency depends on peer support, effective and resource efficient, if also supported with a dedicated server);(iii) connectingand iii connect to multiple multicast sessions at once (effective but not resourceefficient,efficient and depends on the accuracy of the prediction model used to track user activity). The second major challenge is the error recovery. Typical IPTV service requirements dictate the mean time between artifacts to be approximately 2 hours (see[31]).[ATIS-IIF]). This suggests the perceived loss rate to bearound orless than or equal to 10^-7. Current IP-based solutions rely on the following proactive and reactive recovery techniques: (i) joining theFECForward Error Correction (FEC) multicast stream corresponding to the perceived packet loss rate (notefficientefficient, as the recovery strength is chosen based on worst-case lossscenarios),scenarios); (ii) making unicast recovery requests to dedicated servers (requires active support from the serviceprovider),provider); (iii) probing peers to acquire repair packets (finding matching peers and enabling their cooperation is another challenge). 7.2. ICNbenefitsBenefits for IPTVdeliveryDelivery ICN presents significant advantages for the delivery of IPTV traffic. For instance, ICN inherently supports multicast and allows for quick recovery from packet losses (with the help of in-network caching). Similarly, peer support is also provided in the shape of in-network caches that typically act as the middleman between two peers,enablingtherefore enabling earlier access to IPTV content. However, despite these advantages, delivery of IPTV service overInformation Centric NetworksICNs brings forth new challenges. We can list some of these challenges as follows:.o Messaging overhead: ICN is a pull-based architecture and relies on a unique balance between requests and responses. A user needs to make a request for eachdataData packet. In the case of IPTV, with rates upto, andto (and likely tobe,be) above15Mbps,15 Mbps, we observe significant traffic upstream to bring those streams. As the number of streams increases (including the same session at different quality levels and other formats), so does the burden on the routers. Even if the majority of requests are aggregated at the core, routers close to the edge (where we observe the biggest divergence in user requests) will experience a significant increase in overhead to process these requests. The same is true at the user side, as the uplink usage multiplies in the number of sessions a user requests (for instance, to minimize the impact of bandwidth fluctuations)..o Cache control: As the IPTV content expires at a rapid rate (with a likely expiry threshold of1s),1 s), we need solutions to effectively flush out such content to also prevent degradation impact on other cached content, with the help of intelligently chosen naming conventions. However, to allow for fast recovery and optimize access time to sessions (from current or new users), the timing of such expirations needs to be adaptive to network load and user demand. However, we also need to support quick access to earlier content, wheneverneeded,needed; for instance, when the user accesses the rewind feature (note that in-network caches will not be of significant help in such scenarios due to the overhead required to maintain such content)..o Access accuracy: To receive the up-to-date session data, users need to be aware of such information at the time of their request. Unlike IP multicast, since the users join a session indirectly, session information is critical to minimize buffering delays and reduce the startup latency. Without such information, and without any active cooperation from the intermediate routers, stale data can seriously undermine the efficiency of content delivery. Furthermore, finding a cache does not necessarily equate to joining a session, as thelook- aheadlook-ahead latency for the initial content access point may have a shorter lifetime than originally intended. For instance, if the user that has initiated the indirect multicast leaves the session early, the requests from the remaining users need to experience an additional latency of one RTT as they travel towards the content source. If the startup latency is chosen depending on the closeness to the intermediate router, going to the content source in-session can lead to undesired pauses. It should be noted that IPTV includes more than just multicast. Many implementations include "trick plays" (fast forward, pause, rewind) that often transform a multicast session into multiple unicast sessions. In this context, ICN is beneficial, as the caching offers an implicitmulticast,multicast but without tight synchronization constraints in between two different users. One user mayrewind,rewind and start playing forward again, thus drawing from a nearby cache of the content recently viewed by another user (whereas in a strict multicast session, the opportunity of one user lagging off behind would be more difficult to implement). 8. Digital RightsManagementsManagement in ICN This section discusses the need forDigital Rights Management (DRM)DRM functionalities for multimedia streaming over ICN. It focuses on two possible approaches: modifyingAAAAuthentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) to support DRM inICN,ICN and using Broadcast Encryption. It is assumed that ICN will be used heavily for digital content dissemination. It is vital to consider DRM for digital content distribution. In today'sInternetInternet, there are two predominant classes of business models for on-demand video streaming. The first model is based on advertising revenues. Non-copyright protected (usuallyuser-generated content, UGC)User-Generated Content (UGC)) content is offered by large infrastructure providers like Google (YouTube) at no charge. The infrastructure is financed by spliced advertisements into the content. In thiscontextcontext, DRM considerations may not be required, since producers of UGC may only strive for the maximum possible dissemination. Some producers of UGC are mainly interestedto sharein sharing content with their families, friends,collegescolleges, or others and have no intentionto makemaking a profit. However, the second class of businessmodelsmodel requires DRM, becausetheythese entities are primarily profit oriented. For example, large on-demand streaming platformslike Netflix(e.g., Netflix) establish business models based on subscriptions. Consumers may have to pay a monthly fee in order to get access tocopyright protectedcopyright-protected content like TV series,moviesmovies, or music. This model may bead-supportedad supported and free to the content consumer, like YouTube Channels orSpotify. ButSpotify, but the creator of the content expects some remuneration for his work. From the perspective of the service providers and the copyright owners, only clients that pay the fee (explicitly or implicitly through ad placement) should be able to access and consume the content. Anyway, the challenge is to find an efficient and scalable way of access control to digital content, which is distributed ininformation-centric networks.ICNs. 8.1. Broadcast Encryption for DRM in ICNTheThis section discusses Broadcast Encryption (BE) as a suitable basis for DRM functionalities in conformance to the ICN communicationparadigm. Especially when network inherent caching isparadigm (network-inherent caching, considered the advantage ofBEBE, will behighlighted.highlighted). In ICN,dataData packets can be cached inherently in thenetworknetwork, and any network participant can request a copy of these packets. This makes it very difficult to implement an access control for content that is distributed via ICN. A naive approach is to encrypt the transmitted data for each consumer with a distinct key. This prohibits everyone other than the intended consumersto decryptfrom decrypting andconsumeconsuming the data. However, this approach is not suitable for ICN's communicationparadigmparadigm, since it would reduce the benefits gained from the inherent network caching. Even if multiple consumers request the samecontentcontent, the requested data for each consumer would differ using this approach. Abetterbetter, but stillinsufficientinsufficient, idea is to use a single key for all consumers. This does not destruct the benefits of ICN's caching ability. The drawback is that if one of the consumers illegally distributes the key, the system isbroken andbroken; any entity in the network can access the data. Changing the key after such an event is useless since the provider has no possibility to identify the illegaldistributer. Thereforedistributor. Therefore, this person cannot be stopped from distributing the new key again. In addition to thisissueissue, other challenges have to be considered. Subscriptions expire after a certaintimetime, and then it has to be ensured that these consumers cannot access the content anymore. For a provider that serves millions of daily consumers(e.g. Netflix)(e.g., Netflix), there could be a significant number of expiring subscriptions per day. Publishing a new key every time a subscription expires would require an unsuitable amount of computational power just to re-encrypt the collection of audio-visual content. A possible approach to solve these challenges isBroadcast Encryption (BE) [22]BE [Fiat94] as proposed in[23].[Posch13]. From this point on, this section will focus only on BE as an enabler for DRM functionality in the use case of ICN video streaming. This subsection continues with the explanation of how BE works and shows how BE can be used to implement an access control scheme in the context of content distribution in ICN. BE actually carries a misleading name. One might expect a concrete encryption scheme. However, it belongs to the family ofkey-key management schemes. These schemes(KMS). KMSare responsible for the generation, exchange,storagestorage, and replacement of cryptographic keys. The most interesting characteristics ofBroadcast Encryption Schemes (BES)BE schemes are:. A BESo BE schemes typicallyusesuse a global trusted entity called thelicensing agentLicensing Agent (LA), which is responsible for spreading a set of pre-generated secrets among all participants. Each participant gets a distinct subset of secrets assigned from the LA..o The participants can agree on a common session key, which is chosen by the LA. The LA broadcasts an encrypted message that includes the key. Participants with a valid set of secrets can derive thesession-keysession key from this message..o The number of participants in the system can change dynamically. Entities may join or leave the communication group at any time. If a new entityjoinsjoins, the LA passes on a valid set of secrets to that entity. If an entity leaves (or is forced to leave) the LA revokes the entity's subset of keys, which means that it cannot derive the correct session key anymore when the LA distributes a new key..o Traitors (entities that reveal their secrets) can be traced and excluded from ongoing communication. The algorithms and preconditions to identify a traitor vary between concreteBES.BE schemes. This listing already illustrates why BE is suitable to control the access to data that is distributed via aninformation-centric network.ICN. BE enables the usage of a single session key for confidential data transmission between a dynamically changing subset or network participants. ICN caches can be utilized since the data is encrypted only with a single key known by all legitimate clients. Furthermore, traitors can be identified and removed from the system. The issue of re-encryption stillexists,exists because the LA will eventually update the session key when a participant should be excluded. However, this disadvantage can be relaxed in some way if the following points are considered:.o The updates of the session key can be delayed until a set of compromised secrets has been gathered. Note that secrets may become compromised because of tworeasons. First,reasons: first, a traitor could have illegally revealed thesecret. Second,secret; second, the subscription of an entity expired. Delayed revocation temporarily enables somenon-legitimatenon- legitimate entities to consume content. However, this should not be a severe problem in home entertainment scenarios. Updating the session key in regular (not too short) intervals is a goodtradeoff.trade- off. The longer the intervallastlasts, the less computational resources are required for content re-encryption and the better the cache utilization in the ICN will be. To evict old data from ICN caches thathashave been encrypted with the prior sessionkeykey, the publisher could indicate a lifetime for transmitted packets..o Content should be re-encrypted dynamically at request time. This has the benefit that untapped content is not re-encrypted if the content is not requested during two session keyupdates and thereforeupdate; therefore, no resources are wasted. Furthermore, if the updates are triggered in non-peaktimestimes, the maximum amount ofresourceresources needed at one point in time can be loweredeffectively,effectively since in peak times generally more diverse content is requested..o Since the amount of required computational resources may vary strongly from time totimetime, it would be beneficial for any streaming provider to use cloud-based services to be able to dynamically adapt the required resources to the current needs.RegardingIn regard to a lack of computation time orbandwidthbandwidth, the cloud service could be used to scale up to overcome shortages. Figure 4showshows the potential usage of BE in a multimedia deliveryframeworksframework that builds upon ICN infrastructure and uses the concept of dynamic adaptive streaming, e.g., DASH. BE would be implemented on the top to have an efficient and scalable way of access control to the multimedia content. +--------Multimedia Delivery Framework--------+ | | | Technologies Properties | | +----------------+ +----------------+ | | | Broadcast |<--->| Controlled | | | | Encryption | | Access | | | +----------------+ +----------------+ | | |Dynamic Adaptive|<--->| Multimedia | | | | Streaming | | Adaptation | | | +----------------+ +----------------+ | | | ICN |<--->|CachableCacheable | | | | Infrastructure | | Data Chunks | | | +----------------+ +----------------+ | +---------------------------------------------+ Figure 4: Apotential multimedia framework using BE. 8.2 . AAA BasedPotential Multimedia Framework Using BE 8.2. AAA-Based DRM for ICN Networks 8.2.1. Overview Recently, a novel approach toDigital Rights Management (DRM)DRM has emerged to link DRM to usual network management operations, hence linking DRM toauthentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA)AAA services. ICN provides the abstraction of an architecture where content is requested by name and could be served from anywhere. In DRM, the content provider (the origin of the content) allows the destination (theend userend-user account) to use the content. The content provider and content storage/cache are at two different entities inICC andITU Carrier Code (ICC); for traditionalDRMDRM, only source and destination count and not the intermediate storage. The proposed solution allows the provider of the caching to be involved in the DRM policies usingwell knownwell-known AAA mechanisms. It is important to note that this solution is compatible with theproposesproposal of theBroadcast Encryption (BE)BE, proposed earlier in thisdraft.document. The BE proposes atechnologytechnology, as this solution is more operational. 8.2.2. Implementation With the proposed AAA-based DRM, when content is requested by name from a specific destination, the request could link back to both the content provider and the caching provider via traditional AAAmechanisms,mechanisms and trigger the appropriate DRM policy independently from where the content is stored. In thisapproachapproach, the caching,DRMDRM, and AAA remain independent entities but can work together through ICN mechanisms. The proposed solution enables extending the traditional DRM done by the content provider to jointly being done by content provider and network/caching provider. The solution is based on the concept of a "token". The content provider authenticates the end user and issues an encrypted token to authenticate thea named contentnamed-content ID or IDs that the user can access. The token will be shared with the network provider and used as the interface to the AAA protocols. At thispointpoint, all content access is under the control of the network provider and the ICN. The controllers and switches can manage the content requests and handle mobility. The content can be accessed from anywhere as long as the token remains valid or the content is available in the network. In such aschemescheme, the content provider does not need to be contacted every time anamed contentnamed-content is requested. This reduces the load of the content provider network and creates a DRM mechanism that is much more appropriate for the distributed caching andpeer-to-peerPeer-to-Peer storage characteristic of ICN networks. In particular, the content requested by name can be served from anywhere under the only condition that the storage/cache can verify that the token is valid for content access. The solution is also fully customizable to both content and network provider's needs as the tokens can be issued based on user accounts,locationlocation, and hardware(MAC address(Media Access Control (MAC) address, for example) linking it naturally to legacy authentication mechanisms. In addition, since both content and network providers are involved in DRMpoliciespolicies, pollution attacks and other illegal requests for the content can be more easily detected. The proposed AAA-based DRM is currently under full development. 9. Future Steps for Video in ICN The explosion of online video services, along with their increased consumption by mobile wireless terminals, further exacerbates the challenges ofVideo Adaptation leveragingICNmechanisms.mechanisms that leverage Video Adaptation. The following sections present a series of research items derived from these challenges, further introducing next steps for the subject. 9.1.Large ScaleLarge-Scale Live EventsAn active area of investigation and a potential use case where ICN would provide significant benefits, is that of distributingDistributing content, and video in particular, using local communications inlarge scalelarge-scale events such assports eventsporting events in a stadium, aconcertconcert, or a largedemonstration.demonstration, is an active area of investigation and a potential use case where ICN would provide significant benefits. Suchuse-case involvesuse cases involve locating content that is generated on the fly and requires discovery mechanisms in addition to sharing mechanisms. The scalability of the distribution becomes important as well. 9.2. Video Conferencing and Real-Time Communications Current protocols forvideo-conferencingvideo conferencing have been designed, and this documentneeds to taketakes input from them to identify the key research issues. Real-time communications add timing constraints (both in terms of delay and in terms of synchronization) to the scenario discussed above.ARAn Access Router (AR) and a Virtual Router (VR), andVR (andimmersive multimedia experiences ingeneral)general, are clearly an area of further investigation, as they involve combining multiple streams of data from multiple users into a coherent whole. This raises issues ofmulti-source multi-destinationmultisource, multidestination multimedia streams that ICN may be equipped to deal with in a more natural manner thanIP thatIP, which is inherently unicast. 9.3. Store-and-Forward Optimized Rate Adaptation One of the benefits of ICN is to allow the network to insert caching in the middle of the data transfer. This can be used to reduce the overall bandwidth demands over the network by caching content for futurere-use. Butreuse, but it provides more opportunities for optimizing video streams.ConsiderConsider, forinstanceinstance, the following scenario: a client is connected via an ICN network to a server. Let's say the client is connected wirelessly to a node that has a caching capability, which is connected through a WAN to the server.Assume furtherFurther, assume that the capacity of each of the links (both the wireless and the WAN logical links)varyvaries with time. If the rate adaptation is provided in an end-to-end manner, as in current mechanisms like DASH, then the maximal rate that can be supported at the client is that of the minimal bandwidth on each link.ForIf, for instance,ifduringtime period 1,Time Period 1 the wireless capacity is 1 and the wired capacity is2,2 and duringtime period 2,Time Period 2 the wireless capacity is 2due(due to somehotspot,hotspot) and the wired capacity is 1due(due to some congestion in thenetwork,network), then the best end-to-end rate that can be achieved is 1 during each period. However, if the cache is used duringtime periodTime Period 1 to pre-fetch 2 units of data, then duringperiod 2,Time Period 2 there is 1 unit of data at thecache,cache and another unit ofdata, whichdata that can be streamed from theserver, andserver; therefore, the rate that can be achieved istherefore2 units of data. In this case, the average bandwidth rises from 1 to 1.5 over the2two periods. Thisstraw manstraw-man exampleillustrateillustrates a) the benefit of ICN for increasing the throughput of thenetwork,network and b) the need for the special rate adaptation mechanisms to be designedso asto take advantage of this gain. End-to-end rate adaptation cannot take advantage of the cache availability. The authors of [Rainer16] showed that buffer-based adaptation mechanisms can be one approach to tackle this challenge. As buffer-based adaptation does not estimate the available bandwidth resources (but solely considers the video buffer fill state), measured bandwidth fluctuations caused by cache hits are not existent. Therefore, they cannot negatively impact the adaptation decisions (e.g., frequent representation switching). 9.4. Heterogeneous Wireless Environment Dynamics With the ever-growing increase in online services being accessed by mobile devices, operators have been deploying different overlapping wireless access networking technologies. In this way, in the same area, user terminals are within range of different cellular,Wi-FiWi-Fi, or evenWiMAXWorldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) networks. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet of Things (e.g., surveillance cameras feeding video footage), this list can be further complemented withmore specificmore-specific short-range technologies, such as Bluetooth or ZigBee. In order to leverage from this plethora of connectivity opportunities, user terminals are coming equipped with different wireless access interfaces, providing them with extended connectivity opportunities. In this way, such devices become able to select the type of accesswhichthat best suits them according to different criteria, such as available bandwidth, battery consumption, accessdoto different link conditions according to the userprofileprofile, or even access to different content. Ultimately, these aspects contribute to theQuality of ExperienceQoE perceived by theend-user,end user, which is of utmost importance when it comes to video content. However, the fact that these users are mobile and using wirelesstechnologies,technologies also provides a very dynamicsetting,setting where the current optimal link conditions at a specific moment might not last or be maintained while the user moves. These aspects have been amply analyzed in recently finished projects such as FP7 MEDIEVAL[18],[MEDIEVAL], where link events reporting on wireless conditions and available alternative connection points were combined withvidevideo requirements and traffic optimizationmechanisms,mechanisms towards the production of a joint network and mobile terminal mobility management decision. Concretely, in[19][Fu13], link information about the deterioration of the wireless signal was sent towards a mobility management controller in the network. This input was combined with information about the user profile, as well as of the current video service requirements, and used to trigger the decrease or increase of scalable videolayers, adjustinglayers (adjusting the video to the ongoing linkconditions.conditions). Incrementally, the video could also be adjusted when anewnew, better connectivity opportunity presents itself. In this way, regarding Video Adaptation, ICN mechanisms can leverage from their intrinsic multiple source support capability and go beyond the monitoring of the status of the current link, thus exploiting the availability of different connectivity possibilities (e.g., different "interfaces"). Moreover, information obtained from the mobile terminal's point of view of its network link, as well as information from the network itself (i.e., load, policies, and others), can generate scenarios where such information is combined in a joint optimization procedure allowing the content to be forward to users using the best available connectivity option (e.g., exploiting management capabilities supported by ICN intrinsic mechanisms as in[20]).[Corujo12]). In fact, ICN base mechanisms can further be exploited in enabling new deployment scenarios such as preparing the network for mass requests from users attending a large multimedia event (i.e., concert, sports), allowing video to be adapted according to content, user and networkrequirementsrequirements, and operation capabilities in a dynamic way.The enablement ofEnabling such scenariosrequirerequires further research, with the main points highlighted as follows:. Development ofo how to develop a generic video services (and obviously content) interface allowing the definition and mapping of their requirements (and characteristics) into the current capabilities of the network;. Howo how to define a scalable mechanism allowing either the video application at theterminal,terminal or some kind of network management entity, to adapt the video content in a dynamic way;. Howo how to develop the previous research items using intrinsic ICN mechanisms (i.e., naming and strategy layers);. Leverageo how to leverage intelligent pre-caching of content to prevent stalls and poor quality phases, which lead tobad Quality of Experience ofa worse QoE for theuser. This includesuser: this includes, inparticularparticular, the usage in mobile environments, which are characterized by severe bandwidth changes as well as connection outages, as shown in[21]; . How[Crabtree13]; and o how to take advantage of themulti-pathmultipath opportunities over the heterogeneous wireless interfaces. 9.5. Network Coding for Video Distribution in ICN An interesting research area for combining heterogeneous sources is to use network coding[24].[Montpetit13b]. Network coding allowsto asynchronously combinefor asynchronous combining of multiple sources by having each of them send information that is not duplicated by the other but that can be combined to retrieve the video stream. However, this creates issues in ICN in terms of defining the proper rate adaptation for the videostream;stream, securing the encodeddata;data, caching the encodeddata;data, timeliness of the encodeddata;data, overhead of the network coding operations both in network resources and in added buffering delay, etc. Network coding has shown promise in reducing buffering events in unicast,multicastmulticast, and P2Psetting. [26]settings. [Medard12] considers strategies using network coding to enhance QoE for multimedia communications. Network coding can be applied to multiple streams, but also within a single stream as an equivalent of a composable erasure code. Clearly, there is a need for further investigation of network coding in ICN, potentially as a topic of activity in the research group. 9.6. Synchronization Issues for Video Distribution in ICN ICNde-couplesdecouples the fetching of video chunks fromthe location of these chunks.their locations. This means an audio chunk may be received from one network element(cache/storage/server) while(cache/storage/server), a video chunk may be received fromanother oneanother, while yet another chunk (say, the next one, or another layer from the same video stream) may come from a third element. This introduces disparity in the retrieval times and locations of the different elements of a video stream that need to be played at the same (or almost same) time. Synchronization of such delivery and playback may require specific synchronization tools for video delivery in ICN. Othersynchronizationaspectsinvolve: - synchronizinginvolve synchronizing: o within a single stream, forinstanceinstance, the consecutive chunks of a singlestream,stream or the multiple layers of a layeredscheme,scheme when sources and transport layers may be different.Re- orderingo re-ordering the packets of a stream distributed over multiple sources at the video client, or ensuring that multiple chunks coming from multiple sources arrive within an acceptable time window;- synchronizingo multiple streams, such as the audio and video components of a video stream, which can be received from independent sources;- synchronizingand o multiple streams from multiple sources to multiple destinations, such as mass distribution of live events. For instance, for live video streams orvideo-conferencing,video conferencing, some level of synchronization is required so that people watching the stream view the same events at the same time. Some of these issues were addressed in[27][Montpetit13a] in the context of social video consumption. Network coding, with traffic engineering, is considered as a potential solution for synchronization issues. Other approaches could be considered that are specificforto ICN as well. Traffic engineering in ICN[28,29][Su14] [Chanda13] may be required to provide proper synchronization of multiple streams. 10. Security Considerations This is informational. There are no specific security considerations outside of those mentioned in the text. 11.IANA Considerations This document does not require any IANA action. 12.Conclusions Thisdraft proposeddocument proposes adaptive video streaming for ICN, identified potentialproblemsproblems, andpresentedpresents the combination of CCN with DASH as a solution. As both concepts, DASH and CCN, maintain several elements in common, like, e.g., the content in different versions being dealt with in segments, combination of both technologies seems useful. Thus, adaptive streaming over CCN can leverage advantages such as, e.g., efficient caching and intrinsic multicast support of CCN, routing based onnamed datanamed-data URIs, intrinsicmulti-linkmultilink andmulti-sourcemultisource support, etc. In this context, the usage of CCN with DASH in mobile environments comes together with advantages compared to today's solutions, especially for devices equipped with multiple network interfaces. The retrieval of data over multiple links in parallel is a useful feature, specifically for adaptive multimediastreaming,streaming since it offers the possibility to dynamically switch between the available links depending on their bandwidth capabilities, which are transparent to the actual DASH client.13.12. References13.1.12.1. Normative References[RFC6972] Y. Zhang, N. Zong, "Problem Statement and Requirements of the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP)", RFC6972, July 2013 13.2. Informative References [1] ISO/IEC DIS 23009-1.2, Information technology - Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) - Part 1: Media presentation description and segment formats [2] Lederer, S., Mueller, C.,[Rainer16] Rainer, B.,Timmerer, C.,Posch, D., and H. Hellwagner,H., "An Experimental Analysis"Investigating the Performance of Pull-based Dynamic Adaptive Streamingover HTTP in Content Centric Networks",inProceedings of theNDN", IEEEInternational ConferenceJournal onMultimedia and Expo 2013, San Jose, USA, July, 2013 [3] Liu, Y., Geurts, J., Point, J., Lederer, S., Rainer, B., Mueller, C., Timmerer, C., Hellwagner, H., "Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over CCN: A Caching and Overhead Analysis",Selected Areas inProceedings of the IEEE international ConferenceCommunications (J-SAC): Special Issue onCommunication (ICC) 2013 - Next-Generation Networking Symposium, Budapest, Hungary, June, 2013 [4] Grandl, R., Su, K., Westphal, C., "On the Interaction of AdaptiveVideoStreaming with Content-Centric Networks", eprint arXiv:1307.0794, July 2013. [5] V. Jacobson, D. Smetters, J. Thornton, M. Plass, N. Briggs and R. Braynard, "Networking named content",Distribution over Future Internet, Volume 34, Number 8, DOI 10.1109/JSAC.2016.2577365, August 2016. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use inProc. of the 5th int. Conf. on Emerging Networking ExperimentsRFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC6972] Zhang, Y. andTechnologies (CoNEXT '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2009, pp. 1-12. [6] A. Detti, M. Pomposini,N.Blefari-Melazzi, S. SalsanoZong, "Problem Statement andA. Bragagnini, "Offloading cellular networks with Information- Centric Networking: The case of video streaming", In Proc.Requirements of theInt. Symp. on a World of Wireless, MobilePeer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP)", RFC 6972, DOI 10.17487/RFC6972, July 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6972>. 12.2. Informative References [ATIS-IIF] "ATIS: IIF, IPTV Interoperability Forum", 2015, <http://www.atis.org/iif/deliv.asp>. [Bakker15] Bakker, A., Petrocco, R., andMultimedia Networks (WoWMoM '12), IEEE, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1-3, 2012. [7]V.Jacobson, D. K. Smetters, N. H. Briggs, M. F. Plass, P. Stewart, J. D. Thornton,Grishchenko, "Peer-to- Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)", RFC 7574, DOI 10.17487/RFC7574, July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7574>. [Castro03] Castro, M., Druschel, P., Kermarrec, A., Nandi, A., andR. L. Braynard, "VoCCN: Voice over content-centric networks,"A. Rowstron, "SplitStream: High-Bandwidth Multicast inACM ReArch Workshop, 2009 [8] Christopher Mueller, Stefan Lederer and Christian Timmerer, A proxy effect analysis and fair adaptation algorithm for multiple competing dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP clients, InCooperative Environments", Proceedings of theConference on Visual Communications and Image Processing (VCIP) 2012, San Diego, USA, November 27-30, 2012. [9] DASH Research at the Institute of Information Technology, Multimedia Communication Group, Alpen-Adria Universitaet Klagenfurt, URL: http://dash.itec.aau.at [10] A. Detti, N. Blefari-Melazzi, S. Salsano, and M. Pomposini CONET: A content centric inter-networking architecture," in19th ACMWorkshopSymposium onInformation-Centric Networking (ICN), 2011. [11] W. K.Operating Systems Principles (SOSP '03), DOI 10.1145/945445.945474, October 2003. [Chai11] Chai,N.W., Wang,I.N., Psaras,G.I., Pavlou,C.G., Wang,G. C.C., de Blas,F.G., Ramon-Salguero,L.F., Liang,S.L., Spirou,A.S., Blefari-Melazzi, N., Beben, A., and E. Hadjioannou, "CURLING:Content-ubiquitous resolutionContent-Ubiquitous Resolution anddelivery infrastructureDelivery Infrastructure fornext-generation services,"Next Generation Services", IEEE Communications Magazine,vol.Volume 49,no.Issue 3,pp. 112-120,DOI 10.1109/MCOM.2011.5723808, March2011 [12] NetInf project Website http://www.netinf.org [13] N. Magharei, R. Rejaie, Yang Guo, "Mesh or Multiple-Tree: A Comparative Study of Live P2P Streaming Approaches," INFOCOM 2007. 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE , vol., no., pp.1424,1432, 6-12 May 2007 [14] PPSP WG Website https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/ [15] A. Bakker, R. Petrocco, V. Grishchenko, "Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)", draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-08 [16] Rui S. Cruz, Mario S. Nunes, Yingjie Gu, Jinwei Xia, Joao P. Taveira, Deng Lingli, "PPSP Tracker Protocol-Base Protocol (PPSP-TP/1.0)", draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-02 [17] A.Detti, B. Ricci, N. Blefari-Melazzi,"Peer-To-Peer Live Adaptive Video Streaming for Information Centric Cellular Networks", IEEE PIMRC 2013,London, UK, 8-11 September 2013 [18] http://www.ict-medieval.eu [19] B. Fu, G. Kunzmann, M. Wetterwald,2011. [Chanda13] Chanda, A., Westphal, C., and D.Corujo, R. Costa, "QoE- awareRaychaudhuri, "Content Based TrafficManagement for Mobile Video Delivery", Proc.Engineering in Software Defined Information Centric Networks", 2013 IEEEICC, WorkshopConference onImmersive & Interactive MultimediaComputer Communicationsover the Future Internet (IIMC), Budapest, Hungary, JunWorkshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), DOI 10.1109/INFCOMW.2013.6970717, April 2013.[20] Corujo[Corujo12] Corujo, D.,VidalVidal, I.,Garcia-ReinosoGarcia-Reinoso, J.,Aguiar R.,and R. Aguiar, "A Named Data Networking Flexible Framework for Management Communications", IEEE Communications Magazine,Vol.Volume 50,no.Issue 12,pp. 36-43, Dec 2012 [21] CrabtreeDOI 10.1109/MCOM.2012.6384449, December 2012. [Crabtree13] Crabtree, B.,StevensStevens, T.,AllanAllan, B.,LedererLederer, S.,PoschPosch, D.,Mueller C., TimmererMueller, C.,Videoand C. Timmerer, "Video Adaptation inLimited or ZeroLimited/Zero NetworkCoverage, CCNxConn 2013,PARC,Coverage", CCNxCon 2013, PaloAlto, pp. 1-2, 2013 [22] FiatAlto Research Center (PARC), September 2013. [Detti11] Detti, A., Blefari-Melazzi, N., Salsano, S., and M. Pomposini, "CONET: A Content Centric Inter-Networking Architecture", Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Information-Centric Networking, DOI 10.1145/2018584.2018598, August 2011. [Detti12] Detti, A.,NaorPomposini, M., Blefari-Melazzi, N., Salsano, S., and A. Bragagnini, "Offloading cellular networks with Information-Centric Networking: the case of video streaming", 2013 IEEE 14th International Symposium on A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM), DOI 10.1109/WoWMoM.2012.6263734, June 2012. [Detti13] Detti, A., Ricci, B., and N. Blefari-Melazzi, "Peer-To- Peer Live Adaptive Video Streaming for Information Centric Cellular Networks", 2013 IEEE 24th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), DOI 10.1109/PIMRC.2013.6666771, September 2013. [Fiat94] Fiat, A. and M. Naor, "Broadcast Encryption",inAdvances in Cryptology(Crypto'93), volume 773 of- CRYPTO '93 Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,pages 480-491. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg,Volume 773, pp. 480-491, 1994.[23] Posch[Fu13] Fu, B., Kunzmann, G., Wetterwald, M., Corujo, D.,Hellwagner H., Schartner P., "On-Demandand R. Costa, "QoE-aware traffic management for mobile video delivery", 2013 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC), DOI 10.1109/ICCW.2013.6649314, June 2013. [Grandl13] Grandl, R., Su, K., and C. Westphal, "On the Interaction of Adaptive Video Streamingbasedwith Content-Centric Networks", 2013 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), DOI 10.1109/ICME.2013.6607500, July 2013. [IETF-PPSP] IETF, "Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol (ppsp)", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/>. [ISO-DASH] ISO, "Information technology -- Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) -- Part 1: Media presentation description and segment formats", ISO/IEC 23009-1:2014, May 2014. [ITEC-DASH] "ITEC - Dynamic AdaptiveEncrypted Content Chunks", th in Proceedings ofStreaming over HTTP", DASH Research at the8 International Workshop on Secure Network Protocols (NPSec'13), Los Alamitos, IEEE Computer Society Press, October, 2013. [24] Montpetit M.J., Westphal C., TrossenInstitute of Information Technology, Multimedia Communication Group, Alpen-Adria Universitaet Klagenfurt, <http://dash.itec.aau.at>. [Jacobson09a] Jacobson, V., Smetters, D., Briggs, N., Plass, M., Stewart, P., Thornton, J., and R. Braynard, "VoCCN: Voice- over Content-Centric Networks", Proceedings of the 2009 Workshop on Re-architecting the Internet, DOI 10.1145/1658978.1658980, December 2009. [Jacobson09b] Jacobson, V., Smetters, D.,"Network Coding Meets Information Centric Networks," inThornton, J., Plass, M., Briggs, N., and R. Braynard, "Networking Named Content", Proceedings of theworkshop5th International Conference onName-Oriented Mobility (NOM), jointly with ACM MobiHoc 2013, Hilton Head, SC, June 2013. [25]Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (CoNEXT), DOI 10.1145/1658939.1658941, December 2009. [LeCallet13] LeCalletCallet, P.,Moeller S.Moeller, S., andPerkisA.(eds.), QualinetPerkis, "Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality ofExperience (2012).Experience", European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems andServices (COSTServices, COST Action IC1003), Lausanne, Switzerland,1003, Version 1.2, March 2013.[26] Medard[Lederer13a] Lederer, S., Liu, Y., Geurts, J., Point, J., Lederer, S., Mueller, C., Rainer, B., Timmerer, C., and H. Hellwagner, "Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over CCN: A Caching and Overhead Analysis", 2013 IEEE International Conference on Communication (ICC), DOI 10.1109/ICC.2013.6655116, June 2013. [Lederer13b] Lederer, S., Mueller, C., Rainer, B., Timmerer, C., and H. Hellwagner, "An Experimental Analysis of Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP in Content Centric Networks", 2013 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), DOI 10.1109/ICME.2013.6607500, July 2013. [Magharei07] Magharei, N., Rejaie, R., and Y. Guo, "Mesh or Multiple- Tree: A Comparative Study of Live P2P Streaming Approaches", IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, DOI 10.1109/INFCOM.2007.168, May 2007. [Medard12] Medard, M.,KimKim, M.,ParandehGheibiParandeh-Gheibi, M.,ZengZeng, W.,Montpetit M.J., Qualityand M. Montpetit, "Quality of Experience for Multimedia Communications: NetworkCoding Strategies, Technical Report, MIT, 2012/3 [27] Montpetit M.J., Holtzman H., ChakrabartiCoding Strategies", Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 2012. [MEDIEVAL] "MEDIEVAL: MultiMEDia transport for mobIlE Video AppLications", 2010, <http://www.ict-medieval.eu>. [Montpetit13a] Montpetit, M., Holtzman, H., Chakrabarti, K., and M. Matijasevic, "Social video consumption: Synchronized viewing experiences across devices and networks", 2013 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC), pp. 286-290, DOI 10.1109/ICCW.2013.6649245, 2013. [Montpetit13b] Montpetit, M., Westphal, C., and D. Trossen, "Network Coding Meets Information-Centric Networking: An Architectural Case for Information Dispersion Through Native Network Coding", Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Emerging Name-Oriented Mobile Networking Design-Architecture, Algorithms, and Applications, DOI 10.1145/2248361.2248370, June 2013. [Mueller12] Mueller, C., Lederer, S., and C. Timmerer, "A Proxy Effect Analysis and Fair Adaptation Algorithm for Multiple Competing Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP Clients", 2012 IEEE Visual Communications and Image Processing (VCIP), DOI 10.1109/VCIP.2012.6410799, November 2012. [NETINF] "NetInf: Network of Information", <http://www.netinf.org>. [Posch13] Posch, D., Hellwagner, H., and P. Schartner, "On-Demand Video Streaming based on Dynamic Adaptive Encrypted Content Chunks", Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Secure Network Protocols (NPSec '13), DOI 10.1109/ICNP.2013.6733673, October 2013. [RFC7476] Pentikousis, K.,MatijasevicEd., Ohlman, B., Corujo, D., Boggia, G., Tyson, G., Davies, E., Molinaro, A., and S. Eum, "Information-Centric Networking: Baseline Scenarios", RFC 7476, DOI 10.17487/RFC7476, March 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7476>. [RFC7846] Cruz, R., Nunes, M.,Social video consumption: Synchronized viewing experiences across devicesXia, J., Huang, R., Ed., Taveira, J., andnetworks, IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC), 2013, 286-290 [28] Su K., Westphal C., OnD. Lingli, "Peer-to-Peer Streaming Tracker Protocol (PPSTP)", RFC 7846, DOI 10.17487/RFC7846, May 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7846>. [Su14] Su, K. and C. Westphal, "On the Benefit of Information Centric Networks for TrafficEngineering, IEEE ICC Conference, JuneEngineering", 2014[29] Chanda A., Westphal C., Raychaudhuri D., Content Based Traffic Engineering in Software Defined Information Centric Networks, inIEEEINFOCOM Workshop NOMEN'13, April, 2013 [30] Castro M., Druschel P., Kermarrec A.-M., Nandi A., Rowstron A., Singh A. SplitStream: Highbandwidth multicast in cooperative environments. In Proceedings of ACM SOSP (2003). [31] ATIS IPTV Interoperability Forum, ATIS IFF, http://www.atis.org/iif/deliv.asp 14. Authors' Addresses Stefan Lederer, Christian Timmerer, Daniel Posch Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt Universitaetsstrasse 65-67, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria Email: {firstname.lastname}@itec.aau.at Cedric Westphal, Aytac Azgin. Shucheng (Will) Liu Huawei 2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA95050, USA Email: {cedric.westphal,aytac.azgin,liushucheng}@huawei.com Christopher Mueller bitmovin GmbH Lakeside B01, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria Email: christopher.mueller@bitmovin.net Andrea Detti Electronic Engineering Dept. University of Rome Tor Vergata Via del Politecnico 1, Rome, Italy Email: andrea.detti@uniroma2.it Daniel Corujo, Advanced Telecommunications and Networks Group Instituto de Telecomunicacoes Campus Universitario de Santiago P-3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal Email: dcorujo@av.it.pt Jianping Wang City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China Email: jianwang@cityu.edu.hk Marie-Jose Montpetit Email: marie@mjmontpetit.com Niall Murray Dept. of Electronic, Computer and Software Engineering Athlone Institute of Technology Dublin Rd., Athlone, Ireland Email: nmurray@research.ait.ie 15. AcknowledgementsInternational Conference on Communications (ICC), DOI 10.1109/ICC.2014.6883810, June 2014. Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by theECEuropean Community in the context of the SocialSensor (FP7-ICT-287975) project and partly performed in the Lakeside Labs research cluster at AAU. SocialSensor receives research funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme. The work for this document was also partially performed in the context of the FP7/NICT EU-JAPAN GreenICN project,http://www.greenicn.org.<http://www.greenicn.org>. Apart from this, the European Commission has no responsibility for the content of thisdraft.document. The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. Theuser thereofuser, thereof, uses the information at its sole risk and liability. The authors would like to thankShucheng (Will)Will (Shucheng) Liu from Huawei for supporting Dr. Wang's research and Marie-Jose Montpetit of MIT for her help in writing the section regarding AAA forDRM section.DRM. Authors' Addresses Cedric Westphal (editor) Huawei Email: Cedric.Westphal@huawei.com Stefan Lederer Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt Email: stefan.lederer@itec.aau.at Daniel Posch Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt Email: daniel.posch@itec.aau.at Christian Timmerer Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt Email: christian.timmerer@itec.aau.at Aytac Azgin Huawei Email: aytac.azgin@huawei.com Will (Shucheng) Liu Huawei Email: liushucheng@huawei.com Christopher Mueller BitMovin Email: christopher.mueller@bitmovin.net Andrea Detti University of Rome Tor Vergata Email: andrea.detti@uniroma2.it Daniel Corujo Instituto de Telecomunicacoes Aveiro Email: dcorujo@av.it.pt Jianping Wang City University of Hong Kong Email: jianwang@cityu.edu.hk Marie-Jose Montpetit MIT Email: marie@mjmontpetit.com Niall Murray Athlone Institute of Technology Email: nmurray@research.ait.ie