Common media client data (CMCD): initial findings

ABSTRACT

In September 2020, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) published the CTA-5004: Common Media Client Data (CMCD) specification. Using this specification, a media client can convey certain information to the content delivery network servers with object requests. This information is useful in log association/analysis, quality of service/experience monitoring and delivery enhancements. This paper is the first step toward investigating the feasibility of CMCD in addressing one of the most common problems in the streaming domain: efficient use of shared bandwidth by multiple clients. To that effect, we implemented CMCD functions on an HTTP server and built a proof-of-concept system with CMCD-aware dash.js clients. We show that even a basic bandwidth allocation scheme enabled by CMCD reduces rebuffering rate and duration without noticeably sacrificing the video quality.

References

1. CTA-5004: Web Application Video Ecosystem-Common Media Client Data. [Online] Available: https://cdn.cta.tech/cta/media/media/resources/standards/pdfs/cta-5004-final.pdf. Accessed on Feb. 20, 2021.
2. ISO/IEC 23000-19:2020 Information technology - Multimedia application format (MPEG-A) -- Part 19: Common media application format (CMAF) for segmented media. [Online] Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/79106.html. Accessed on Feb. 20, 2021.
3. ISO/IEC 23009-5:2017 Information technology --- Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) --- Part 5: Server and network assisted DASH (SAND). [Online] Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/69079.html. Accessed on Feb. 20, 2021.
4. High Performance Load Balancer Web Server. [Online] Available: https://www.nginx.com/, 2020.
5. V. K. Adhikari, Y. Guo, F. Hao, M. Varvello, V. Hilt, M. Steiner, and Z.-L. Zhang. Unreeling Netflix: Understanding and Improving Multi-CDN Movie Delivery. In IEEE INFOCOM, 2012.
6. Akamai. The Guide to Best Practices in Premium Online Video Streaming. In White paper, 2020.
7. S. Akhshabi, L. Anantakrishnan, A. C. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. What happens when HTTP adaptive streaming players compete for bandwidth? In ACM NOSSDAV, 2012.
8. S. Akhshabi, L. Anantakrishnan, C. Dovrolis, and A. C. Begen. Server-based traffic shaping for stabilizing oscillating adaptive streaming players. In ACM NOSSDAV, 2013.
9. A. A. Barakabitze, L. Sun, I.-H. Mkwawa, and E. Ifeachor. A Novel QoE-centric SDN-based Multipath Routing Approach for Multimedia Services over 5G Networks. In IEEE ICC, 2018.
10. A. C. Begen. Spending quality time with the web video. IEEE Internet Comput., 20(6):42--48, Nov./Dec. 2016.
11. A. Bentaleb, A. C. Begen, S. Harous, and R. Zimmermann. Want to play DASH? a game theoretic approach for adaptive streaming over HTTP. In ACM MMSys, 2018.
12. A. Bentaleb, A. C. Begen, and R. Zimmermann. SDNDASH: Improving QoE of HTTP adaptive streaming using software defined networking. In ACM Multimedia, 2016.
13. A. Bentaleb, B. Taani, A. C. Begen, C. Timmerer, and R. Zimmermann. A survey on bitrate adaptation schemes for streaming media over HTTP. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(1):562--585, 2019.
14. A. Bentaleb, C. Timmerer, A. C. Begen, and R. Zimmermann. Bandwidth Prediction in Low-Latency Chunked Streaming. In ACM NOSSDAV, 2019.
15. A. Bentaleb, P. K. Yadav, W. T. Ooi, and R. Zimmermann. DQ-DASH: A Queuing Theory Approach to Distributed Adaptive Video Streaming. ACM TOMM, 16(1), 2020.
16. D. Bhat, A. Rizk, M. Zink, and R. Steinmetz. Network assisted content distribution for adaptive bitrate video streaming. In ACM MMSys, 2017.
17. N. Bouten, M. Claeys, B. Van Poecke, S. Latré, and F. De Turck. Dynamic Server Selection Strategy for Multi-server HTTP Adaptive Streaming Services. In IEEE CNSM, 2016.
18. N. Bouten, R. d. O. Schmidt, J. Famaey, S. Latré, A. Pras, and F. De Turck. QoE-driven In-network Optimization for Adaptive Video Streaming based on Packet Sampling Measurements. Elsevier Computer Networks, 81:96--115, 2015.
19. J. Bruneau-Queyreix, M. Lacaud, and D. Negru. A Multiple-source Adaptive Streaming Solution Enhancing Consumer's Perceived Quality. In IEEE CCNC, 2017.
20. DASH-IF. DASH Reference Client. [Online] Available: https://reference.dashif.org/dash.js/. Accessed on Feb. 20, 2021.
21. L. De Cicco, S. Mascolo, and V. Palmisano. Feedback Control for Adaptive Live Video Streaming. In ACM MMSys, 2011.
22. A. Detti, B. Ricci, and N. Blefari-Melazzi. Tracker-assisted Rate Adaptation for MPEG DASH Live Streaming. In IEEE INFOCOM, 2016.
23. K. Durak, M. N. Akcay, Y. K. Erinc, B. Pekel, and A. C. Begen. Evaluating the performance of Apple's low-latency HLS. In IEEE MMSP, 2020.
24. A. Ganjam, F. Siddiqui, J. Zhan, X. Liu, I. Stoica, J. Jiang, V. Sekar, and H. Zhang. C3: Internet-scale Control Plane for Video Quality Optimization. In USENIX NSDI, 2015.
25. R. Houdaille and S. Gouache. Shaping HTTP Adaptive Streams for a Better User Experience. In ACM MMSys, 2012.
26. T.-Y. Huang, R. Johari, N. McKeown, M. Trunnell, and M. Watson. A Buffer-based Approach to Rate Adaptation: Evidence from a Large Video Streaming Service. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2014.
27. J. Jiang, V. Sekar, I. Stoica, and H. Zhang. Shedding Light on the Structure of Internet Video Quality Problems in the Wild. In ACM CoNEXT, 2013.
28. J. Jiang, S. Sun, V. Sekar, and H. Zhang. Pytheas: Enabling Data-driven Quality of Experience Optimization using Group-based Exploration-exploitation. In USENIX NSDI, 2017.
29. W. L. Ultra-Low-Latency Streaming Using Chunked-Encoded and Chunked-Transferred CMAF. Akamai White paper. Online; accessed 10 January 2019.
30. D. H. Lee, C. Dovrolis, and A. C. Begen. Caching in HTTP adaptive streaming: friend or foe? In ACM NOSSDAV, 2014.
31. Z. Li, X. Zhu, J. Gahm, R. Pan, H. Hu, A. C. Begen, and D. Oran. Probe and Adapt: Rate Adaptation for HTTP Video Streaming at Scale. IEEE Jour. Selected Areas Comm., 32(4):719--733, 2014.
32. X. Liu, F. Dobrian, H. Milner, J. Jiang, V. Sekar, I. Stoica, and H. Zhang. A Case for a Coordinated Internet Video Control Plane. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2012.
33. H. Mao, R. Netravali, and M. Alizadeh. Neural Adaptive Video Streaming with Pensieve. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2017.
34. A. Mehrabi, M. Siekkinen, and A. Ylä-Jääski. Joint Optimization of QoE and Fairness Through Network Assisted Adaptive Mobile Video Streaming. In IEEE WiMob, 2017.
35. M. Mu, M. Broadbent, A. Farshad, N. Hart, D. Hutchison, Q. Ni, and N. Race. A Scalable User Fairness Model for Adaptive Video Streaming over SDN-assisted Future Networks. IEEE Jour. Selected Areas Comm., 34(8):2168--2184, 2016.
36. V. Nathan, V. Sivaraman, R. Addanki, M. Khani, P. Goyal, and M. Alizadeh. End-to-End Transport for Video QoE Fairness. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2019.
37. NUS-OzU. CMCD-aware System. [Online] Available: https://github.com/NUStreaming/CMCD-DASH. Accessed on Feb. 20, 2021.
38. S. Pham, P. Heeren, C. Schmidt, D. Silhavy, and S. Arbanowski. Evaluation of shared resource allocation using SAND for ABR streaming. ACM TOMM, 16(2s):1--18, 2020.
39. Y. Qin, S. Hao, K. R. Pattipati, F. Qian, S. Sen, B. Wang, and C. Yue. ABR Streaming of VBR-encoded Videos: Characterization, Challenges, and Solutions. In ACM CoNEXT, 2018.
40. K. Spiteri, R. Urgaonkar, and R. K. Sitaraman. BOLA: Near-optimal Bitrate Adaptation for Online Videos. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, 28(4):1698--1711, 2020.
41. Twitch. Grand Challenge on Adaptation Algorithms for Near-Second Latency. In ACM MMSys, 2020.
42. X. Yin, A. Jindal, V. Sekar, and B. Sinopoli. A Control-theoretic Approach for Dynamic Adaptive Video Streaming over HTTP. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2015.

Index Terms

• Information systems

  • Information systems applications

    • Multimedia information systems

      • Multimedia streaming