Re: [alto] Review for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12

["Y. Richard Yang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jensen, Qin,

I thought a bit more on the suggestion by Jensen and agree with both of you
that it is OK. I have updated the document in -14.

Thanks a lot!
Richard

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:37 AM Qin Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Jensen:
>
> My impression, <stat> is an optional item in the ANBF, therefore the
> metric identifier can be used without <stat> as suffix.
>
> I think your proposed change makes sense to me.
>
>
>
> -Qin
>
> *发件人:* Jensen Zhang [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *发送时间:* 2021年1月12日 15:36
> *收件人:* Qin Wu <[e-mail]>
> *抄送:* IETF ALTO <[e-mail]>; Y. Richard Yang <[e-mail]>; Kai
> Gao <[e-mail]>
> *主题:* Re: [alto] Review for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12
>
>
>
> Hi Qin,
>
>
>
> I agree with you that the constraints checking should rely on the
> implementation. I'm OK that it is not in the scope of this document.
>
>
>
> For other comments, I have checked v-13. I think most of them have been
> addressed, except for the following one.
>
>
>
> Section 2.2., paragraph 16:
>
>
>
> >    If a metric has no <stat> (and hence no - as well), the metric MUST
>
>
>
>   recommend adding " surrounding -, or using dash character instead;
>
>   if possible, giving the precise BNF grammar will be better, as I
>
>   see some metrics names also include the dash character ("-").
>
> >    be considered as the 50 percentile (median).  Since this scheme is
>
> >    common for all metrics defined in this document, below we only
>
> >    specify the base identifier.
>
>
>
> Although I can understand this sentence, I still think it should be better
> clarified.
>
> I would suggest giving the BNF grammar at the beginning of this section,
> e.g.,
>
>
>
>    ... Hence, each performance metric's identifier
>
>    should indicate the statistic (i.e., an aggregation operation), to
>
>    become
>
>
>
>       <metric-identifier> ::= <metric-base-identifier> [ '-' <stat> ]
>
>
>
>    where <stat> MUST be one of the following:
>
>
>
> And changing the last paragraph of the section to:
>
>
>
>    If '-' <stat> is not present in <metric-identifier>, the metric MUST
>
>    be considered as the 50 percentile (median).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jensen
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:22 PM Qin Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Jensen:
>
> Speak as individual, My answer to your following question is false as
> well, even based on RFC7285, defining hopecount as float point value seem
> also weird.
>
> I think we can rely on implementation or some automation tools for
> constraints checking, but it is not scope of this document.
>
> For other comments, I think Richard have addressed in v-13. Please double
> check it. Thanks
>
>
>
> -Qin
>
> [alto] Review for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12
>
> Jensen Zhang <[e-mail]> Tue, 13 October 2020 04:17 UTCShow
> header
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/qZrkPza-vEUcIqQMR3OJfk8G-uw/>
>
> Dear ALTOers and authors of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12,
>
>
>
> Below is my review for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jensen
>
>
>
> ==============================================
>
> General issue:
>
>
>
> The document is well written. I only have one question about the design
>
> part:
>
>
>
> the base ALTO protocol only uses the cost-mode to infer the value format,
>
> e.g., "numerical" infers the cost value MUST be a floating-point value; but
>
> this document requires different value formats for different cost-metrics,
>
> e.g., "delay-ow" requires the non-negative floating-point value, and
>
> "hopcount" requires the non-negative integer value. But based on
>
> Sec 11.3.2.3 of RFC7285, in the "constraints" field, "ALTO servers SHOULD
>
> use at least IEEE 754 double-precision floating point [IEEE.754.2008] to
>
> store the cost value". I wonder if a test constraint expression like "eq
>
> 3.1" for the cost-metric "hopcount" is valid. Should the ALTO server reject
>
> such a request? According to RFC7285, it should be valid. But according to
>
> this document, it is clearly always false.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
>
>
>
> Nits and writing suggestions:
>
>
>
> Section 1., paragraph 5:
>
>
>
> >    The purpose of this document is to ensure proper usage of the
>
> >    performance metrics defined in Table 1; it does not claim novelty of
>
> >    the metrics.  The Origin column of Table 1 gives the RFC which
>
> >    defines each metric.
>
>
>
>   Origin -> Origin Example (to be consistent with the table)
>
> >    We can rough classify the performance metrics into two categories:
>
> >    those derived from the performance of individual packets (i.e., one-
>
> >    way delay, round-trip delay, delay variation, hop count, and loss
>
> >    rate), and those related with bandwidth (TCP throughput, residue
>
> >    bandwidth and max reservable bandwidth).  These two categories are
>
> >    defined in Section 3 and Section 4 respectively.  Note that all
>
> >    metrics except round trip delay are unidirectional.  Hence, a client
>
> >    will need to query both directions if needed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 2., paragraph 1:
>
>
>
> >    When defining the metrics in Table 1, this document considers the
>
> >    guidelines specified in [RFC6390], which requires fine-grained
>
> >    specification of (i) Metric Name, (ii) Metric Description, (iii)
>
> >    Method of Measurement or Calculation, (iv) Units of Measurement, (v)
>
> >    Measurement Points, and (vi) Measurement Timing.  In particular, for
>
> >    each metric, this document defines (i) Metric Name, (ii) Metric
>
> >    Description, and (iv) Units of Measurement.  The Measurement Points
>
> >    are always specified by the specific ALTO services; for example,
>
> >    endpoint cost service is between the two end points.
>
>
>
>   end points -> endpoints
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 2.1., paragraph 11:
>
>
>
> >    A particular type of "estimation is direct "import", which indicates
>
> >    that the value of the metric is imported directly from a specific
>
> >    existing protocol or system.  Specifying "import" as source instead
>
>
>
>   source -> the source
>
> >    of the more generic "estimation" may allow better tracing of
>
> >    information flow.  For an "import" metric, it is RECOMMENDED that the
>
> >    "parameters" field provides details to the system from which raw data
>
> >    is imported.  In particular, one may notice that the set of end-to-
>
> >    end metrics defined in Table 1 has large overlap with the set defined
>
> >    in [RFC8571], in the setting of IGP traffic engineering performance
>
> >    metrics for each link (i.e., unidirectional link delay, min/max
>
> >    unidirectional link delay, unidirectional delay variation,
>
> >    unidirectional link loss, unidirectional residual bandwidth,
>
> >    unidirectional available bandwidth, unidirectional utilized
>
> >    bandwidth).  Hence, an ALTO server may use "import" to indicate that
>
> >    its end-to-end metrics are computed from link metrics imported from
>
> >    [RFC8571].
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 2.2., paragraph 2:
>
>
>
> >    percentile, with letter p followed by a number p:
>
>
>
>   a number p -> a number
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 2.2., paragraph 16:
>
>
>
> >    If a metric has no <stat> (and hence no - as well), the metric MUST
>
>
>
>   recommend adding " surrounding -, or using dash character instead;
>
>   if possible, giving the precise BNF grammar will be better, as I
>
>   see some metrics names also include the dash character ("-").
>
> >    be considered as the 50 percentile (median).  Since this scheme is
>
> >    common for all metrics defined in this document, below we only
>
> >    specify the base identifier.
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 3., paragraph 1:
>
>
>
> >    This section introduces ALTO network performance metrics including
>
> >    one way delay, round trip delay, delay variation, hop count, and
>
> >    packet loss rate.  They measure the "quality of experience" of the
>
> >    stream of packets sent from a resource provider to a resource
>
> >    consumer.  The measures of each individual packet (pkt) can include
>
> >    the delay from the time that the packet enters the network to the
>
> >    time that the packet leaves the network (pkt.delay); the number of
>
>
>
>   the time that -> the time when
>
> >    network hops that the packet traverses (pkt.hopcount); and whether
>
> >    the packet is dropped before reaching destination (pkt.dropped).  The
>
>
>
>   destination -> the destination
>
> >    semantics of the performance metrics defined in this section is that
>
> >    they are statistics (percentiles) computed from these measures; for
>
> >    example, the x-percentile of the one-way delay is the x-percentile of
>
> >    the set of delays {pkt.delay} for the packets in the stream.
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 3.1.3., paragraph 1:
>
>
>
> >    Intended Semantics: To specify spatial and temporal aggregated delay
>
>
>
>   spatial -> the spatial
>
> >    of a stream of packets from the specified source and the specified
>
> >    destination.  The spatial aggregation level is specified in the query
>
> >    context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 3.1.4., paragraph 2:
>
>
>
> >    "sla": Many networks provide delay in their application-level service
>
> >    level agreements.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of
>
> >    an "sla" one-way delay metric provides a link ("link") to the SLA
>
>
>
>   I assume that the second link (the one surrounding with ") means a
>
>   field called "link", and the first link (the one without ") means
>
>   the value of this field is a URI. Please make it clear. Adding an
>
>   example could be better.
>
> >    definition.
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 5.3., paragraph 2:
>
>
>
> >    To address this issue, the only defined "routingcost" metric can be
>
> >    ONLY "estimation".
>
>
>
>   "ONLY" is not an RFC 2119 key word, doesn't have to be uppercase.
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 7., paragraph 3:
>
>
>
> >    Since he This document requests the creation of the "ALTO Cost Source
>
> >    Registry" with the following currently defined values:
>
>
>
>   This paragraph seems to be incomplete and repeated to the next one.
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
>