IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Fri, 10 June 2016 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1A112D541; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.627
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0-VWyiOy0e0o; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25DDC12D127; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C728121826; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:50:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA242E1F5A; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:41:44 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:41:43 -0400
Thread-Topic: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AdHDGhJHXpXU4omCRPC8aCGq+M2kVwAHFeCg
Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D458D677DD2@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <20160519093824.17314.65212.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D458D3D3108@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <8D2CEA6F-BC90-4606-B737-1F5837178C1A@kuehlewind.net> <DEC82FD2-9F80-465A-AA16-C13C4766B54C@kuehlewind.net> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D458D677B27@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <2E5B5988-B119-44F6-BA82-F59F817948FB@kuehlewind.net> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D458D677B29@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <5CA63370-E84C-4C84-92A8-9C298B2CD0C3@kuehlewind.net> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D458D677B2D@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <82287fc6-473a-617c-757c-69bb2e7ce17a@cisco.com> <575A8DB2.3040702@kuehlewind.net> <ff2b5cc0-22be-7898-39f4-cd163b8f358b@cisco.com> <575ABD37.6090706@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <575ABD37.6090706@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/9etM7XZh7WJewRL1ccXP5h6eA3M>
Cc: "wes@mti-systems.com" <wes@mti-systems.com>, "aqm-chairs@ietf.org" <aqm-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines@ietf.org>, "Schulthess Nicolas (F&W)" <nicolas.schulthess@sl.ethz.ch>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:41:48 -0000

Hi, see below,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 9:15 AM
> To: Benoit Claise; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Cc: wes@mti-systems.com; aqm-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-ietf-aqm-
> eval-guidelines@ietf.org; Schulthess Nicolas (F&W); aqm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-
> guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Benoit,
> 
> waiting for Al. But in the mean time see below.
> 
> On 10.06.2016 11:57, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > Al, assuming that someone would like to register this metric in a
> registry
> > (RFC6390), are they any grey areas in the performance metric
> definitions in
> > the draft?
> >  From what I understand, a point such this one (from Al) is:
> >
> >     Because we are using Goodput, G, I take as given that there
> >     must be a protocol with retransmission capability.
> >     Otherwise, further simplification is possible (with dummy
> traffic).
> 
> Not really if you have not retransmission, simply your
> goodout=throughput.
> Don't see a problem here.
[ACM] 
Although Goodput == Throughput for UDP, you can make a 
simpler measurement, you don't have to check for uniqueness.

> 
> >
> >     But yes, Fs and G need to be reported on payload
> >     at the same layer, so the protocol layer chosen is
> >     an input parameter for this metric.
> 
> Yes, it need to be the same layer for all your tests; but the goal is
> not be
> compatible with other tests. So it's your decision. It's guidance how
> you
> would test AQMs to decide if you want to deploy them in the future (or
> to
> show that your AQM has benefits compared to other AQMs such that another
> guy
> might deploy this in future).
[ACM] 

The current text mentions the "application layer" but needs to add the note
that the layer chosen needs to be specified/included in with the results, so that 
someone reading results later will know what was tested.

Al

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email