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

["Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Al, Benoit, hi all,

thanks for the feedback. Sorry for me delaying this maybe a little but I need t have another look at the document which will be next week at this point. In general I agree that this does not need to only rely on registered metrics because is mostly for lab tests; further this might probably not the right doc to register new metrics. However, I would still like to have another look at the doc and see if we can improve anything or figure out if any of the ’new’/non-registed metrics should/could be taken up by e.g. ippm.

Mirja


 
> Am 20.05.2016 um 14:53 schrieb MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>:
> 
> All,
> a few replies in-line below,
> Al
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:38 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; aqm-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; linda Dunbar;
>> MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
>> Subject: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11:
>> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>> 
>> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: Discuss
>> 
> ...
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Has a RFC6390 performance directorate review done for the 2.X metrics?
>> It
>> should.
> [ACM] 
> I reviewed this draft about 18 months ago.
> Mostly, it points to existing RFCs for fundamental metrics,
> and discusses others.  I read this:
>   ...This document provides characterization guidelines that
>   can be used to assess the deployability of an AQM, whether it is
>   candidate for standardization at IETF or not.
> as restricted to lab testing.
> 
>> See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html
>> I guess that the metrics will be recorded in the future (See
>> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-06
>> ), right?
> [ACM] 
> That's up to the authors, they might simply point to 
> metrics in the registry contributed by others 
> (when following these guidelines at a future time).
> 
>> For example, Flow Completion Time and Packet Loss Synchronization are
>> new, I believe.
> [ACM] 
> Flow Completion Time is close to a definition for a new metric,
> and could benefit from more attention, perhaps a few more details.
> RFC6390 will provide some areas for improvement.
> 
> Packet loss sync full methodology is described in [JAY006],
> according to the text. 
> 
>> And some other metrics are already documented in RFC6390 compliant
>> documents. Pointers should be provided.
> [ACM] 
> Most others are discussion sections and provide references.
> 
>> See
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-
>> discard-01#appendix-A
>> for an example
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> - Random Early Detection (RED), BLUE, and Proportional Integral
>> controller (PI)
>> Would you have references?
>> 
>> - BDP is mentioned a few times. Please expand.
>> 
>> - Glossary section = terminology section, right? If we want to be
>> consistent across documents
>> 
>> - section 12.2. Why not a MUST below?
>>   In order to understand an AQM's deployment considerations and
>>   performance under a specific environment, AQM proposals SHOULD
>>   describe the parameters that control the macroscopic AQM behavior,
>>   and identify any parameters that require tuning to operational
>>   conditions.
>> 
>