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

["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.
>