Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr> Tue, 14 June 2016 14:24 UTC
Return-Path: <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
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 9EDF812DB7C; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_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 9Fi0o7qaH0aD; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.cnes.fr (mx1.cnes.fr [194.199.174.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED5312B065; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,470,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="4133956"
X-IPAS-Result: A2FhAQCNEmBX/wUBeApcGQEBAQEBgyBJDX0GjSSuD4FxCBcLhXUCHIEQOBQBAQEBAQEBA2InhEsBAQEBAgEBAQEgEToLBQcEAgEFAw0EBAEBAQICBh0DAgICJQsUAQgIAgQBCQQFCIggCA6qXZEdAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWBAYlzhEIVgmorgi8Fk0OFII8OiHeFRo90HjaCBxwWgTU8MgGJCAF+AQEB
From: Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRxauhhZIMh8Jg7UWit/U6Qs1Rl5/oYYgAgAABkQCAAAh3AIAAltpw
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:24:42 +0000
Message-ID: <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF8FDFC0@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
References: <20160519093824.17314.65212.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.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> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D458D677DD2@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <575AF0F9.6060801@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D458D677DDF@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <BFE08369-0903-4712-86C6-765B82B89E10@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D458D677FCC@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <fe21f1c1-cc5b-4b2 a-ce65-43bf7dcef28c@cisco.com> <F817D4C8-044D-4DE8-81AE-9D4259EA56AE@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <F817D4C8-044D-4DE8-81AE-9D4259EA56AE@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.4179-8.000.1202-22390.007
x-tm-as-result: No--63.778100-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/Z1hWqyhsl672QQShHgY9gvU5G0A>
Cc: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>, "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: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:24:50 -0000
All, We have pushed an updated version that integrates the suggested changes. Thanks, Nico -----Message d'origine----- De : aqm [mailto:aqm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) Envoyé : mardi 14 juin 2016 09:13 À : Benoit Claise Cc : MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); wes@mti-systems.com; aqm-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines@ietf.org; Schulthess Nicolas (F&W); aqm@ietf.org Objet : Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Yes, already contacted the authors! Thanks all! > Am 14.06.2016 um 08:42 schrieb Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>: > > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch] >>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 3:41 PM >> ... >>> Hi Al, >>> >>> I believe, we agree here. However, I’m not really sure what needs to >>> be changed/added in the draft now. The only concrete item I have is >>> replacing "application-level“ by "transport-layer payload“. Anything >>> else? >>> >>> Mirja >> [ACM] >> Thanks, that would resolve the biggest ambiguity for me. >> Like I said last week, I think we're done (with that change). > Thank you Al and Mirja. > I'll clear the DISCUSS on that basis, trusting the AD that the addition will be introduced. > > Regards, Benoit >> >> Al >> >>> >>>> Am 10.06.2016 um 19:16 schrieb MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) >>> <acmorton@att.com>: >>>> more below, thanks for the clarifications, Mirja! >>>> Al >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch] >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 12:55 PM >>>>> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); Mirja Kühlewind; Benoit Claise >>>>> 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) >>>>> >>>>> Hi Al, >>>>> >>>>> see below. >>>>> >>>>> On 10.06.2016 18:41, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> That's the view from someone measuring in the network. But if you >>>>> do simulations or have a controlled testbed, the easiest things is >>>>> to measure in the application (and you automatically get the right >>>>> thing). As we >>> don't >>>>> know >>>>> what exactly people do in the end, I think it is right to leave >>>>> this open (and leave it as simple as possible in the description >>>>> text). >>>> [ACM] >>>> Ok, but what layer of the application? The raw media stream(s)? >>>> Or everything in the TCP/UDP payload? >>>> >>>> In lab benchmarking, it's sometimes about measuring at link speed x >>>> number of ports, so every operation makes a difference! >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>> There actually is now a sentence saying: >>>>> >>>>> "Where flow size is the size of the application-level flow in bits >>> and >>>>> goodput is the application-level transfer time (described in >>>>> Section 2.5)." >>>>> >>>>> Is this sufficient? >>>> [ACM] >>>> >>>> I don't mean to prolong this, but I haven't been clear: >>>> The term "application-level" is ambiguous, it could be RTP, or some >>>> other container layer, or one of the MPEG layers, or the raw >>>> media/program stream (with our without meta data). >>>> >>>> If by saying "application-level", the transport-layer payload is >>>> meant, I suggest to say that. >>>> >>>> are we there yet? I know I am :-), it's 19:15 down the road in Geneva! >>>> Al >>>> >>>>> Mirja >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Al >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> aqm mailing list >>>>>> aqm@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> aqm mailing list >>>> aqm@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
- [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-e… Benoit Claise
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Benoit Claise
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Kuhn Nicolas
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Benoit Claise
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Benoit Claise
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Benoit Claise
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Kuhn Nicolas
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-a… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)