IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] Comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01?

Nicolas Kuhn <nicolas.kuhn@telecom-bretagne.eu> Tue, 10 March 2015 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <nicolas.kuhn@telecom-bretagne.eu>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895171B2A1E for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.15
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 pgISTocn2wQt for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.117.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C67D1B2A1B for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F51423201E; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:52:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id UKs1dwkpM2fW; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:52:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843AB2320E8; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:52:15 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr
Received: from zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ANvTTCcEBO6i; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:52:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:660:7301:3728:38bc:2180:7487:b39] (passerelle-interne.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.117.210]) by zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5146423201E; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:52:15 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EB85CE95-3B91-44A2-B88C-DABA2DB4246D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Nicolas Kuhn <nicolas.kuhn@telecom-bretagne.eu>
In-Reply-To: <4ea7-54fe9d00-1b1-154bcba0@200238022>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:52:14 +0100
Message-Id: <A660F054-1149-438E-BE3E-9D6616709695@telecom-bretagne.eu>
References: <4ea7-54fe9d00-1b1-154bcba0@200238022>
To: LOCHIN Emmanuel <Emmanuel.LOCHIN@isae.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/cwfSrRPwb-Zz7SMmQnqP_SWQtok>
Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>, Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01?
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 10 Mar 2015 07:52:19 -0000

Hi,

> On 10 Mar 2015, at 08:28, LOCHIN Emmanuel <Emmanuel.LOCHIN@isae.fr> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Reading section "12.4 Packet sizes and congestion notification", I'm wondering whether this should also apply to pure ack traffic?
> 

For this specific section, for the sake of consistency between the IETF documents, 
we refer to the “draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation“ document 
[ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation/ ], 
where it is said:
1- in section "4.4 - AQM algorithms SHOULD respond to measured congestion, not application profiles."
“
Procedures for selecting packets to mark/drop
   SHOULD observe the actual or projected time that a packet is in a
   queue (bytes at a rate being an analog to time).  When an AQM
   algorithm decides whether to drop (or mark) a packet, it is
   RECOMMENDED that the size of the particular packet should not be
   taken into account [RFC7141].
" 
2- in section "4.5.  AQM algorithms SHOULD NOT be dependent on specific transport protocol behaviours"
“
AQM methods should be opaque to the choice of transport and application.
"

IMHO, these two points infer that this would be applied for pure ack traffic as well. 
If changes need to be done on that aspect, it should be on the “draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation“ document.

Whatever happens, the “characterisation guidelines" document should be consistent with the “recommendation document”, 
and now that you mention this section, I am not sure that a discussion on the packet sizes is needed in the “characterisation guidelines” document.  
What do you think ?

Kind regards, 

Nicolas

> EL
> 
> --
>  
>  	
> Emmanuel LOCHIN
> Professeur ISAE
> ISAE SUPAERO - Institut Supérieur de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace
> 10 avenue Edouard Belin - BP 54032 - 31055 TOULOUSE CEDEX 4 FRANCE - http://www.isae-supaero.fr <http://www.isae-supaero.fr/>
> Tel +33 5 61 33 91 85 - Fax (+33) 5 61 33 83 30
> Plan d'accès/Access map <http://plan.univ-toulouse.fr/#783> - Page personnelle <http://personnel.isae.fr/emmanuel-lochin>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email