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

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

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.

>
>     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).

Mirja