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).

>
>>
>>>
>>>      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?

Mirja

>
> Al
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>