[bmwg] more on draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-term
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 04 December 2002 01:10 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28251 for <bmwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:10:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gB41D9e32624 for bmwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:13:09 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gB40aLv29763; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:36:21 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gB40Zxv29739 for <bmwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:35:59 -0500
Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27033 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:33:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from roam.psg.com ([147.28.4.2] ident=mailnull) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 18JNW0-000GRG-00; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:35:48 -0800
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=roam.psg.com.psg.com ident=randy) by roam.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18JNVz-0009Jq-00; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:35:47 -0800
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Cc: Kathleen Nichols <nichols@packetdesign.com>, Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu>
Message-Id: <E18JNVz-0009Jq-00@roam.psg.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:35:47 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [bmwg] more on draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-term
Sender: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:56:03 -0800 From: Kathleen Nichols <nichols@packetdesign.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020930 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> CC: braden@isi.edu, brian@hursley.ibm.com Subject: Re: draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-term-01.txt References: <200211270148.gAR1mP59010878@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-02.txt. Okay, I agree with Bob about it seeming to wander into NSIS territory (but then NSIS seems to be wandering into all kinds of territory, so maybe there's some method here). I also agree with Brian that they seem to see diffserv as some kind of subset of rsvp-intserv. It seems odd to me that there is a concern with "different resource reservation protocols" that includes some stuff that is in research papers, not IETF RFCs, standards or informational. Interestingly enough, one of these, Boomerang shares a first author with this document. I think mentioning it on a par with RSVP in a WG document is a blantant ploy to try to create some kind of standards visibility for someone's research project. And a rather back-handed one. Who is shipping Boomerang? What IETF WG owns it? The issues section of 6.1.4 tells us about how Boomerang works. The issues section of 6.1.5 the last sentence is an opinion about architectural choices, which seems out of place in a benchmarking document, particularly one one benchmarking terminology. Similarly, I am a bit concerned about the issues section of 6.1.6, but if Bob feels it is appropriate here, I'll bow to his greater expertise. Section 6.2.2 talks about Premium Data Packets as those distinct from Best Effort. The diffserv WG heard a lot of discussion on a topic that some network operators believe is important which is to be able to treat data packets differently from Best effort and *worse* than best effort. "Premium" is a misnomer in that case. In the same section, the authors perpetuate a common mistake by equating multi-field classification to IP 5 tuple or ToS field classification. "Multifield" was always meant to refer to any arbitrary set of fields and that's what the diffserv WG docs say. They give the five-tuple as an *example*. I found 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 confusing. If a router needs to classify packets, it has to classify all the packets that pass through it since it can't know apriori which are "premium" unless it's done by port or something. Then "marking" is mentioned in 6.4.3 as if it had already been discussed. Also, the forwarding time needs to include scheduling time which is quite variable, but yet that is not called out here. On the other hand, this may not be important if it is the resource reservation capabilities that are being benchmarked. If that's so, why is this document talking about forwarding time? It seems like 6.4.4 is actually describing a metric that ought to be important, given the title of the document. Thus, the waffle words on time period seem a bit too waffly. This is a good place to make a recommendation. After all, there's some time period where the emergence of the reservation is critical. _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg