Re: [bmwg] Call for views: draft-vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-03

Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Thu, 19 November 2020 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF523A1065 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:01:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, WEIRD_PORT=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 G_9nCvPo7geZ for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:01:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3508F3A1060 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:01:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.136] (host-79-121-41-201.kabelnet.hu [79.121.41.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 0AJ70rS1091942 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:01:00 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-41-201.kabelnet.hu [79.121.41.201] claimed to be [192.168.1.136]
To: bmwg@ietf.org
References: <F9E3D2FE-3A28-4EAB-ACFA-6F7916188804@cisco.com>
From: Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <c38133b8-1be7-d77a-0e40-8bcbe47ac405@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:00:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F9E3D2FE-3A28-4EAB-ACFA-6F7916188804@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.41.201; helo=[192.168.1.136]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC-wuwien-Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/_Pl_UwXJE2k7Y3_-3-hS-PZ9UUk>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Call for views: draft-vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-03
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:01:12 -0000

Dear Authors,

I am interested in your draft. I promised (right now at the BMWG 
meeting) to review it. I wonder if you are willing to do an update in 
the near future (i.e. within a few weeks), as then I would review the 
updated version.

I also have questions. Have you done a case study, in which you compared 
the efficiency of MLR search with that of the traditional binary search? 
I would be interested in RFC 2544 compliant (zero loss rate) throughput 
measurements. How much faster is your algorithm than traditional binary 
search? Could we state something like "MLR produces better quality 
results than binary search" ?

Please send me a pointer, if you have published such results!

Cheers,

Gábor

On 11/18/2020 8:53 PM, Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) wrote:
> Dear BMWG Contributors,
>
> We would like to ask your view regarding draft-vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-03:
>
> 1. During the interim BMWG meeting post IETF-107 [1] there was quite some interests in working on this draft in BMWG:
>     a. Our (authors) understanding is that BMWG agreed to adopt this work as a BMWG draft and collaborate on making it into RFC.
>     b. But in the absence of the last statement being present in the meeting notes [1], we would like to re-confirm this.
>     c. If it is re-confirmed, we will re-post the draft with its name updated to draft-bmwg-mlrsearch.
>
> 2. If point 1. is cleared, we would like to then invite folks to collaborate closer with us and progress this draft to RFC:
>     a. Welcome all comments identifying areas that require clarification and/or gaps that need to be addressed.
>     b. Substantial additions and co-authors are welcome.
>
> We do have a discussion slot regarding above in the IETF-109 BMWG meeting, slides are available at [2].
>
> Cheers,
> Maciek and Vratko (authors)
>
> [1] notes-ietf-107-bmwg, https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-107-bmwg?useMonospaceFont=true
> [2] slides for draft-vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-03, https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-bmwg-multiple-loss-ratio-search-00
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg