Re: [icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05: (with COMMENT)
Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net> Thu, 17 September 2020 08:44 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@dkutscher.net>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE2F3A0B25; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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-ihpDTQpcU3; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) (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 6A0A43A0B12; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.69] ([95.89.114.17]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue010 [212.227.15.167]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M2w0K-1kM8uP0Z6C-003L0U; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:44:05 +0200
From: Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: The IRSG <irsg@irtf.org>, draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch@ietf.org, icnrg-chairs@ietf.org, icnrg@irtf.org
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:44:00 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <37D2C017-218A-430C-A2DA-20A1719F5328@dkutscher.net>
In-Reply-To: <160030395123.14071.11327967684031927753@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <160030395123.14071.11327967684031927753@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_5E53ABFF-C45E-4BFE-98EF-8AD862326BD9_="
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:IUu6xgzHUu1e2zEw6QbSSGuqM2DtzFvGjJnWqERj1sgTshx4vUY dyrSFz8h2/neiuOXrOBn7IWyDYy2o6HiR4fciyd56gCG9VJfFSwswLPwCtb8oJUWXRhM0d3 2GaNTSQgyvrmAwtSvXa8m4938A3/LK90WzsxkJ/QWJ0zWiw2HW+ChuUMRwvTqmfk8zbd7oT tlr/vd+YFedqEYfoi3WSg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:7760PKbwfcA=:yYr8GsEH6BPJTtZ/7IGGoS FGgEO4gWlRLWl+oGbGi1Lm2QZb60pQSIuryhkVE8g/lgQxxDimahG6NWrKYtVlV66SokCLQFi TEN+XkWuOz90NswRd+qkYyxe84Qy9vbwIo0HDSQT5TOYTWguB9NL8FYLwrq+l66SJmSH/w9YF PeeK0d/UkbXjtE5PvDO1xIxUT4mMMePGIQeDCUJRWsHYtJU4wktVSOsAnjiuVNPa2Co4ToiEj C6X7p0+VZzgpYalx1kpM1XNh7lwtFYYj9fWkxkydqC1fIjy0xG/g/cbPY3NshUI0jxJTaV0yv VKUSCqJcjvFWJgGnbyrsOGBKijymEa9pXULaNBvBxNj21aleengays09ifGF1wIdRFxHpvcn2 SEmnDeQXK83gGrqbHiROcNtbTIRaMAzau8toIVNCMv6r5Zus0X2H2fPU/ggSh/gDQxs3mrwuQ IRGlnwska/e+oGPxF57JBcv+DIvcB7Frw8c6vimNI5k3VQlzNnpL0MgAnjfrPsYJsl8FAs3Z4 HwBJp6W8UqAOzKZ8qXI3KnKIay6DO7Vq/7xewycrxTbXGzVy3M5N7otuyO8yld9D8tzF94GYI KKVRK0M0pn1vQ6M55VzFcUbrynlsnrnbZdvdAbc3ZSAm2YU6iZpEk9KDnsKCad+RkcwrTpNkk ZHgR28YUjkUAKdT6eUsh6kcxyuwe5/QKsl5nZRZ32/TQckRTwON81vtLFpyS0jAbuON2AVhQK /tJ8jYuLziVoSxCbwhosmwoV2/GGzJUnRjWEX+5ILCMaJRCl4XfAP34SuQ8wMRc80K0GPT8BV /4bnoCvXdEPSriihkHhUbVFdRZlVjrD1M2X+9ICheWgLK//y4OriNFt6URc1jKv4qBW0tW8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/-hdIa7S4K3fo8rNd89kRO1cI-4U>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:44:13 -0000
Thanks a lot for looking into this, Spencer! > I'm not an ICN guy, but I can translate all of the terms on both sides > of Table > 1, except for "flow balance". The term isn't mentioned anywhere else, > except > with a reference to I-D.oran-icnrg-flowbalance, which has a very > clear > definition in its abstract. > > This captures the idea that there is a one-to-one > correspondence between requests for data, carried in Interest > messages, and the responses with the requested data object, carried > in Data messages. > > Would it make sense to include some or all of that definition earlier > in the > document, or just including a pointer to the discussion draft near > where the > term first appears? The current pointer to the discussion draft > happens 14 > pages into this draft, which doesn't seem helpful if a reader doesn't > understand the term used on page 3. Fair comment. It's a well-understood term for ICN folks, but we could consider addressing a broader audience here. There is also https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8793/ (Terminology) that mentions flow balance in the big-picture-overview -- that could be referenced as well if a revision was to be done. > This text > > Further, accumulated experience seems to indicate that QoS is > helpful > in a fairly narrow range of network conditions: > > seems backwards to me, because the list of bullets that follows > describe where > QoS is NOT helpful: IMO, this is just trying level expectations and debunk some QoS myths that might aggravate the understanding of the document. The draft has additional text with examples after this one: > Nevertheless, though not universally deployed, QoS is advantageous > at > least for some applications and some network environments. * applications with steep utility functions [Shenker2006], such as real-time multimedia * applications with safety-critical operational constraints, such as avionics or industrial automation * dedicated or tightly managed networks whose economics depend on strict adherence to challenging service level agreements (SLAs) I was thinking that this illustrates it quite nicely. Do you think that more is needed? > I think this text > > This may > allow less pessimistic rate adjustment schemes than the > Additive > Increase, Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD) with .5 multiplier > that > is used on TCP/IP networks. > > is approximately correct today, but TSVWG is certainly trying to > change that > with ECT(1) experimentation as per > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8311. Perhaps > "that is commonly used on TCP/IP networks"? Probably nice to have in case a revision is done. > I'm a bit uncomfortable with "likely to incur a mobility event within > an RTT > (or a few RTTs)", because really short-horizon distributed decisions > seem to be > problematic in a lot of path aware networking proposals. > > * A QoS treatment indicating a mobile consumer likely to incur a > mobility event within an RTT (or a few RTTs). Such a treatment > would allow a mobile network operator to preferentially cache > the > data at a forwarder positioned at a _join point_ or _rendezvous > point_ of their topology. > > How badly do you need the text following "likely to incur a mobility > event"? It > seems like deleting it would be just as clear and accurate. So, here I agree that, in a non-ICN context, the original text could raise some eye brows. However in this context, I don't see a need for change, because of the different nature of ICNs (conceptually less need for path-awareness) and light-weight mobility management approaches that ICNs enables. Thanks, Dirk
- [icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-oran-icnrg-… Spencer Dawkins via Datatracker
- Re: [icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-oran-ic… Dirk Kutscher
- Re: [icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-oran-ic… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-oran-ic… David R. Oran
- Re: [icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-oran-ic… Spencer Dawkins at IETF