Re: [icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05: (with COMMENT)

Dirk Kutscher <> Thu, 17 September 2020 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE2F3A0B25; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G-ihpDTQpcU3; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A0A43A0B12; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by (mreue010 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M2w0K-1kM8uP0Z6C-003L0U; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:44:05 +0200
From: "Dirk Kutscher" <>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <>
Cc: "The IRSG" <>,,,
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:44:00 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 (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 
       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 
> 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.