Re: [icnrg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt> to Informational RFC
"David R. Oran" <daveoran@orandom.net> Mon, 12 October 2020 13:36 UTC
Return-Path: <daveoran@orandom.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 5FE8E3A14DF; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 dK7jMlMttEdL; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spark.crystalorb.net (spark.crystalorb.net [IPv6:2607:fca8:1530::c]) (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 A23003A14DB; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.15.243] ([IPv6:2601:184:407f:80ce:c0ab:368:ceb8:4414]) (authenticated bits=0) by spark.crystalorb.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id 09CDad4R028144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:36:41 -0700
From: "David R. Oran" <daveoran@orandom.net>
To: The IRSG <irsg@irtf.org>
Cc: icnrg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch@ietf.org, irtf-chair@irtf.org, icnrg@irtf.org
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:36:30 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5726)
Message-ID: <09227BB5-37F6-42C2-8971-0E6E53FA6A44@orandom.net>
In-Reply-To: <160250569271.3121.5927073982280689228@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <160250569271.3121.5927073982280689228@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_D2FA500E-4B51-4633-98AB-C3900CF25CB3_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/93ijUmgGTdaVBuUxHa20pY-SVLw>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt> to Informational RFC
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: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:36:45 -0000
On 12 Oct 2020, at 8:28, IESG Secretary wrote: > The IRSG ballot for <draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt> has been > closed. The > evaluation for this document can be found at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch/ Thanks for the useful ballot comments on this draft. Here are my responses: #Mallory’s comment:# “The draft includes a lot of meta narrative about the discussion of the draft and unresolved issues in the IRSG without simply resolving those issues and presenting the research as a whole. Furthermore the "managed unfairness" framing sets a low bar when QoS should be primarily about defining the high bar. While it might be worth mapping the floor, I suggest it's real value for the IRTF would be achieved in conjunction with finding the ceiling.” First, I’m not sure I understand the first sentence, unless Mallory was referring to this: “1.1. Applicability Assessment by ICNRG Chairs QoS in ICN is an important topic with a huge design space. ICNRG has been discussing different specific protocol mechanisms as well as conceptual approaches. This document presents architectural considerations for QoS, leveraging ICN properties instead of merely applying IP-QoS mechanisms - without defining a specific architecture or specific protocols mechanisms yet. However, there is consensus in ICNRG that this document, clarifying the author's views, could inspire such work and should hence be published as a position paper.” This was supplied by the ICNRG Chair to position the document relative to other ongoing work in ICNRG. I’m not sure it’s my place to rework this. As general matter, I’ll defend the draft as being definitive where I assessed the principles I proposed to be solid, and intentionally open-ended where that is not so. While I certainly hoped to be inclusive, I certainly don’t believe this document (or perhaps any other at this stage) could confidently claim to “presenting the research as a whole”. On the comment about setting a “low bar”, I respectfully disagree with Mallory’s assessment. Perhaps there’s just a mis-communication, since I view QoS as a zero-sum game and therefore there’s neither a high bar nor a low bar where QoS machinery is concerned. I’d definitely be interested in trying to get to the bottom of where Mallory thinks the draft falls short in proposing a general direction for QoS architecture for ICN protocols. #Spencer’s comments, with responses embedded:# 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. If everyone else knows what that means, please carry on :-) Response: I think it’s appropriate to have a forward reference to the discussion later in the document. I’ll put an asterisk in the table and the forward pointer below the table, it you think that would help. 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: * If your resources are lightly loaded, you don't need it, as neither congestive loss nor substantial queueing delay occurs * If your resources are heavily oversubscribed, it doesn't save you. So many users will be unhappy that you are probably not delivering a viable service * Failures can rapidly shift your state from the first above to the second, in which case either: - your QoS machinery cannot respond quickly enough to maintain the advertised service quality continuously, or - resource allocations are sufficiently conservative to result in substantial wasted capacity under non-failure conditions Nevertheless, though not universally deployed, QoS is advantageous at least for some applications and some network environments. Response: How about I reword this as “Further, accumulated experience seems to indicate that QoS is not helpful under most network conditions:” 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"? Response: Sure, will use your suggested wording. 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. Response: well, yes, if you have path-aware signaling the timescales are certainly problematic. What I’m getting at here does require a fair amount of “reading between the lines”, so the tradeoff is whether to go into a long digression about who is in charge of mobility measurement and decision making, and where the state needed to do it resides. The mental model underlying the assertion in the text is: - the client machine (consumer in the ICN parlance) has the best idea about whether it is likely to move soon (e.g. history, GPS and accelerometers) rather than network elements like mobility managers or routers. - it may have information about *where* it is likely to move if it has a modest amount of knowledge of the local network environment. - It is somewhere between easy and trivial to place a hint about this into interest messages it sends. - ICN routers can use this hint to avoid wasting cache space at routers at or closer to the consumer than its current point of attachment, and to (depending on how accurate the information is) preferentially cache responses for retry after mobility at or close to the topological join point (or anchor point if the mobility protocol uses mobility anchors). * 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. Response: given the above discussion, perhaps the reasoning behind the words is more justifiable? The question is whether we should just leave things as they are, or I put in a long “aside” so readers have a better idea what I’m getting at. An alternative would be to put in a list of references to ICN mobility work that, taken in aggregate, would justify the point I’m making, but I don’t like that solution as it just sends the reader on an extended tour into ICN mobility designs. Advice solicited. #Mirja comment:# The document states that is does only reflect the author's personal views and is not a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG), as such it seems to me that the document would be the perfect candidate for publication on the ISE stream. Response: as author I don’t care, but I’d ask the (other) ICNRG chair whether the ICNRG has a preference. Of course as author I have a preference to settle this quickly if we want to change to the ISE stream. [end of ballot comments and responses] DaveO
- [icnrg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-oran-icnrg-qos… IESG Secretary
- Re: [icnrg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-oran-icnrg… David R. Oran
- Re: [icnrg] [irsg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-ora… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [icnrg] [irsg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-ora… Colin Perkins
- Re: [icnrg] [irsg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-ora… David R. Oran