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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 17 September 2020 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 C4C763A0D4F; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 pdtC5fZW620o; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb33.google.com (mail-yb1-xb33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 483813A0D9D; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb33.google.com with SMTP id x20so2869077ybs.8; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AP/hDOxcxHbBUo+W6IqAffkT29v5YcsmIFE4v0Dp7wE=; b=Hil/XfgBZW7lTzq2Rb8DjprIXQBykZPnstng7AMsMFEyrrotpe1t8bAzrhhcynAGcF bGFLffq2B6xLLVQVzBERelWbKPtkP3R+n2WAKSnbZx2ju7wLVMtkAAQ0bvi0lTX4sjW0 1K7ssOv9/EangJTc4CF6VwfjaamDvc4/D2dQ6+utbaXYHnJm2EMLXSi9f0YT7QOJHUcr ZGLY/7omYdOojhzyfDxOuEOAtKwM/ken9NuDxsybcfnqm8dPetxkh+vcWbngfndgooFd dhGjRgtx59SqCkhE+NGbbWBcxsKzwLDEiriPoVkqCFuM2wvJMMQw/mgp8T0uXTc66m7Y g9/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AP/hDOxcxHbBUo+W6IqAffkT29v5YcsmIFE4v0Dp7wE=; b=YiOleJDAl5WgnlbcngLrO42oVIkVVzqTccKlTPAXw812z0su82YD+iuSlET8jo5PVB 9T7ZB4ZjFCk/JUoqiZVDYb1UfwWYCOJKvbD6oIsltDWYw6uYkqpdDeP7ehcHHsOGG38p SAGzCu7VxuZvHJYxDficPr5XIB2N1kTNqYpozjJv5KT0cEzrXWLAirmKadf0KHTF5B1m zxfhihr/2l5QJc1nzXabVXg6qAeZ1VgDKlxyCRQGXPLUxlyN6xuX/ppb/IdI/j1ZJTa5 3sNZP0OQmiieKYmyLt4iN2FzQy9eNyAdte4srHbpLCflDuu92HGBBgMDcRRJXn4JZQIw 3BIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530FDEIHyKGQt1gvcLDxcSErMPlejZXrwYKlgbBV5ErHILo0asfD oWrmyhGzjeQ5nimx/bsWTcOlj9soX9Na04pslEk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdGZM5BKnpdpliyZxtJvmerx5cpejIUMuvmW0/UUIPkzlqZFuLuRG/eM9yB5Nrdwy8/QI5bTjeMfb+/I1HtJg=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3752:: with SMTP id e79mr25436732yba.154.1600383434553; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160030395123.14071.11327967684031927753@ietfa.amsl.com> <37D2C017-218A-430C-A2DA-20A1719F5328@dkutscher.net> <CAKKJt-etmVy-yGCMbrgvn_qOUyRik35j-7QUOhpqTWWnyQ_Ydw@mail.gmail.com> <341F799D-5963-4C9C-AF82-2271008E012C@orandom.net>
In-Reply-To: <341F799D-5963-4C9C-AF82-2271008E012C@orandom.net>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:56:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fVXdEyPnNH4=uPMSSyAxbxtyJ57oTKzu1XMWfJ2Wdgeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David R. Oran" <daveoran@orandom.net>
Cc: Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net>, icnrg-chairs@ietf.org, ICNRG <icnrg@irtf.org>, draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch@ietf.org, The IRSG <irsg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001efebd05af8a4e95"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/HFJRF3nAbyZ9bUes5hIa9RCnSxA>
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 22:57:18 -0000

Hi, Dave,

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 8:45 AM David R. Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> wrote:

> Thanks Spencer - adding “only” in that sentence helps a lot. I’ll note it
> for the next revision before sending to RFCed.
>
Thank you, and I'm sorry it took two shots to provide a clear suggestion!

Best,

Spencer

> On 17 Sep 2020, at 9:40, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>
> Hi, Dirk,
>
> I'm fine with most of these replies. On one of my comments, I wasn't clear
> enough (please see below).
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:44 AM Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net> wrote:
>
>> 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 agree that the examples are good. What I SHOULD have said in my comment
> was that the leading sentence says "QoS is helpful in a fairly
> narrow range" but the examples are for cases where it is not helpful :-)
>
> I should have suggested "QoS is only helpful in a fairly narrow range" -
> adding "only". Then the examples make sense - "not helpful in this case, or
> this one, or this one".
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>
>> 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 mailing list
> icnrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>
> DaveO
>