Re: [icnrg] [irsg] IRSG ballot closed: <draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt> to Informational RFC
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 12 October 2020 15:47 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 E99893A158D; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:47:50 -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 jE4SJjt1fU_8; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb43.google.com (mail-yb1-xb43.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b43]) (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 C76273A1583; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb43.google.com with SMTP id b138so11426700yba.5; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:47:47 -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=pYEUCSXzCX3Ye+AYEsA1vJfedj+bhRUZXU/Y2wiPI7U=; b=BR4aE3+JF72eoxPr4IBVQUoLIv30zYR0WVn0Dk8+IXhsXArkPuEn3mu2WsmM5sTPDK baVVq7yR+gNfaZbeKX0BU6y4gOmWo77NwdZCwJIR2FoYgs3zrobjDOFHSeeWT4Mtm2Vk 8FySXcZ1YFaI0EZYXys+Qma9vE8TTjw7kVdfdzdZYby0rppAwdjMwdPpGhpN/TiQMvTL lT1jnL396ny5Jwstybui8gX4RaAjQxQ+UZNLFZlic8LSqPgVLBQFnTfGWDiFNWm0OJR8 lC5KDhVDMpP1CzaiqRaNABztkdez9qBdQJiO/b+DkuzP5a2LkQDRpKAHMxfo+A3nOrEF SzgA==
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=pYEUCSXzCX3Ye+AYEsA1vJfedj+bhRUZXU/Y2wiPI7U=; b=ljYL9n1Sp+eidBnXXgHFy83zzAxxR9ScKGcz2RgMCcQ39vco1VfAYBYt84Mmb4kTg9 c7ICfcX/r6yNqwtaiV8sinAruqkkgj1GhwoUxnQRNaH8QQxJfHgWMMcBjWZClM55vCPY WNoKcu92M2tx25YebT9QPBHGmv0ggQaCXvA0cL6ZCEzdPqktXmHwVfw3I6MejSqOg72a U+RV2M0lpft8ibrZqakXdldRLiSdwTcADRXEo0sFOg9cdKanirFYDmsTXUphSOTF8kNV y0+H6ai2a1x3WRob3a9CuieFcL8OZzHpPLvpsXg8V58aoN7pGpTp1gkWKbd4x7Ya8VMj 1e1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ySindab9hfnAY361/jmyy2QVRj56INrMyM0CaohKa5gAD1F9x tJLCVBE1srgZ75/rSVgiyIteJlmKB7GW7TlZWRE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyK9qrVh748I/EhdxOUBKXH6mYmVz5HTJQi8nrLYUnK5cy6yylvINcNyFbSDYm+IUqoAE/GLzK8Jct5PbX7ffc=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c042:: with SMTP id c63mr24880115ybf.465.1602517666762; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160250569271.3121.5927073982280689228@ietfa.amsl.com> <09227BB5-37F6-42C2-8971-0E6E53FA6A44@orandom.net>
In-Reply-To: <09227BB5-37F6-42C2-8971-0E6E53FA6A44@orandom.net>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:47:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-eR-mhAjEdE_L54VWNA14a=7-w0yroOkTxmW8YFx87LEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David R. Oran" <daveoran@orandom.net>
Cc: The IRSG <irsg@irtf.org>, irtf-chair@irtf.org, ICNRG <icnrg@irtf.org>, draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch@ietf.org, icnrg-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004611dd05b17b381f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/jjQmddeJ-95zvdBL3ms-NgLsMAo>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] [irsg] 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 15:47:51 -0000
Hi, Dave, You're such a good author :-). I have a couple of comments below, but I'm fine with your other responses to me. Best, Spencer On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 8:37 AM David R. Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> wrote: > 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. > I'm sympathetic here (and more sympathetic given your excellent response). What I was chafing at, was "within an RTT (or a few RTTs)". I'm not smart about ICNs, but to transport guys, this sounds like a classic recipe for churning when you have unstable network paths (think someone standing precisely on the handoff boundary between two cell towers and switching hands once or twice per minute - that's the worst scenario, but damping matters, in transport. Would it matter in ICN, or are the timescales already longer than TCP/QUIC RTTs? Best, Spencer > 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