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 13:40 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 90D1E3A0A20; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 06:40:50 -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 WJ65-CzIK2Gv; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb36.google.com (mail-yb1-xb36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b36]) (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 9E2233A07CE; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb36.google.com with SMTP id 8so1713110ybu.4; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 06:40:48 -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=X4pfKANtdjFMt8ED9XyATu0aPhDC5ElwuxNIqpuHRjU=; b=gZ2/B4Vc5pTGzU6uubIszc7nL9ODYSY7lcmlmCJayl431ha/n3GUsVRPH5Njeu80m2 dw7+oA/yqDAhlUfA6chYdRR4zecfSRdQuLMzXGafZGeszGcKL4Q0knVV2gg6orDTebL7 hBQAiSHxGw0Ngxih2h9kOhErMvJx+xjSHLxPrWUc/VuACY0SXive2cULEoJL+DBFGZNj bpsy0v8vntdCvJXVPxYW+Imqe5dtvmky9SRihKy+HgLsb4hw6cDf2Vosn1qawnv0ZhUF fq6Ox2T7kMA6wg/ALEUC+QuKDHqXGaQA4F1Ak3H72Np/sabOY362ZvXb1i2Wp5HKB8hU Av4w==
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=X4pfKANtdjFMt8ED9XyATu0aPhDC5ElwuxNIqpuHRjU=; b=JXDbKl7Fa9l5c17aNdOFsKSh8qk3NNnpkWnnnlwNHHzSiLHbPmxNnjv84dsGLMFjtL 02gF/ygt5xCoprzigbJeVB1j1ye/UjJdfzCptpHsgbuMfhhq1cF4w0dN7ecuwOPlf1cs Te4fuy5Il4ds5wIcAqbdvz0fsTSLPVblLQbPuYA8FjdPuOaVC4XHYn6rXsOmhIfBeQum PoprOjqrilUofkhrjdNlE8a17lJ2mfjorpBxioNSsa0NZ6Lo0bLpHIVolcxD+9obKmfr LIs2s12JDWcX/Hm9antDEVxUN9qn7tvpN1f52F2OeTZiOkFuUJ3pXNlD+RglPQY9E1a6 sLDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531yvdUt4XebV6Z2cvEbbW9a9nq3FRfCDUMetYITuxivE5CKeVOx 93FxFMc6LvcVTGD6GRb5CzhilDsFqj5CHi5k8fA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPnB/N1ZZnj/8kAy9wQKgGeJ/krtquVzDrhu3ElwJc2uz1ksq6THbZT3F/yj8FquaEvr3eAh2i79GWvaVRHGQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3207:: with SMTP id y7mr39630961yby.53.1600350047737; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 06:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160030395123.14071.11327967684031927753@ietfa.amsl.com> <37D2C017-218A-430C-A2DA-20A1719F5328@dkutscher.net>
In-Reply-To: <37D2C017-218A-430C-A2DA-20A1719F5328@dkutscher.net>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:40:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-etmVy-yGCMbrgvn_qOUyRik35j-7QUOhpqTWWnyQ_Ydw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net>
Cc: The IRSG <irsg@irtf.org>, draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch@ietf.org, icnrg-chairs@ietf.org, ICNRG <icnrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001c9a5005af8288bc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/z9qhes9UqGpzVrJm89_5vCPioJ4>
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 13:40:51 -0000

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
>