Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness

Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr> Tue, 26 December 2023 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <hawkinsw@obs.cr>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF2FC14CEE3 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 12:07:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=obs-cr.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KIEtzkBM0GvO for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 12:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F05C7C14F74E for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 12:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-781045f1d23so451461185a.1 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 12:07:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=obs-cr.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1703621244; x=1704226044; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=YwlTs7LfMv3+npQO+pjlDMadfeEFIddnZtRCf2xEMVI=; b=nGlayyxs9i0+034Ao4I3hI/njHE8BPUO004ark1SUM6TzHMDF81nYG8ySWCzBd33l1 8bXvFGIc0MV0Xhjalwx69Vs28oNQ+NUFSotpyEakdIi0RghiTGcZ4Ji+Aetz8AG9xV8r VtwzqYObzqy/jyekomxaE7QivArluWCjBS+0diY/XgErXwT9iLEHJMGZYt44e1WHO6Ux gUyxM7Dn8dlb1s7YthBKeKJsIWIyQkyIDMsu4eb3+BIW+dPYJWuh3RqYF+V5ykPAkOs9 SE6++3z3zmlgplEgOwm76bQ8U1mT/61QLVITQ2HEjpHfaVKzbYsasDgfxMSUYaxRr0dP JF2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1703621244; x=1704226044; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YwlTs7LfMv3+npQO+pjlDMadfeEFIddnZtRCf2xEMVI=; b=Sjwx/byL9MFnlAKAVDFGrxPq/xO3Cj7IPortrPf3fwPDolrfNwt073C8fDgNzs8OEc MB5izqqqnAxPPIhrm434VLLdsri9gTuRHT1rE5KZguFk0XKXQcW2DEVH3FH3NzPO8pBZ SOh++sAXSR+Gr1XuFwL0uwU0onp5JRUqSbvV7MDipkWiOIMJODvQ7mEGANO4wd7U9Vdx 6D4+wDtjdhVrzTbgjMtat+a3Gf+lHcAwS7irf6sTqCblEXSMaaXRbE2t4F3miBry4QrZ 3EOy99PeCbyNjkl3k4HvtGv4ALBwKXY3ARrMhvAbiReiMsO7j9yqhPjRYvdKFiXVAgCs 6AiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzvUljuZG8mrCLYUqDtCZ33tRziAv/8Cr/SaCWu/Vl2/xON2vb0 pulqbgn21gR943qXWJTMszUjxtzQJDWS+hsPi6m4WP9dba3wiQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHcWSMKgwq5yT8xS+u1GgDDLWTEamUAXL3L0lxduGT/Py2Uv6tr6rEn7wilPyA633Z3I/z+kxnAQ3dZnjbOdoc=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4b25:0:b0:67f:9aa6:e9c1 with SMTP id s5-20020ad44b25000000b0067f9aa6e9c1mr9525084qvw.127.1703621243766; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 12:07:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <VI1PR07MB4142AB4694BB044E939DCD7BE285A@VI1PR07MB4142.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmXXNWKnczHEQp1q7GKvxA6JAAd3sbi+amPCGWom1HhJWg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXXNWKnczHEQp1q7GKvxA6JAAd3sbi+amPCGWom1HhJWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 15:07:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CADx9qWipzF3cVmxiMKHj8th0ZvQjwdSZdRn0FU8LC9p5mvjVWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/-IMMypVuCE8_Qvg0ZCFzq7lrX6g>
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 20:07:27 -0000

Greg,

Thank you for the feedback. See below.

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 2:49 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marcus et al.,
> my apologies for the belated response. I read the draft and found it well-written. Performance measurement under working conditions is certainly an essential tool in an operator's toolbox. I support progressing this work further. However, I find the antonym of responsiveness unresponsiveness,

I agree -- I always thought it was quite a mouthful!

> confusing. In my opinion, the degradation of service performance, i.e., an increase in latency, is reflected in lower RPM value. On the other hand, unresponsiveness is the inability to communicate altogether, the loss of all packets, and the RPM value should be 0. If my interpretation is correct, perhaps the following text in Abstract can be updated:

I agree with that point. On further reading, I do see how it can
clearly be misconstrued.

> OLD TEXT:
>    Our networks remain unresponsive, not from a lack of technical
>    solutions, but rather a lack of awareness of the problem and
>    deployment of its solutions.
> NEW TEXT:
>    Responsiveness of our networks remains suboptimal, not from a lack of technical
>    solutions, but rather a lack of awareness of the problem and
>    deployment of its solutions.

Would you consider:

Our network connections continue to suffer from an unacceptable amount
of latency,
not for a lack of technical solutions, but rather a lack of awareness
of the problem and
deployment of its solutions.



Thank you again for your comments!
Will

>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 10:10 AM Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello IPPM,
>>
>>
>>
>> This email starts a Working Group Last Call for " Responsiveness under Working Conditions”, draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness-03.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Please review the document and send your comments in response to this email, along with whether you think the document is ready to progress.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please send your reviews and feedback by Friday, December 22.
>>
>>
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Marcus & Tommy
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> ippm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm