From moeller0@gmx.de Wed Dec 13 12:05:34 2023 Return-Path: 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 290ADC14F5ED for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 12:05:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.853 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.853 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=gmx.de 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 ODX_V1QLkaNn for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 12:05:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0750DC14F5E0 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 12:05:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1702497928; x=1703102728; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=OmF02cxYXWxQ0DLHQpzcbJJqvvvmPZy+6hXPW8yfE+o=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:Date:To; b=VSjG0AbhZyXSYn17TO1kyHAGXwa7awCIIW3w/suYT7Kakeaq9EkUA7eAy0eHcthf VlO6FZLzxT4nQomhRUq5AVJ1m6KTkoISIE1fHPUCcQNtbf+nuYgXqNnnAHYIwF2dA BnJCqH8lazJZCRAAX8N19D+Lq9Lse2QEnEd3B93Zdjx7E4yqpJPYC06UImk2wmJ0m POzKLrDLr4pwX6Uzjbb4mbhcgL6ARjoiPe8fI/7VLSal8uhN73Ci8Pe5BMrRGI1/S 84f0PtKHVVvvP6YQvy4pVHVhOoScC7NHxpqodmdgwnETvDkZRPH0hghziIBGlxnpY vKT/81fhzeWM6gvfCQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.8.9.232]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MbzuH-1rlS7j18Yx-00dZS1 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 21:05:28 +0100 From: Sebastian Moeller Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) Message-Id: <494C914A-D9CC-4822-85D5-63F6DE849E71@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 21:05:27 +0100 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:TxKSe3UHvfHnK/xmfZLIZPwoyG19oS5fhZDptEX5gGjBGLMFclY gjyEdkXv2f93YJbVcgnp/nbL74T8Dgo/D6Ei6zyHyIwxYE1i1MYFT4mDxiBSpMdm6w6dlmM 0Q2J9n/ciAB3j2cPa6RkWEnvMU6XevAq3+XkbIKaxdOyBAW5wTq+GsQBpJHbEcbM6HHw5ig s7YPIPGoNiWUKZkFVJYEQ== UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:p8f08+5mcSI=;nyCao1EDn0IdzPzbQLYAUdsSTLN RTxKHIBvW1Bi2MOAMz2hCr8ymwmyo9+uHIoHytTkz6uijnCgM+t57Y7BFwjLWqFFwXc7zmb46 6etL6kJwZRGyd+lgdo62nHotpuVAB08J1CUFdFx1RHeb0AoNGoPHEON0kYxv+Mn4lJjUd9IE2 J9rQ3KsKK5GpANzWdi7VfGHFKWKQLhV1RbZnEgDZ+IbHYp4fgVShSG1cFzKuKNYFXoGTJzeTy JFfJO5lEL3wRRIzx0VNwk1RjO/3AzuoSFb2XMhZWtX+k/NL5grtqFabPgYVu6GlO2/2sOag+4 6xJ3joIuVewE5+75AMHCFXBonY3teTC8kbHSEz98PqioYjZm4bMHwiY2d0aypsU/SXbvQe321 45pVEki6jJLLl0i5EO/cHnjNu+K9HQlVbNvcbESmz5UWodeRo08ye6LgQnyYbbs5uORLuxICD tubywZw562kUrKx3u6MFQ5Pb4kRUXFhjycY38GEuO4RWbGl43EClPJJh+RevSnWUgBpyjBoxH Em/tBs/Naun1Fg5qivj46wthY0UUSnTWwl2JPuxIEcx15VNgldutpZLhMvGHHqLcVkk3JKyGB da47MJ5I4PoL1GWsLo2axNTDkbRGERaajWZFnwF0WLhZdVO6zzuPGMnl3z9XgGdu/UOgitP5y RJBQctzSEqgCWSD8Z2NVX693juGzI6QFwNMT8ScbS3AjqxLNKjW7BsvoRXFewvtSnZhtPPE39 Dt33mLbvMR5CrfFHfCQUjiM4bU00JLZnxxCxJGeb73aJfCv4NialMFL4tBxyGad7SHtmfmYJS SaUDqZ2l3Nx2G5h2lrS5S1HaFwSXk7+hRk+3xF/oMJdOZtGSfiHsq4UwtH3JdcHzuC3ilEuEb DIO7DD7ieQMq1gH3tu/4rfmsPkU4poHhw7Y0OOPO7ghdjwlzRpJm224aS/5kv+13KpixxN7KE XA4MdA== Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness-03 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 20:05:34 -0000 Dear List, I revisited my assessment of the actual calculation, and think we can do = better (with little effort): "The responsiveness is then calculated as the weighted mean: Responsiveness =3D 60000 / (1/6*(TM(tcp_f) + TM(tls_f) + TM(http_f)) + 1/2*TM(http_s)) This responsiveness value presents round-trips per minute (RPM)." And this makes sense for a single value result; though I believe that = mixing up the self and the foreign probes into one aggregate is not the = best we can do. At least for a standardized verbose output I think we = should report self and foreign RPM values separately, exactly because = they do measure subtly different things: foreign: inter-flow queueing self: intra-flow queueing these are not the same and hence aggregating them into a single number = will not be the optimal to predict how well a link will behave under = realistic loads. Especially, since the different types of queueing delay have different = remedies (e.g. flow queuing will help foreign RPM, while AQMs will help = self RPM, some more and some less). I also had a look at the recommendations regarding L4S testing: "As clients and servers become deployed that use L4S congestion control = (e.g., TCP Prague with ECT(1) packet marking), for their normal traffic = when it is available, and fall back to traditional loss-based congestion = controls (e.g., Reno or CUBIC) otherwise, the same strategy SHOULD be = used for Responsiveness Test traffic. This is RECOMMENDED so that the = synthetic traffic generated by the Responsiveness Test mimics real-world = traffic for that server." I think this at least needs to be selectable via command line switches = (and the question arises whether working latency would not require a mix = of L4S and non-L4S TCP flows with separate RPM reports for each type). Regards Sebastian=