Re: [ippm] Call for adoption of draft-olden-ippm-qoo

Hi Marcus,
thank you for your kind consideration.

Dear Authors,
thank you for your dedication to this work. I found this document
well-written and I support its adoption by the IPPM WG.
Please find my notes and questions below. I believe that we can discuss and
resolve them in the course of progressing the draft:

   - In Abstract, as I understand it, you refer to the draft Requirements
   for a Network Quality Framework Useful for Applications, Users, and
   Operators
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-teigen-ippm-app-quality-metric-reqs/>.
   Since HTML links are not used in Abstract, perhaps adding a clarification
   like "draft" prior to the title of the draft is acceptable.
   - Related to the above. What is your view of the state of
   draft-teigen-ippm-app-quality-metric-reqs
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olden-ippm-qoo/>? Do you
   consider it ready for WG adoption? It seems to me that the requirements and
   the framework documents are closely related, and it could be beneficial to
   develop them concurrently.
   - "The challenge lies in specifying how to simplify enough without
   losing too much in terms of precision and accuracy." I agree that there
   must be a balance among efforts to produce simpler performance metrics, on
   the one hand, and accurately reflect the state of the network treatment of
   the data that is presented as a set of measurable service level indicators.
   What I wonder, is the distinction you see between precision and accuracy.
   Is it in the measuring and calculating particular service level objectives?
   - A somewhat general note. You might consider changing statements that
   explain the intent and scope from "we believe", "we propose" to less
   personal language.
   -  "We propose representing network quality as minimum required
   throughput and set of latency and loss percentiles." Do you see this list
   of performance metrics as exhaustive or rather an exemplary composition of
   what can be used to define the network quality?
   - "Active probing with TWAMP Light / STAMP / IRTT". References and
   expanded use of acronyms could be helpful to a reader.
   - "A list of 10 percentiles in a logarithmic-esque fashion has already
   been suggested in industry [0th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, 95th, 99th,
   99.9th, 100th] and seems adequate." Has such a list been documented? A
   reference could be very helpful here.
   - "By not requiring a specific number of samples, this framework allows
   taking 10 samples and calling it a distribution, which of course is not
   ideal. " That is an interesting point. What could happen if the number of
   samples is variable, perhaps in a range or from a recommended set of
   values, and an operator chooses depending on the operational considerations?
   - "... standardized in BBF TR-452 (aka QED) framework [TR-452.1]"
   Perhaps "standardized in the QED framework [TR-452.1]" with QED included in
   Terminology and Acronyms section, can be used here.
   - Thank you for providing the detailed Implementation status! It is a
   very impressive list.
   - Although this document, as Informative, may not need RFC 2119
   disclaimer explaining the use of capitalized verbs, please add Terminology
   and Acronyms section listing all acronyms and abbreviations used in the
   document.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 10:32 PM Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Your input is very much appreciated, extending the last call with one week
> is fine.
>
>
>
> The new deadline for the last call is now *Tuesday September 12*.
>
>
>
> BR
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, 4 September 2023 16:31
> *To:* Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>
> *Cc:* IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] Call for adoption of draft-olden-ippm-qoo
>
>
>
> Hi Marcus,
>
> I'd like to provide my comments on this work (I wholeheartedly support its
> adoption by the group), but I am in a tight spot with the BBF Q3 meeting.
> Would it be possible to announce an extension of the WG AP for a week?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 7:31 PM Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=
> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hello IPPM,
>
> This email starts an adoption call in the IPPM working group for
> draft-olden-ippm-qoo.
>
>
>
> The draft describes a new network quality framework named Quality of
> Outcome (QoO) and can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olden-ippm-qoo/
>
>
>
> The current version is here:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-olden-ippm-qoo-01.html
>
>
>
> Please reply to this email by *Tuesday September **5*, with any review
> comments and whether you support adoption of this document.
>
>
>
> BR
>
> Marcus & Tommy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
>