Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness

Dear Marcus, Authors, et al,
apologies for the belated response.
I've read the draft and have some comments to share with you:

   - as I understand it, the proposed new responsiveness metric is viewed
   as the single indicator of a bufferbloat condition in a network. As I
   recall, the discussion at Measuring Network Quality for End-Users workshop
   and on the mailing list
   <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/network-quality-workshop/?gbt=1&index=cuW_1lh4DD22V28EvlPFB_NjjZY>
   indicated, that there’s no consensus on what behaviors, symptoms can
   reliably signal the bufferbloat. It seems that it would be reasonable to
   first define what is being measured, characterized by the responsiveness
   metric. Having a document that discusses and defines the bufferbloat would
   be great.
   - It seems like in the foundation of the methodology described in the
   draft lies the assumption that without adding new flows the
   available bandwidth is constant, does not change. While that is mostly the
   case, there are technologies that behave differently and may change
   bandwidth because of the outside conditions. Some of these behaviors of
   links with variable discrete bandwidth are discussed in, for example, RFC
   8330 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8330/> and RFC 8625
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8625/>.
   - Then, I find the motivation not to use time units to express the
   responsiveness metric not convincing:

   "Latency" is a poor measure of responsiveness, since it can be hard
   for the general public to understand.  The units are unfamiliar
   ("what is a millisecond?") and counterintuitive ("100 msec - that
   sounds good - it's only a tenth of a second!").

I would appreciate these topics being discussed and addressed in the draft
before it is adopted by the WG.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 7:53 AM Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=
40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi IPPM,
>
>
>
> This email starts an adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness,
> "Responsiveness under Working Conditions”. This document specifies the “RPM
> Test” for measuring user experience when the network is fully loaded. The
> intended status of the document is Experimental.
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness-01
>
>
>
> This adoption call will last until *Monday, December 20*. Please review
> the document, and reply to this email thread to indicate if you think IPPM
> should adopt this document.
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Marcus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>