Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 23 December 2021 07:44 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
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 63A5F3A127F for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 23:44:09 -0800 (PST)
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=unavailable 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 72BboUrqDhrm for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 23:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (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 ED8E73A127E for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 23:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id o20so18011577eds.10 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 23:44:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wMY8Q4ivAbOLPvv4swU9OtDVWTS8pSKQPLgcmS8UFe4=; b=faJhx/d/6lSESZbnMujoEN6xs98gDAgJmJDS2hgjRru8qZWlWHEeDfmCZNC7YVcbOI vNFpAW8KEq14gcqe0/Ef9/Zbz248KMA9G31NjB3mTIYP6MhPRMycYI6+0OY8FPsemsnd PViRVk1NjhNR05vmz8aOb+jZ1X0Tr/+hJiOiGoSFoGmNwNPQPkI4qTICcoC6BYyjDtAz mA5GF7IUSiwa5+vxVM5W+sdvWjsXfcLxd0AoZecxAHAWcWrymrevmLlwZ9WYy3VKBSr8 wZIC8Ecj9cqg9eh/nRQqIwP49IMt+V1+2lMxd5TumKbK1Wd9S3varNH2gs0/gVoI9mxb JmdA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wMY8Q4ivAbOLPvv4swU9OtDVWTS8pSKQPLgcmS8UFe4=; b=tpPV0XOq7B/JU7dNC5dVurnI/L97fmuKVdg3f7qM/7/eYJG5mPKlypBJNO/diw7dmn 2thl8tKmItWOxSlmCXtMGshA/XbpRXEYPQ4WdE0ZJp2arMQq36o2mgYG4YMaM9aQaJ99 8aDgYkQvYhX8ZzlKxyouk8WaUgJfQxLKekYI0OphWDfQ3n6G8f00Sm0+4OlTh5e2rqHd DgEJu1h9uzuXudvw+9dU8BMFPn0K8vjkX0vV7r7i1Rxc1O1TQef/vzyuUvsBgnWbKm2J WZH6G8nmGfJU8wDN6cQoBUml28bOhCSuM9aXbPrcoQbP+UHvqk2D5HdPuFF5kKC6fEcD njpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531QtsEc+cOV2cwG4bH9fKxoOOKAUgttvEEklBT3A/RgBJ5nsgMI KyOAiS6C8P0FyPBq025CeHYLtLeKaCOfwi9luMAvFDNr
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8LtxT2Zj3ezdaU3sttovhfyt6/7U6+lVfcemnPaYqhVc0BHrOpuCK5P55VxeHoNDUaDkIhpvFDKEB4Q1GAQY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1203:: with SMTP id c3mr1070346edw.253.1640245441404; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 23:44:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <AM0PR07MB4131542BCD0A6DE3F82F1E19E26D9@AM0PR07MB4131.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB4131542BCD0A6DE3F82F1E19E26D9@AM0PR07MB4131.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 23:43:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmU_j9-vR+BnjvhKCDuaWYPZ_Ym96yUJPX0LhGihfsp1ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e1252305d3cb6613"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/E5Kv5QXv1rsQze832YC4M7p23QA>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 07:44:11 -0000
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 >
- [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-respo… Marcus Ihlar
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… MORTON JR., AL
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Matt Mathis
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Hawkins III, William (hawkinwh)
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Dave Taht
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Christoph Paasch
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Christoph Paasch
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Christoph Paasch
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Christoph Paasch
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Christoph Paasch
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Christoph Paasch
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Christoph Paasch
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Christoph Paasch
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Dave Taht
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… MORTON JR., AL
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Christoph Paasch
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… MORTON JR., AL
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Christoph Paasch
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… Marcus Ihlar
- Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-r… MORTON JR., AL