Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics
<Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> Fri, 29 May 2015 07:04 UTC
Return-Path: <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8061A0470 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 00:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 XtREpZFAmGBH for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 00:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DDF81A0115 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 00:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qdezc2.de.t-internal.com ([10.125.181.10]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; 29 May 2015 09:04:29 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,515,1427752800"; d="scan'208";a="270716761"
Received: from he113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.105]) by qde0ps.de.t-internal.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 29 May 2015 09:04:29 +0200
Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 29 May 2015 09:04:28 +0200
From: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
To: ietf@trammell.ch
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:04:27 +0200
Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics
Thread-Index: AdB9nnoqjgxP7fc3QN66WtijVTTwDQPshhGw
Message-ID: <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F50513613B92@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
References: <4456E087-4C40-48CD-B0BC-7CB53EAE4469@trammell.ch> <1C917015-FD21-4F31-8CEE-237F123E7CBB@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <1C917015-FD21-4F31-8CEE-237F123E7CBB@trammell.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/FcoHntVmIUAYQVqrfMbjn87nH1g>
Cc: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 29 May 2015 07:04:35 -0000
Brian I've sent a commented version of the draft to the authors and read some more lines. I personally would appreciate if the authors were able to refer to terminology and metrics already specified by IPPM. Spatial metrics, delay and capacity measurements, constant rate measurements, RT measurements and metric composition - if the authors just identify missing terminology and metrics which require adaptation or need to be introduced, I think only a limited set of additional metrics and new terminology is required. I think the document contains a lot of useful information. It should be separated in several sections explaining the basic idea of the measurement, an explantation of the measurement and finally the metrics. By now all this information is mixed. TCP specifics still occur in sections 5 and 6 (I think, they shouldn't occur after the measurement idea has been explained). Further, unnecessary and duplicate explanations and duplicate terminology should be removed. The draft contains a lot of terminology. I'm not a TCP expert and I can't easily judge whether some terminology accidentally sounds identical or whether there are small but important differences between two terms. Check different "rates" and "window or pipe" related terminology through the document, if you look for examples. As an example of an irritating text, look at the following: Repeated Slowstart bursts: Slowstart bursts are typically part of larger scale pattern of repeated bursts, such as sending target_pipe_size packets as slowstart bursts on a target_RTT headway (burst start to burst start). Such a stream has three different average rates, depending on the averaging interval. At the finest time scale the average rate is the same as the sender interface rate, at a medium scale the average rate is twice the effective bottleneck link rate and at the longest time scales the average rate is equal to the target data rate. In IP networks, the averaging interval in general impacts the measured rate. I'm a bit clueless what a fine, medium and long timescale may be. So this text requires concentrated reading to get what is or may be meant. I think, this section defines capacity measurements, IP-type-P Link Capacity We define the IP-layer link capacity, C(L,T,I), to be the maximum number of IP-layer bits that can be transmitted from the source S and correctly received by the destination D over the link L during the interval [T, T+I], divided by I. "I" is the variable, "fine" I is related to the burst length at sender interface rate, and "long" I may be RTT or RTT/2 (I didn't figure it out correctly) and "medium" I is related to the bottleneck rate and the burst size, but certainly could be expressed in a formula (if these three rates are required and can be measured). I also think that there are assumptions about a bottleneck rate <= sender interface rate and about the RTT. If these three rates can't be measured or aren't required, the text should be moved to a section explaining the measurement idea (and better explained there) or removed entirely. Regards, Ruediger -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Brian Trammell Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. April 2015 10:17 An: ippm@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics Greetings, all, Seeing no comment on this WGLC, we will extend the WGLC by two weeks, now to end next Friday, 1 May 2015. *Please* review and comment on the draft to the ippm@ietf.org list. Thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) > On 27 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote: > > Greetings, all, > > Working Group Last Call has started on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics. Please provide final comments on this document to the IPPM working group list ippm@ietf.org by Friday, 17 April 2015. > > (Note, given that many in the room who had read previous revisions of this document indicated they had not reviewed the latest, this is a three week WGLC to allow additional reading time.) > > Many thanks, best regards, > > Brian (chair hat) > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics Brian Trammell
- Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-me… Brian Trammell
- Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-me… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-me… Brian Trammell
- Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-me… Ruediger.Geib