Re: [ippm] missed comments on draft-mirsky-ippm-epm in today's IPPM meeting

Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com> Thu, 11 November 2021 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <helbakoury@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 598993A0CB2 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:51:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.427
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.427 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 HjyEoDmGuU_G for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x732.google.com (mail-qk1-x732.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) (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 0B7FC3A0CB5 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x732.google.com with SMTP id 132so6882610qkj.11 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:51:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to; bh=r4P5BXekIzrcy8bC3cezgk1CSPAd+pbdWtu5sr8ghH4=; b=FyEoPSqIt6zpedcE5z4MgKvPigzEiMW9sRyeUjntpkum+AtpI4GbisFL9KMyahtkuL +ukImRCpxuGWjI7gTwUDbjGWQKuwS7PhZMEqTRPuSuUYWMVgoqSPSfZR0r1YaExecogQ s/Dl1UFHxNSHrlKXhoSX8nLCQrPUMqW4pIH0QVJDjoQCdLotyKm/M/bOqBggi6syPL+r tvlzI545fybOf0IqvkVRW++asa7VSOfT/B8jtFCGBpF2HEVQRKU9qfJ+b1zvQZ5aFMui ziW/Ehsvs/W/wJk3ZOy+921z6Yh0FEK09dfHguBaNMwI2sys1CxXerUykINFmzozRvlX Yzbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to; bh=r4P5BXekIzrcy8bC3cezgk1CSPAd+pbdWtu5sr8ghH4=; b=alzrRc2wB5kTz65KClHWYJgZzEnzd5iO3YcAqiNivg/l+C59mPCtWHfNDN8vGJL20A RSONeMsRfpa3xHjVjKMmFI9vu8VAxTwIAiRnqA0H97hMl56CTkZKpFqQYNSgHvpZQvna +5iCssm+1eMZ+2HFmzFacGKEpTmL5Cck+LK53Y7GxDx0+TiNWCNLLsr44EqXIEDIajPq /CeqhauaIzU6UE/R/W5AQOIQ5ag1lumLJyRHIaGJ9WULT3Y9eKBjSMeX5ZDJTFejBRCP lMPHw/e3qw+M0x3Lqj+0HXqU5YSCf6gc6l9h0y1LtOonUdzBAPNtzHv1vP8ExSrj5XlW U/Hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530opXK3jeZJAR9M5AFTbaLXSIzePTLRdm0p7tKqS40Dqy6nw3Ag xSeKHkdaHoy79OOX3kcw0MOlkaAaE0u+7g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyB7xbX+ccirfpHZSOWDWPJX3bSPn26A7RylwDQq0kTFuZSkK+zZkukxCts99ao4+HNj2JJ5w==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9c50:: with SMTP id f77mr8078834qke.428.1636660289722; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPV6:2602:306:cc88:cca9:eca6:e053:77ed:a0ea? ([2602:306:cc88:cca9:eca6:e053:77ed:a0ea]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h20sm2051093qtk.93.2021.11.11.11.51.28 for <ippm@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0CYdcnMUtpCQ7tc5bPrbcKZ0"
Message-ID: <7a0b8b6c-9b19-f8b2-2604-729442e9dc29@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:51:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: ippm@ietf.org
References: <935ad14c8d784caa9db383f2fb9df24d@huawei.com>
From: Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <935ad14c8d784caa9db383f2fb9df24d@huawei.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/PSPFiU57YVM8dj9KCH3QDeVHEsE>
Subject: Re: [ippm] missed comments on draft-mirsky-ippm-epm in today's IPPM meeting
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, 11 Nov 2021 19:51:36 -0000

Greg made a comment that EPM is similar to the High Precision Service 
Metrics that Alex presented. I appreciate if Greg can elaborate on these 
similarities.

Thanks

Hesham

On 11/11/2021 11:32 AM, Yangfan(Fan,IP Standards) wrote:
>
> Dear authors,
>
> Due to limited time in today's meeting, I had to come back to the list 
> with my comments.
>
> 1)In the draft, the terminology of error is not explicitly defined. We 
> wouldn't know what metric/event/state would be called as error. The 
> I-D mentioned ITU-T G.826, it is confusing whether it is the error bit 
> in constant bit rate transmission. It will be good to clarify it in 
> later revisions.
>
> 2)EPM is mentioned as a state based mechanism. I question whether it 
> is an effective way in packet switched network. In PSN, BER value on 
> physical interface is commonly used as the parameter to indicate error 
> on physical links. Why bother to define the statistical multiplexing 
> parameters?
>
> 3)The concept of Xaas imported in the new revision is quite confusing 
> to me. What exactly relations between Xaas and EPM, what relations it 
> is between MTBF/MTTR metrics and ES/SES/EFS metrics defined for Xaas 
> and EPM respectively?
>
> It is much appreciated if the authors can kindly clarify the questions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Fan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm