IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 26 December 2023 21:39 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 E14C3C14CF18 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:39:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e6rQdFHYNtmL for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com (mail-yb1-xb30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE1CDC14CF13 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dbd71f33cd3so3422857276.3 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:39:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1703626742; x=1704231542; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=AwC8AeUybTaYyWidhVduwqXvTVH4kwaee5BhDsEGs68=; b=XBhmsW9gd89h9mw/NP5jmLpEhB5nluP6uvBPzIuh40XrcxfSMJSyGQ8dZj1eKQLDZL 892gOcP8BPEFNXMLwOnibigRWS4S0cjx0P9oZ5Iz4o/jq3bB08eGHIdEyLRx2l/tThmQ NzWPljIkBNmydj/zhGnM++KaMAZSg3KZ8gnHWoYBA+r2GZjeCV8tFuVYBdy8r6bl1nGY uQNSbew2h/ytGCo3NuPc24t1RxTWqNe9glqwkkcGUx0wNov8KB5x4tuHwyhfMCzVI68/ sqYfIaj+eNzWCXoEPPQIetoo4ElPIFSiTopzIAHNLEaeavWy6Vr3FTXyEiHPWOlwSYew AlHw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1703626742; x=1704231542; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=AwC8AeUybTaYyWidhVduwqXvTVH4kwaee5BhDsEGs68=; b=V0icwuSu3kPBQCwgcWyDZNTX6jZ6/dSrEQ7mAXBAOkBwIDIvLeaan/ZNKQ3uKDotzq KHXSm6bX44Z7+/JQY/mZu4xic6RXRSZTeaazzaOIhPNbPFzseZaEq4mKiGzfwGVpwBgQ LAXvZJaVdnUnC2S5B2YVTdI0YNWrJfPy+jjO2agW1etp7lgBIB1+bP3V/a3itvwzCSWU g0nCFfLxEPfC6ZMbVfhjtQHxVTwIxO752tZnm42qfLHDaa/v28j/H//OxwrQ28twQBIs GKKmCIY38NfmWJ6olzW/LBojSomuqduFA51DAafSwJld721lMCZCI9V4PBepp5FDZZyV Toxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyhqP+yky0HUahe0+ESAp8Qke2jlbyp/i59AUDmAI9yxfECJgd6 G6l9zqWKgeT0PXXznJbRG6h+55ggZtSwU/gmkYY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH4RCp0iBVxafH6t2yU2pUfXJR7YoljMcmT0BJXVbFDfAp5OFKtKlswQHit0dQq7YHNPifVzdvbffdYWH11vA4=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:8006:0:b0:5d7:a00d:62e7 with SMTP id q6-20020a818006000000b005d7a00d62e7mr5918997ywf.50.1703626741666; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:39:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <VI1PR07MB4142AB4694BB044E939DCD7BE285A@VI1PR07MB4142.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmXXNWKnczHEQp1q7GKvxA6JAAd3sbi+amPCGWom1HhJWg@mail.gmail.com> <CADx9qWipzF3cVmxiMKHj8th0ZvQjwdSZdRn0FU8LC9p5mvjVWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADx9qWipzF3cVmxiMKHj8th0ZvQjwdSZdRn0FU8LC9p5mvjVWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:38:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWOp__8GSKt1hndbNnMN-UCaQdk20B43f0ntRG5DBTcrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr>
Cc: Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c4585f060d7082b1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/QdcqtWusnkQNDBbk70sFo6N8XT8>
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 21:39:05 -0000

Hi Will,
thank you for your expedient response. Yes, I agree with the text you
propose for the update.

Best regards,
Greg

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 12:07 PM Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> Thank you for the feedback. See below.
>
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 2:49 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Marcus et al.,
> > my apologies for the belated response. I read the draft and found it
> well-written. Performance measurement under working conditions is certainly
> an essential tool in an operator's toolbox. I support progressing this work
> further. However, I find the antonym of responsiveness unresponsiveness,
>
> I agree -- I always thought it was quite a mouthful!
>
> > confusing. In my opinion, the degradation of service performance, i.e.,
> an increase in latency, is reflected in lower RPM value. On the other hand,
> unresponsiveness is the inability to communicate altogether, the loss of
> all packets, and the RPM value should be 0. If my interpretation is
> correct, perhaps the following text in Abstract can be updated:
>
> I agree with that point. On further reading, I do see how it can
> clearly be misconstrued.
>
> > OLD TEXT:
> >    Our networks remain unresponsive, not from a lack of technical
> >    solutions, but rather a lack of awareness of the problem and
> >    deployment of its solutions.
> > NEW TEXT:
> >    Responsiveness of our networks remains suboptimal, not from a lack of
> technical
> >    solutions, but rather a lack of awareness of the problem and
> >    deployment of its solutions.
>
> Would you consider:
>
> Our network connections continue to suffer from an unacceptable amount
> of latency,
> not for a lack of technical solutions, but rather a lack of awareness
> of the problem and
> deployment of its solutions.
>
>
>
> Thank you again for your comments!
> Will
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 10:10 AM Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=
> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello IPPM,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This email starts a Working Group Last Call for " Responsiveness under
> Working Conditions”, draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/
> >>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness-03.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please review the document and send your comments in response to this
> email, along with whether you think the document is ready to progress.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please send your reviews and feedback by Friday, December 22.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> BR,
> >>
> >> Marcus & Tommy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ippm mailing list
> >> ippm@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > ippm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status