Re: [ippm] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-06: (with DISCUSS)

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

The working text was just submitted as version 07. [0] 
We can continue discussions from this point.

Thanks again for all the IESG reviews!

Al (for the co-authors)

[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 3:19 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: AW: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-
> metric-method-06: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> Hi Al, hi Magnus,
> 
> To make progress within the time left, it's likely best to leave things as
> they are. That produces a standard and a benchmark. A cross domain
> deployment may be tested against that benchmark to gain more experience on
> operational aspects.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ruediger
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. März 2021 14:22
> An: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>; Geib, Rüdiger
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Betreff: RE: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-
> metric-method-06: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> Hi Magnus and Rüdiger,
> 
> The working text on the "applicability" limits that we added to the scope
> section *included an earlier agreement* to add the first sentence below
> and the bullet, so now the whole paragraph reads:
> 
>    The primary application of the metric and method of measurement
>    described here is the same as in Section 2 of [RFC7479] where:
> 
>    o  The access portion of the network is the focus of this problem
>       statement.  The user typically subscribes to a service with
>       bidirectional access partly described by rates in bits per second.
> 
>    In addition, the use of the load adjustment algorithm described in
>    section 8.1 has the following additional applicability limitations:
> 
>    - MUST only be used in the application of diagnostic and operations
>    measurements as described in this memo
> 
>    - MUST only be used in circumstances consistent with Section 10,
>    Security Considerations
> 
> We can make further edits to balance your comments but let's start here,
> and sorry for not including the whole paragraph last night - it seems that
> I should have.
> 
> Al
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 8:06 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: RE: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-
> > metric-method-06: (with DISCUSS)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ruediger, if you can find a formulation that covers that national test
> > case I am likely fine with it. If the involved parties know who to
> > discuss issues with and can get them addressed I am not worried. I am
> > worried where someone deploys a couple of servers, like the current
> > TCP speed tests and users run it totally by themselves.
> >
> > And to be clear I think with more experience with large scale
> > deployment of the algorithm and more experiments beyond the intended
> > deployment model this should be possible to update the specs to remove
> > this type of limitation.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Magnus
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: den 5 mars 2021 12:13
> > > To: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: AW: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on
> > > draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-
> > > metric-method-06: (with DISCUSS)
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > I think this is a bit to unclear in regards to the limitation of
> scope.
> > My
> > > worry are internet wide measurements. Reading what exists in the
> > currently
> > > available draft in the Section 10, there are no limitation here
> > described to
> > > only use this algorithm only across controlled networks. Especially
> > > as bullet
> > > 5 in Section 10 relies on the load algorithm what is currently
> > > written
> > is
> > > fine
> > > across the whole internet as long as sender and receiver are okay
> > > with
> > the
> > > measurement which is not what I at least thought we agreed.
> > >
> > > Can you please be explicit that the load algorithm is limited to use
> > across
> > > networks path that are controlled or managed and not intended for
> > Internet
> > > wide usage.
> > >
> > >  - MUST only be used as part of measurements within managed
> > > networks, and not across general Internet.
> > >
> > > [RG] That's tough, as regulators are interested in this test and
> > regulators
> > > aren't part of a domain. So they might resort to TCP speed tests,
> > > being
> > less
> > > accurate and precise and not standardised (note that penalties are
> > discussed
> > > to be linked to results). I'd be interested in finding agreement to
> > > have metric and method standardized for at least nations under
> > > authority of a single regulator. No idea how exactly. Would a bound
> > > on RTT/in some countries multiple instances and some additional
> > > parametrization information prior
> > to
> > > start, e.g., a contracted access bandwidth, help?
> > >
> > > [RG] I'm off for the weekend (I'm out for a lasting solution, not
> > > necessarily a speedy one) - regards,
> > >
> > > Ruediger