Re: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Wed, 06 July 2022 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.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 094A6C14F75F; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 00:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tC6UsdD9UIUS; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 00:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6C74C14F742; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 00:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml713-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LdBLD3sngz684wN; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 15:41:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 09:42:13 +0200
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 09:42:13 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, "draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis
Thread-Index: AQHYkLLmqpaBE+gTBUiMTPQbdw9KoK1w8RoA
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 07:42:13 +0000
Message-ID: <2d4871bce8c94b71b14a69a037c095c1@huawei.com>
References: <AA04D994-9928-4C4B-BA18-CD2A7C2683D4@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <AA04D994-9928-4C4B-BA18-CD2A7C2683D4@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.213.156]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/iXSBuXrQaETl6MyeDH8DBaPiJ9Q>
Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis
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: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 07:42:19 -0000

Hi John,
Thank you for raising this point. 
A cluster is a subnetwork where the number of packets that go in is the same as the number that go out, as also stated in the Terminology section.

We can modify the wording in Section 5 accordingly:

"A cluster graph is a subnetwork of the entire monitoring network graph that still satisfies the condition that the number of packets that go in is the same as the number that go out, if no packet loss occurs."

Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 11:05 PM
To: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org
Subject: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis

Hi Authors (and WG),

I have a question about Section 5, Network Clustering. It says,

   A cluster graph is a subnetwork of the entire monitoring network
   graph that still satisfies the packet loss equation (introduced in
   the previous section), where PL in this case is the number of packets
   lost in the cluster.  As for the entire monitoring network graph, the
   cluster is defined on a per-flow basis.

But when I look back at the previous section, all I see is

   PL = (PI1 + PI2 +...+ PIn) - (PO1 + PO2 +...+ POm)

But that’s just a definition of what PL is, it can take on any value based on its inputs. What does it mean for it b be “satisfied”? That’s a term that typically requires us to state what condition is to be satisfied, and as far as I can tell you haven’t stated a condition.

Thanks,

—John