Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness

I support adoption. My concerns are that I do not know if a single
metric is achievable, and also the methods created SHOULD try to find
the bottleneck link. I'd like open source software created along the
way (the apple effort which I applaud has released the server side) to
explore the issues.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 11:44 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Marcus, Authors, et al,
> apologies for the belated response.
> I've read the draft and have some comments to share with you:
>
> as I understand it, the proposed new responsiveness metric is viewed as the single indicator of a bufferbloat condition in a network. As I recall, the discussion at Measuring Network Quality for End-Users workshop and on the mailing list indicated, that there’s no consensus on what behaviors, symptoms can reliably signal the bufferbloat. It seems that it would be reasonable to first define what is being measured, characterized by the responsiveness metric. Having a document that discusses and defines the bufferbloat would be great.
> It seems like in the foundation of the methodology described in the draft lies the assumption that without adding new flows the available bandwidth is constant, does not change. While that is mostly the case, there are technologies that behave differently and may change bandwidth because of the outside conditions. Some of these behaviors of links with variable discrete bandwidth are discussed in, for example, RFC 8330 and RFC 8625.
> Then, I find the motivation not to use time units to express the responsiveness metric not convincing:
>
>    "Latency" is a poor measure of responsiveness, since it can be hard
>    for the general public to understand.  The units are unfamiliar
>    ("what is a millisecond?") and counterintuitive ("100 msec - that
>    sounds good - it's only a tenth of a second!").
>
>
> I would appreciate these topics being discussed and addressed in the draft before it is adopted by the WG.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 7:53 AM Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi IPPM,
>>
>>
>>
>> This email starts an adoption call for draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness, "Responsiveness under Working Conditions”. This document specifies the “RPM Test” for measuring user experience when the network is fully loaded. The intended status of the document is Experimental.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness/
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness-01
>>
>>
>>
>> This adoption call will last until Monday, December 20. Please review the document, and reply to this email thread to indicate if you think IPPM should adopt this document.
>>
>>
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
I tried to build a better future, a few times:
https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC