Re: [ippm] [Bloat] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness-00.txt

Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com> Thu, 19 August 2021 15:49 UTC

Return-Path: <cpaasch@apple.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 AB7EE3A1E0A; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.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 kHjnI0Ag5Ayd; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-ppex-lapp24.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-ppex-lapp24.rno.apple.com [17.179.253.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFDD53A2147; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (rn-mailsvcp-ppex-lapp24.rno.apple.com [127.0.0.1]) by rn-mailsvcp-ppex-lapp24.rno.apple.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 17JFkpJj008224; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:48:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=20180706; bh=bmLEKDXx5qdCW9zfzw8v/KJoQ5H4uZm/or8fGnBkKR8=; b=n92wPf1L4XZ2n0YscC9xQe3u7Hq0ynX8ZpO6PLkAwfLXaVmhCkTP3f4RdEQOte2TNqbw bCtOWZO4T9XEAQL/eULpr/44L5kb03YKT9PaQNYJlz41rOL4hO5J5iSjVVorUTCVbQDU urUG8K6jeG9h70O+uokETMCoEf+NSEXC883wSUWwk71AT9ckwPeo/CfccrqE0GAUVofu 60Iue7Wx4QNeyMuYlVK+1XWK9CmT3soqNe6QF5Sf77dxZDzWNhY01OhfV+YHZoTqmqQM jkO1X5C63+o/rxZ8Wp7C2XJadrqIWBZWw2I4kk3B0mkrCdFHLwBSXo0kPWMzO6GUZ6rH 1Q==
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com [10.225.203.151]) by rn-mailsvcp-ppex-lapp24.rno.apple.com with ESMTP id 3aebea5tkf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:48:58 -0700
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com [17.179.253.14]) by rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.9.20210415 64bit (built Apr 15 2021)) with ESMTPS id <0QY3003T1FXHFVI0@rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.9.20210415 64bit (built Apr 15 2021)) id <0QY300300FRC2F00@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: 33616c885c4604f46baf2a2556943e2c
X-Va-E-CD: d7a15a19566448dcf38cf1432bea6726
X-Va-R-CD: 6e98d7a867131c065fb4f779b5ad5a6f
X-Va-CD: 0
X-Va-ID: 2e961d15-6c57-4f95-94f5-ddc7d77c4259
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 33616c885c4604f46baf2a2556943e2c
X-V-E-CD: d7a15a19566448dcf38cf1432bea6726
X-V-R-CD: 6e98d7a867131c065fb4f779b5ad5a6f
X-V-CD: 0
X-V-ID: e25227cd-03c4-48bd-ae52-fe37160cea05
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-08-19_05:2021-08-17, 2021-08-19 signatures=0
Received: from localhost ([17.192.155.152]) by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.9.20210415 64bit (built Apr 15 2021)) with ESMTPSA id <0QY3008JYFXGTB00@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:48:52 -0700
From: Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com>
To: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net, draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org
Message-id: <YR59ZKPsCPL1pSpv@MacBook-Pro-2.local>
References: <YRbm8ZqLdi3xs3bl@MacBook-Pro-2.local> <20210815133922.GA18118@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> <YR2DRslj1nk4RwOL@MacBook-Pro-2.local> <20210819071734.GA3936@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-disposition: inline
In-reply-to: <20210819071734.GA3936@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-08-19_05:2021-08-17, 2021-08-19 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/mu2OilB4VhNXRjxE5gp-v7SrCJo>
Subject: Re: [ippm] [Bloat] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness-00.txt
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, 19 Aug 2021 15:49:04 -0000

Hello Erik,

On 08/19/21 - 09:17, Erik Auerswald wrote:
> Hello Christoph,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 03:01:42PM -0700, Christoph Paasch wrote:
> > On 08/15/21 - 15:39, Erik Auerswald wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > I do not think RPM can replace all other metrics.  This is, in a way,
> > > mentioned in the introduction, where it is suggested to add RPM to
> > > existing measurement platforms.  As such I just want to point this out
> > > more explicitely, but do not intend to diminish the RPM idea by this.
> > > In short, I'd say it's complicated.
> > 
> > Yes, I fully agree that RPM is not the only metric. It is one among
> > many.  If there is a sentiment in our document that sounds like "RPM
> > is the only that matters", please let me know where so we can reword
> > the text.
> 
> Regarding just this, in section 3 (Goals), item 3 (User-friendliness),
> the I-D states that '[u]sers commonly look for a single "score" of their
> performance.'  This can lead to the impression that RPM is intended to
> provide this single score.

yes we can rephrase this: https://github.com/network-quality/draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness/issues/11

> I do think that RPM seems more generally useful than either idle latency
> or maximum bandwidth, but for a more technically minded audience, all
> three provide useful information to get an impression of the usefulness
> of a network for different applications.

I agree. Just measuring RPM is not useful. As one can have excellent RPM but
still have an Internet connection that is barely usable.

However, I still believe that a single score for the user would be great
(that score would not be RPM though). This score should group together a
large list of network-properties (RPM, goodput, idle latency, protocol
conformance,...) and express a value of utility to the user that express how
its user-experience is affected. It would make it much easier for non-technical
users to compare the quality of their Internet without just focusing on a
single throughput-metric.

But that is a different topic than RPM ;-)



Cheers,
Christoph


> 
> Thanks,
> Erik
> -- 
> Thinking doesn't guarantee that we won't make mistakes. But not thinking
> guarantees that we will.
>                         -- Leslie Lamport