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

Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> Thu, 19 August 2021 07:17 UTC

Return-Path: <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
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 783013A0EA5; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 00:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 3T77O0N_BduF; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 00:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.uni-kl.de (mailgw1.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (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 C4FBD3A0EA0; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 00:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:ef34:0:ff:fe00:65]) by mailgw1.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 17J7HYuf153682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 09:17:34 +0200
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id 17J7HYJQ004991 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 09:17:34 +0200
Received: (from auerswal@localhost) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id 17J7HYwq004990; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 09:17:34 +0200
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 09:17:34 +0200
From: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
To: Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com>
Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net, draft-cpaasch-ippm-responsiveness@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210819071734.GA3936@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
References: <YRbm8ZqLdi3xs3bl@MacBook-Pro-2.local> <20210815133922.GA18118@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> <YR2DRslj1nk4RwOL@MacBook-Pro-2.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YR2DRslj1nk4RwOL@MacBook-Pro-2.local>
Author: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/wOPT1YBoCHGWWhuZxTKSZFEuSlc>
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 07:17:48 -0000

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.

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.

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