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

[[e-mail]]

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]; [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