IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 18 November 2015 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F171B2FA3 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:41:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 VpQHDZE5YZfw for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:41:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A72191B2F9B for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:41:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112872099D for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:41:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:41:37 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=+RiMt QmLbL9ME1I8AWarzwl/WEw=; b=uBrT4WFPzgGEN94ydxHung4eTtC8n/OQvBuOu ConERIxednZNVOvl8AvHTQuBlNQOdfj5YBnd9E+IagmwzpR/TYqHjAR3KbnVaqHt pqFGJZcDx/KKexLEVsbwSFiKwub/ugeUAqMSU5GcWef1OWCqNa6mE/M1LgHv96EB oeuAlY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=+RiMtQmLbL9ME1I8AWarzwl/WEw=; b=Z4E5d uIFDYSAHB+Eixp5r+qSpjHC9wSarba8rJamwmb/SnjTehbcv6dH2xXwRc9CE4yAE Qt+xkYsRZKFCWo9BBG4kTAApTBqUR/IFMs77Tj3P44p0AmbsY/1V1z+1g6A8Wr7Z 2qYXiiItOXFFsbMogi1a3s1BBVMBM5nEyMfFN8=
X-Sasl-enc: w7TLj5BD5kGHQnL+3WY7VfZu5ix2eulFwrhndnIWKAR6 1447882896
Received: from dhcp-171-68-20-140.cisco.com (dhcp-171-68-20-140.cisco.com [171.68.20.140]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 58FF7C018F8; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:41:36 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F91B099B-7357-4454-A662-2F05ECBE6737"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <B5CD85FC-275F-421D-85C6-04E6EC67D7B7@cooperw.in>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:41:35 -0800
Message-Id: <AD6208DA-94C8-4390-B6C7-FA922D4CC451@cooperw.in>
References: <37059182-6C51-49E3-83A0-D27F2C15A366@cooperw.in> <CADqQgCQ_hEacxApiauKLYD0Y+ahkXGDi9uXFvLN1XjqLpzjh0Q@mail.gmail.com> <5C131A2D-2519-4CD5-AAB0-1E01563C9665@cooperw.in> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F65345644@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <B30B3C53-F230-4607-878F-12BFBBE2D277@cooperw.in> <EE06F5C7-0499-49A1-86A7-2234C54D3EB1@cooperw.in> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F653A9E39@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <52C1D77C-4E21-4C1B-A16E-D20B638B38FF@cooperw.in> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F653C3123@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <B5CD85FC-275F-421D-85C6-04E6EC67D7B7@cooperw.in>
To: "Songhaibin (A)" <haibin.song@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/qZ4CKhfi3ZUiplPlfqLiMJuWZc4>
Cc: p2psip <p2psip@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:41:40 -0000

I should have also said: I think we can continue the discussion on this one point during IETF LC. So once you post the rev with the changes to section 5 I will initiate IETF LC.

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Nov 18, 2015, at 1:38 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> Hi Haibin,
> 
>> On Nov 16, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Songhaibin (A) <haibin.song@huawei.com <mailto:haibin.song@huawei.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Alissa,
>>  
>> I can accept the second suggestion.
>>  
>> But for the first comment, I’m not sure. IMO, it does not distinguish the bytes sent/rcvd to/from upstream or downstream peer, but only calculate that in total. 
> 
> Ok. Please answer the questions below, though. The answers are not evident from the draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>>  
>> Best Regards!
>> -Haibin
>>  
>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>] 
>> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:10 AM
>> To: Songhaibin (A)
>> Cc: p2psip; draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@tools.ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@tools.ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17
>>  
>> Thanks Haibin. This looks good but there are still a few unresolved issues from our earlier mail exchange:
>>  
>> The definitions of EWMA_BYTES_SENT and EWMA_BYTES_RCVD seem problematic.
>> 
>> sent = alpha x sent_present + (1 - alpha) x sent
>> rcvd = alpha x rcvd_present + (1 - alpha) x rcvd
>> 
>> As written these equations are not right because sent/rcvd appear on both sides. It would be clearer to use last_sent and last_rcvd or some such on the right-hand side of these equations. But this begs some bigger questions:
>> 
>> - Does this place a requirement on all nodes implementing this specification to have to calculate these values every 5 seconds?
>> - How are the values calculated the first time?
>> - How was the value of 5 seconds chosen?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> P2PSIP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email