IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Songhaibin (A)" <haibin.song@huawei.com> Thu, 03 December 2015 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <haibin.song@huawei.com>
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 084DE1B2B4C for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:51:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 tUhMdBs-IvMq for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCB701B2B4A for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:51:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CEY12338; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 01:51:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 01:51:16 +0000
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.12]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:51:02 +0800
From: "Songhaibin (A)" <haibin.song@huawei.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17
Thread-Index: AQHQ1umosqhZ/UWGA0i8P+k8SWdo8p4P1gUAgAGVAoCAAygiwIAYAXYAgCzfIQCAOf21AIAEBqUAgAjfnlCAAgdhAIAAAMKAgAEQYNCADFdUAIAFWawAgAQKd4A=
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 01:51:01 +0000
Message-ID: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F653D9470@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
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> <AD6208DA-94C8-4390-B6C7-FA922D4CC451@cooperw.in> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F653CD77A@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F653D773B@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <0F1001E5-3C1F-4275-A748-06332B5B5FAF@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <0F1001E5-3C1F-4275-A748-06332B5B5FAF@cooperw.in>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F653D9470nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.565FA017.000B, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.2.12, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 0c03296527b7c6c575a7777d119ab3ce
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/ye9sE3PIB9q8LFnZPWU1zh8bPLM>
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: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 01:51:24 -0000

Could some authors of the RELOAD RFC answer this question? As it was merged from the RELOAD draft. Although we can discuss without them.

Best Regards!
-Haibin

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 4:06 AM
To: Songhaibin (A)
Cc: p2psip; draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17

Thanks. Last call has been initiated. Still looking for answers below.


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?

Alissa


On Nov 26, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Songhaibin (A) <haibin.song@huawei.com<mailto:haibin.song@huawei.com>> wrote:

Dear Alissa,

I have submitted a new version with changes to the diagnostic information authorization part, and leave the  EWMA_BYTES_SENT and EWMA_BYTES_RCVD for discussion during IETF last call.

Best Regards!
-Haibin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email