Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 01 April 2022 22:27 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: panrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: panrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B86F3A174F; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 15:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 77V8sJ8z4I1S; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 15:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC68B3A1741; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 15:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com with SMTP id i10so3988034vsr.6; Fri, 01 Apr 2022 15:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BiTfzgdLlmJaKM71LuNywVAP9opmJAyq3PkudfOt0o0=; b=arvGvXTmChzyEnSW12gyMrQRJUzbZvhTH6re8lfSnUe++cMYm6BOMbyLm2lDfgRajT jtnivh8v4sl/szp5liy6q9O72azPv8gvMG+Ujja41DnLJ5Vzk9XTjt03os34BX56qlt0 Emq782Ytex1FhwizdJQYwr64UYdqaGVBs5OcVVOMTc+KYuEc1S3y/E2X5gnKHDha5vRp iUqsBI6ToCnTUJF9hyHxAUXLp5h7+yndTiywsIzPLjOgRMsBqnNZztkdjOwiNaambwf2 ubdQXjo5Cxs36alrfU4YxT9RiWphVel2Du2bJcSN9rOMyxGLLvmTzmgKPWaUj8s41Pfx gsYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BiTfzgdLlmJaKM71LuNywVAP9opmJAyq3PkudfOt0o0=; b=UWPDTqLLmn85CwfTwCi3vaqOJC0l64Xq8D39EUTtz3wCOvU8gSo1cdET/+SEdm3VIA 8pGYJnoVhqQlcqHFhBnnaOdL52ZMfEET7IaT/RX3GZmgQZ+/3k7GMMSZYO5lyF4IaWik gNZ+a7Aup00F6V3tOoDGJsgI2+xcSV0vEq+i2Wz7C54ViTsCdniKXs3Kl1hU+af/SVAr LPLjiV/46wSgXZsRWaLqLsU8rHhfqZKoEiCu7wJ4gVcX054DruBHhe7azcrrwL9iLnCz Jez8j9HiDSprj9TiUaENDu/y6A7FCnGZFPkTbNYeMm6zezmWVl17qpu/acd2Hcs+EQaE ktrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530w6kWT10OLytLI0oY93IFDRbGQ/mrpAOTPHF8oCD5eJPBNrlI0 KNrlkpwf9fJPEuP6NkMTiipJzlTNOIX4uAJkNJA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzwq3ShTh82tRDNGi6AtuZKgnj5s9WtirRdOajaq6cFLh9BlujYihEu7PncGCBp/gWO7b9Q5Ro9oEAhcxA4KEg=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:f7cf:0:b0:325:31f8:a556 with SMTP id a15-20020a67f7cf000000b0032531f8a556mr4108665vsp.77.1648852065144; Fri, 01 Apr 2022 15:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFU7BAQ4gBEC2-OQTHyv6BvEzKDWFVaG2qOAM2iaAf0T11qsMQ@mail.gmail.com> <12449_1648196470_623D7B76_12449_376_1_9438dbfa636a43ae9a2cd24cd46cf369@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <12449_1648196470_623D7B76_12449_376_1_9438dbfa636a43ae9a2cd24cd46cf369@orange.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 17:27:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-c2vJQF9i9-YgTYa2tTDXwowpjBSFQrZeM4UjiOy3vASw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Cc: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, "panrg@irtf.org" <panrg@irtf.org>, Theresa Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net>, panrg-chairs <panrg-chairs@irtf.org>, Krähenbühl Cyrill <cyrill.kraehenbuehl@inf.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a1522b05db9f4908"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/panrg/Z8IqtsNK8vLXYJVGx5bpVkXCvDM>
Subject: Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties
X-BeenThere: panrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Path Aware Networking \(Proposed\) Research Group discussion list" <panrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/panrg>, <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/panrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:panrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/panrg>, <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 22:27:53 -0000
I also support the publication of this draft, after rereading it for the first time in a while. Comments below. On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 3:21 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I support the publication of this draft. > > I have only minor comments to this version: > > (1) Several application/services manipulate not only observed/assessed > values, but can also set objectives/targets. I suggest we provision a new > entry to cover that: > > NEW: > Target property: An objective that is set for a property over a path, > subpath, or network. For example, the maximum one-way delay to be > observed by packets transmitted from a node. Such properties can be > captured on service requests (e.g., Section 4.1.1.1 of > [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]). > > (2) Fix some references as per: > https://github.com/panrg/path-properties/issues/67. > > (3) You may also consider adding pointers for TCPinc and MPTCP. > > (4) cite 9097 in addition to 5136. > > (5) s/Boudacair/Boucadair > > Cheers, > Med > MB’s suggestion about adding target properties seems reasonable, but might need also to be mentioned in the introduction (and, perhaps, in the definition in -questions, but that just popped out of the RFC Editor queue as https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9217/), unless "endpoint reaction to these properties that affects routing and/or data transfer" includes setting targets. I’m less certain whether “target property” needs to appear someplace in the Section 3 use cases, but I should mention that in case others are more certain. In the definition of “Path”, For multicast or broadcast, a packet may be sent by one node and received by multiple nodes. In this case, the packet is sent over multiple paths at once, one path for each combination of sending and receiving node; these paths do not have to be disjoint. I think the point this text is making is that if a sending node performs broadcast or multicast over multiple paths, that’s not relevant to the definition of a path in this document - each one of the paths from sender to receiver(s) is just another path, according to this definition. Is that correct? If so, perhaps this could be a second paragraph on its own within the definition, to be clearer. In the definition of “Aggregated property”, The aggregation function can be numerical, e.g., median, sum, minimum, it can be logical, e.g., "true if all are true", "true if at least 50\% of values are true", or an arbitrary function which maps multiple input values to an output value. Is “50\%” a typo? In the definition of “Transparency”, I found this sentence difficult to parse: A can for example be blocking packets or reading and modifying (other protocol) headers or payloads. Perhaps For example, A can be blocking packets or reading and modifying (other protocol) headers or payloads. I’m not sure where to put it, but some of the dynamic path properties can be so dynamic that they aren’t useful in path-aware networking. For example, link usage for bursty traffic may vary so dramatically that this property can’t be used to select between paths without applying dampening or otherwise avoiding oscillation. This is somewhat related to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9049.html#name-reacting-to-distant-signals, and has been mentioned about every two years for the entire time ALTO has been chartered. 🙂 Perhaps following this paragraph? Some path properties express the performance of the transmission of a packet or flow over a link or subpath. Such transmission performance properties can be measured or approximated, e.g., by endpoints or by path elements on the path, or they may be available as cost metrics, see [I-D.ietf-alto-performance-metrics]. Transmission performance properties may be made available in an aggregated form, such as averages or minimums. Properties related to a path element which constitutes a single layer 2 domain are abstracted from the used physical and link layer technology, similar to [RFC8175]. (and if you wanted to divide the path properties in Section 4 as “relatively static path properties” and “relatively dynamic path properties”, that might be helpful to the reader) Best, Spencer
- [PANRG] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-panrg-path-prope… Jen Linkova
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-panrg-path-p… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-panrg-path-p… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-panrg-path-p… Reese Enghardt
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-panrg-path-p… Jen Linkova
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-panrg-path-p… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-panrg-path-p… Jen Linkova
- [PANRG] A ping, and a post-RG Last Call question … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [PANRG] A ping, and a post-RG Last Call quest… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [PANRG] A ping, and a post-RG Last Call quest… Reese Enghardt
- Re: [PANRG] A ping, and a post-RG Last Call quest… Spencer Dawkins at IETF