Re: [Paw] Renaming: SPAWN vs. RAW

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Corinna

RAW seems to have achieved consensus on the ML.

All: please see this as a last call. If you see a reason why we should not adopt RAW please speak now!

Wednesday I’ll ask the ADs to move to the new name and by default it will be RAW...


Regards,

Pascal

Le 12 avr. 2019 à 14:37, Dr. Corinna Schmitt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :

Any updates?
If renaming happens, when will the mailinglist be changes? Would we also have access to the archive of PAW?

Regards, Corinna

Am 05.04.19 um 13:58 schrieb Pascal Thubert (pthubert):
Votes are still open. Do we keep SPAWN or do we jump to RAW.
What does sound right, a SPAWN or a RAW Network?

All the best,

Pascal

From: Paw <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Prof. Diego Dujovne
Sent: vendredi 5 avril 2019 13:51
To: Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>; Lou Berger <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Venkatesan, Ganesh <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>; Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Paw] Renaming

Pascal,
           Shall we split this e-mail between the renaming
topic and the reliability metrics discussion? I think both
items are really relevant to the group and deserve their
individual space.
Regards,

                             Diego Dujovne

Le ven. 5 avr. 2019 à 07:03, Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :

There is a good book on reliability by Michael Tortorella. The book is "Reliability, Maintainability, and Supportability: Best Practices for Systems Engineers". It is available from Wiley.

Hesham



-----Original Message-----
From: Paw [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 1:55 AM
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Lou Berger <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Venkatesan, Ganesh <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Paw] Renaming



Hello Juliusz:



Actually the theoretical work has been done a while ago, as  a response to your question at the mike when I suggested you dig for MTBF or similar (MTTF, MTBE...). We tend to express a network form of MTBF in a number of 9s. Like five 9s would indicate that the Mean Successful Transmissions Between Errors is 99999. A number of use cases would thrive on 1% loss as long as losses are always well spaced so the missing points can be recovered. This can be true for an industrial control loop, and false for burning a master video. The N 9s are there to make the occurrence of P (say, 4) losses in a row very rare, like a probability of 1/10^(N*P). But the 9s are for unrelated errors and fail to convey a rare burst of errors with a common cause, which is what really hurts. These things happen on radios and that's why we are after diverse paths etc..



There's enough stats for is in https://ftp.automationdirect.com/pub/Product%20Reliability%20and%20MTBF.pdf to take us a long way. Our problem is to migrate the concept from a product to a sequence of nodes and then to more complex structures. This could be refined in an academic paper, I expect that'd be a great topic, and then an RFC would summarize that.



What I'd like to see is an informational RFC that presents wireless reliability in a way that can be consumed by the IETF members, and provides terminology that can be referred in our specs. You seemed curious about the topic; that's quality number one for achieving great results : )



All the best,



Pascal



More links:

http://www.bb-elec.com/Learning-Center/All-White-Papers/Fiber/MTBF,-MTTR,-MTTF,-FIT-Explanation-of-Terms/MTBF-MTTR-MTTF-FIT-10262012-pdf.pdf

https://books.google.nl/books?id=rNLSBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=reliability+MTBF+MTBE+papers&source=bl&ots=L7BsInfaO3&sig=ACfU3U0kYd1lGRyRR_aD5AET9LOI8ZfZWg&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisr-LirLjhAhWPZ1AKHe8yARwQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ



https://www.dfrsolutions.com/blog/the-challenges-of-wireless-reliability<https://www..dfrsolutions.com/blog/the-challenges-of-wireless-reliability>

















> -----Original Message-----

> From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> Sent: vendredi 5 avril 2019 01:40

> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> Cc: Venkatesan, Ganesh <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Lou Berger

> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> Subject: Re: [Paw] Renaming

>

> > We'll also need to provide a definition of reliability and

> > availability and as we discussed, 5nines is probably not the only or

> > even best way to express any of that. Juliusz actually raised the

> > point and I hope he continues on that path and even produces a spec for us.

>

> I'm flattered you think so, but I'm pretty sure I'm not competent.

> You'd need someone with more of a background in probability and statistics.

>

> -- Juliusz



--

Paw mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf..org/mailman/listinfo/paw<https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paw>
--
Paw mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paw


--
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Profesor Asociado
Escuela de Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería - Universidad Diego Portales - Chile
www.ingenieria.udp.cl<http://www.ingenieria.udp.cl>
(56 2) 676 8125


--
******************************************************

Dr. Corinna Schmitt
Researcher and Laboratory Supervisor

Research Institute CODE
Universität der Bundeswehr München

Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39
85577 Neubiberg, Germany

Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.unibw.de/code
https://www.corinna-schmitt.de