Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError
"Thomas Dietz" <Thomas.Dietz@nw.neclab.eu> Thu, 14 August 2008 13:26 UTC
Return-Path: <psamp-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: psamp-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-psamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25F73A6DC9; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: psamp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: psamp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12EC83A6DC6 for <psamp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XCgBKqH+xDol for <psamp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07B283A67EC for <psamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2352C000303; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:25:57 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M2GZj8l2p0xO; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:25:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from VENUS.office (mx2.office [192.168.24.15]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE26D2C000304; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:25:36 +0200 (CEST)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:25:35 +0200
Message-ID: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C2A5471@VENUS.office>
In-Reply-To: <804B13F8F3D94A4AB18B9B01ACB68FA101F5AA39@EXCHSRV.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError
Thread-Index: Acj9keK0MKRZiW7ATeeooY4YEPkAFwAe2bLgAADlEXA=
References: DEFANGED[22027]:<804B13F8F3D94A4AB18B9B01ACB68FA101F5A5F9@EXCHSRV.fokus.fraunhofer.de><489AB8F2.2050800@cisco.com><804B13F8F3D94A4AB18B9B01ACB68FA101F5A810@EXCHSRV.fokus.fraunhofer.de><489C52A7.6050907@cisco.com><804B13F8F3D94A4AB18B9B01ACB68FA101F5A819@EXCHSRV.fokus.frau " " nhofer.de><1218208442.9068.45.camel@localhost><804B13F8F3D94A4AB18B9B01ACB68FA101F5A81C@EXCHSRV.fokus.fraunhofer.de><1218221293.9068.61.camel@localhost><804B13F8F3D94A4AB18B9B01ACB68FA101F5A821@EXCHSRV.fokus.fraunhofer.de><1218665578.9426.10.camel@localhost> <804B13F8F3D94A4AB18B9B01ACB68FA101F5AA39@EXCHSRV.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
From: Thomas Dietz <Thomas.Dietz@nw.neclab.eu>
To: "Zseby, Tanja" <Tanja.Zseby@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, Andrew Johnson <andrjohn@cisco.com>, Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com>
Cc: psamp <psamp@ietf.org>, Juergen Quittek <Quittek@nw.neclab.eu>
Subject: Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError
X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" <psamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp>, <mailto:psamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/psamp>
List-Post: <mailto:psamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:psamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp>, <mailto:psamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1202107733=="
Sender: psamp-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Tanja, Andrew, Paul, since the topic seems to be settled now can you please summarize your discussion in this thread? I would like to know what to put into an updated version of the draft so that it can get published asap. Best Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Dietz E-mail: Thomas.Dietz@nw.neclab.eu NEC Europe Ltd. Phone: +49 6221 4342-128 NEC Laboratories Europe Fax: +49 6221 4342-155 Network Research Division Kurfuersten-Anlage 36 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.nw.neclab.eu NEC Europe Limited Registered in England 2832014 Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL > -----Original Message----- > From: psamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:psamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Zseby, Tanja > Sent: Donnerstag, 14. August 2008 15:03 > To: Andrew Johnson > Cc: psamp; Juergen Quittek > Subject: Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError > > Hi Andrew, > > great. So it seems that after a lot of mice stepping on and off the > scale we have a common understanding of the terms :-) > So to summarize: > - we don't need an offset IE > - we definitely include the absoluteError IE > - we can also include the relativeError IE (maybe you as authors > decide?) > > Kind regards > Tanja > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: psamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:psamp-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf > > Of Andrew Johnson > > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:13 AM > > To: Zseby, Tanja > > Cc: psamp; Juergen Quittek > > Subject: Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError > > > > Hi Tanja > > > > > > On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 01:19 +0200, Zseby, Tanja wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: psamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:psamp-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Andrew Johnson > > > > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 8:48 PM > > > > To: Zseby, Tanja > > > > Cc: psamp; Juergen Quittek > > > > Subject: Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 18:07 +0200, Zseby, Tanja wrote: > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > > > > > lets first forget about the fixed error and say we agree that > we > > > need > > > > > something like an absolute error that defines the maximum error > > > > > that can happen at each measurement (given the real error is > > unknown). > > > > > Then it was unclear for me why you report this together with a > > > > > relative error which provides exactly the same information but > > > > > only > > > > as > > > > > percentage of the measured value. It is only for convenience > that > > > > > we can report either format. > > > > > > > > > > relError=abserror/measured value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g. you can e.g. say: The absolute error is +/- 0.2 kg: > > > > > Person: 80.50kg +/- 0.2kg > > > > > Mouse: 0.50 kg +/- 0.2kg > > > > > > > > > > That corresponds to the relative errors: > > > > > Person: 0.249 % > > > > > Mouse: 40% > > > > > > > > In the Accuracy Report Interpretation you only provide one > accuracy > > > for > > > > the field, you don't report the accuracy per measurement. The > idea > > > > is to provide the margin of error for all measurements of a > certain > > type. > > > > > > > > The only use of the error field types that was originally > intended > > > > was in the Accuracy Report Interpretation, where the error is > > scoped > > > > to > > > the > > > > field (and optionally template). Unless you use a new template > per > > > > record I'm not sure how you would scope the error value to an > > > > individual measurement. > > > > > > But this is absolutely in-line with the above. You can provide one > > > absolute error for all timestamps or all byte measurements (or all > > > weight measurements). With this you say what is the maximum error > > when > > > measuring the timestamp or bytes. This maximum error usually > depends > > > on the measurement method and therefore the absolute error (= the > > > maximum possible error) is usually the same for all of the values > > > measured with this method. I think this is exactly the same that > you > > > want to express, correct? > > > > Ah I see what you mean now. In general I think that only one type of > > error will be reported at once and that most of the time that will be > > an absolute error. > > > > I think there is still value in providing a way to express a relative > > error though. For example, clocks tend to drift over time so the > > larger the time measurement the larger the error, i.e. accurate to > > within 1 second per day is 0.0011574%. > > > > Cheers > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or you could say: The relative error is +/- 10 %. Then you get > > the > > > > > corresponding absolute errors: > > > > > Person: 80.50kg +/- 8.05 kg > > > > > Mouse: 0.50 kg +/ 0.05 kg > > > > > > > > > > If this is o.k., the second question would be: do we need > > > > > something like an offset/fixed error ? > > > > > e.g. Offset: 0.25 > > > > > Person (real value): 80.50kg > > > > > Person (measured): 80.75kg > > > > > > > > > > Mouse (real value): 0.50 kg > > > > > Mouse (measured): 0.75 kg > > > > > > > > > > The only thing that might be confusing is if you have an offset > > > > > and report it together with a relative error, since the > relative > > > > > error should still refer to the real value (without offset). > But > > > > > we > > > > probably > > > > > do not need the offset value. > > > > > > > > I don't think we have any need for an offset. > > > > > > o.k. I agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope this was not even more confusing... > > > > > > > > I think I understand how you may have misunderstood how the error > > > > IEs were intended to be used. I hope I'm making things > clearer... > > > > perhaps the draft needs some clarification. > > > > > > I think we have the same understanding (see above). The > absoluteError > > > gives the maximum value from which a measured value can differ from > > > the real value. The error is usually bound to the measurement > method > > > or system (i.e. the same for subsequent values). > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Tanja > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > Tanja (starting to see white mice) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:andrjohn@cisco.com] > > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 5:14 PM > > > > > > To: Zseby, Tanja > > > > > > Cc: Paul Aitken; psamp; Juergen Quittek > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError > > > > > > > > > > > > [SNIP] > > > > > > > > >> The intention was to say that the clock is 5 minutes > > > > > > > > >> slow, > > > > > > > > >> +/- > > > > > > 10 > > > > > > > > >> seconds - so there's both an absolute error and a > > > > > > > > >> relative > > > > > > error. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NOW I finally understand what you meant by fixedError > > > > > > > > > initially > > > > > > !! > > > > > > > > > This I would not consider as error. Any fixed deviation > I > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > name "offset"... > > > > > > > > > If it is known couldn't you add it to the value and > > report > > > > the > > > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > > time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In that case there would be no need to ever report > > > > "absoluteError" > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > because all the original measurements can be corrected > > > > > > > > before > > > > > being > > > > > > > > exported. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe for clarification: > > > > > > > The absoluteError that I propose is different from what you > > > > > > > intended by fixedError. absoluteError is a maximum error > that > > > you > > > > > > > would > > > > > expect > > > > > > > due to the inaccurate measurement (e.g. the timestamp may > > vary > > > by > > > > > +/- > > > > > > 5 ms). > > > > > > > The real error that you make during measurements is unknown > > > > > > > and can vary. Your fixedError is different. It is a fixed > and > > > > > > > known offset > > > > > > for > > > > > > > the measured values, correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the absoluteError is the same as the originally > > > fixedError. > > > > > In > > > > > > Paul's example above the fixedError was +/- 10 seconds. I'm > > not > > > > > > sure how you would communicate the "5 minutes slow" part... > > > > > > > > > > > > The original idea was fixedError would say this is accurate > to > > > > > > within > > > > > X > > > > > > units. Both the fixed and the absolute error can be used > > > together, > > > > > but > > > > > > you just have to go with the least accurate one. For > example, > > > > > > if > > > > my > > > > > > bathroom scales have a fixed error of 0.25kg and a relative > > > > > > error > > > > of > > > > > > 0.5%, then they can weigh a person very accurate, but are > > > > > > rubbish for weighing mice: > > > > > > Person1: 81.50kg +/- 0.4kg > > > > > > Mouse1: 0.25kg +/ 0.25kg > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PSAMP mailing list > PSAMP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp
_______________________________________________ PSAMP mailing list PSAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp
- [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Zseby, Tanja
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Benoit Claise
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Zseby, Tanja
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Juergen Quittek
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Zseby, Tanja
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Paul Aitken
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Zseby, Tanja
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Paul Aitken
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Zseby, Tanja
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Andrew Johnson
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Zseby, Tanja
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Andrew Johnson
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Zseby, Tanja
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Andrew Johnson
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Zseby, Tanja
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Thomas Dietz
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Andrew Johnson
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Zseby, Tanja
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError Paul Aitken
- Re: [PSAMP] PSAMP-INFO IE realtiveError: Open Poi… Paul Aitken