IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rmcat] fairness/unfairness metrics

Luca De Cicco <ldecicco@gmail.com> Tue, 08 October 2013 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ldecicco@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC3521E819C for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 06:03:26 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dA5L+V0NrWUg for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 06:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B729421E808A for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 06:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id m15so6368541wgh.5 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 06:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=m9Btn6qDdD+X+Qhd9B59qOKAf1sRmZKd8b2qDNpvOSs=; b=jZy+ZBuKgyFOPDpZU/2cuC4nh+2t/6B/UdeZyRKP3uyGCCIKJEh4SEh1slprmv4npc 5zxSgtEIKprzcoC0WttNDRs0HEW3uYfnR0Dtu2j3KtpUMFh0/EpYmKx+QpSlIVs9vZvk /hnUFV/Ba1DHQhaHRacZmF+GkyL+dauSuR5EpmMHMsS86tGp2XFx0rsMWUe3pNoc0j81 K7TeQ75o94eN67oMUep7OFCVX2g7VM4+Rmg7N7Y7rbAjCIgbtcP7k4ZlXTVg4vBVG1ZX S/9uRXBOluEjH3z75QGImgFLv6lT4R+7u+QdxKEGdNFTuuY4zkfUPL7SQwJbqU9PMW9c zMMg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.107.99 with SMTP id hb3mr23867380wib.34.1381237366706; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 06:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.64.198 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 06:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 15:02:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CACHLveeZ7UAwPp5UQUsBdXXTz1yJAntKMVa6En2MOvqn068V_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Luca De Cicco <ldecicco@gmail.com>
To: rmcat WG <rmcat@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f23558197dd8c04e83a62ea"
Subject: [rmcat] fairness/unfairness metrics
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmcat>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:03:28 -0000

Dear all,

I was wondering what's the status about the fairness/unfairness metric to
be adopted for evaluating rmcat flows.
In "draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval-03" I only found some comments (open issue
(1)) on "unfairness" defining three criteria.

Thanks,
--
Luca De Cicco, PhD, Eng.
Politecnico di Bari
Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica
Via Re David, 200 - Bari - ITALY
Office: +39 080 596 3851
http://c3lab.poliba.it/index.php/LDC

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email