Re: [rmcat] Proposed text on fairness for draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria
Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de> Fri, 30 March 2018 11:10 UTC
Return-Path: <ott@in.tum.de>
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 80DB612D7E8 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 edNnKJ0v2KDf for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de [131.159.0.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B22341200A0 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix, from userid 107) id 859501C2A58; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:10:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (Authenticated sender: ott) by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF3AC1C2A35; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:10:02 +0200 (CEST) (Extended-Queue-bit tech_hqjtx@fff.in.tum.de)
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, "Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com>
Cc: "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>
References: <1522078552771.92328@cisco.com> <A2E43481-D2D3-4EF1-86FF-7FC0ABDCD6D8@csperkins.org>
From: Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de>
Message-ID: <c63894bb-273a-455d-9d05-bd1845f9254f@in.tum.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:09:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A2E43481-D2D3-4EF1-86FF-7FC0ABDCD6D8@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/kxDgdZq7b8Pi1_4oEUxUlowE1HY>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] Proposed text on fairness for draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:10:11 -0000
Hi Colin and all, yes, I believe so but I didn't check the details yet. I will only get to this work item next week. Cheers, Jörg On 29.03.18 18:34, Colin Perkins wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks, Xiaoqing! Along with the minutes, summarising the other > decisions > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-rmcat-01), > it should now be possible to revise this draft. Jörg, do you have > everything you need? > > Cheers, > Colin > > > > >> On 26 Mar 2018, at 16:35, Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu) <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com >> <mailto:xiaoqzhu@cisco.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This is to follow up on a discussion we had at the recent IETF-101 >> RMCAT WG, regarding how to address the notion of "fairness" in the >> eval-criteria draft. >> >> Brief recap for folks not at the meeting: There was consensus to >> remove the current open issue (#1) on using Jain's Fairness Index >> (JFI) as fairness metric since nobody used it in their tests. On the >> other hand, there were somedebates/discussions regarding whether >> &how to address the issue of fairness in the eval-criteria draft. I >> signed up to provide some updated text to cover this topic. >> >> As promised, please find below my proposed revision for #7 in Sec. 3, >> Metrics: >> >> ------------------------------------- >> 7. Self-Fairness and Fairness with respect to cross >> traffic: Experiments testing a given RMCAT proposal must report >> on relative ratios of the average throughput (measured at >> coarser time intervals) obtained by each RMCAT stream. In the presence >> of background cross-traffic such as TCP, the report must also >> include the relative ratio between average throughput of RMCAT streams >> and cross-traffic streams. >> >> During static periods of a test (i.e., when bottleneck bandwidth is >> constant and no arrival/departure of streams), these report >> on relative ratios serve as an indicator of how fair the RMCAT streams >> share bandwidth amongst themselves and against cross-traffic streams. >> The throughput measurement interval can be set at a few values --- for >> example, at 1s, 5s, and 20s --- so as to measure fairness >> across different time scales. >> >> As a general guideline, the relative ratio between RMCAT flows with >> the same priority level and similar path RTT should be bounded between >> (0.333 and 3.) >> -------------------------------------- >> >> The last part of this write-up spells a rough guide-rail on fairness. >> I've removed the other two criteria in the original text for the >> following reasons: >> * On 1. Does not trigger the circuit breaker: this is already stated >> in the intro and should always apply; >> * On 3. RTT should not grow by a factor of 3 for the existing flows >> whena new flow is added: I understand this to be more a measure of >> low-latency instead of fairness. Also I am not aware that any >> eval tests have used this in the past. Am I missing something here? >> >> Additional feedback and input is welcome. I'll leave it to the >> authors on how they want to incorporate this. >> >> Thanks, >> Xiaoqing > > -- > Colin Perkins > https://csperkins.org/ > > > >
- [rmcat] Proposed text on fairness for draft-ietf-… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
- Re: [rmcat] Proposed text on fairness for draft-i… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] Proposed text on fairness for draft-i… Joerg Ott