Re: [tcmtf] Multiplexing period as a metric
"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Wed, 29 May 2013 15:38 UTC
Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id D20B921F93BD for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 29 May 2013 08:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.959,
BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 G13XouVwozPn for
<tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by
ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D56121F9385 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>;
Wed, 29 May 2013 08:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by
isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id r4TFcNLC014217;
Wed, 29 May 2013 17:38:23 +0200
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: "=?iso-8859-2?Q?'Mirko_Su=BEnjevi=E6'?=" <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr>,
<tcmtf@ietf.org>
References: <E004A7C54DE04F4BB87DB9F32308DA5C01DE2B@MAIL4.fer.hr>
In-Reply-To: <E004A7C54DE04F4BB87DB9F32308DA5C01DE2B@MAIL4.fer.hr>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:38:34 +0200
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <008f01ce5c82$94f178c0$bed46a40$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0090_01CE5C93.587B0C10"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGLuLI8sTZIOejSJDehyWlbkLfgWpmhkz2Q
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Multiplexing period as a metric
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jsaldana@unizar.es
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion
list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>,
<mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>,
<mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:38:39 -0000
Mirko, Regarding the use of "jitter", we could better use "delay variation" in the Draft B: RFC 5481 says: This memo uses the term "delay variation" for metrics that quantify a path's ability to transfer packets with consistent delay. [ <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3393> RFC3393] and [ <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5481#ref-Y.1540> Y.1540] both prefer this term. Some refer to this phenomenon as "jitter" (and the buffers that attempt to smooth the variations as de-jitter buffers). Applications of the term "jitter" are much broader than packet transfer performance, with "unwanted signal variation" as a general definition. "Jitter" has been used to describe frequency or phase variations, such as data stream rate variations or carrier signal phase noise. The phrase "delay variation" is almost self-defining and more precise, so it is preferred in this memo. Best regards, Jose De: tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de Mirko Sužnjevic Enviado el: sábado, 25 de mayo de 2013 10:51 Para: tcmtf@ietf.org Asunto: [tcmtf] Multiplexing period as a metric Hello everybody, I have a question regarding the Multiplexing period we mention in our proposal. Should we define it firmly as a metric, as instructed in the RFC 6390 Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development? Could this period be considered as a full metric? For me the most interesting questing in RFC 6390 is: (i) the degree to which its absence would cause significant loss of information on the behavior or performance of the application or system being measured I think that apsence of this metric does limit our information about system performance. Again Multiplexing period as such now is only defined by its limit. Also, it would be dependent on the employed techniques for particular network path and so on. Do you think there is a need to define this as a metric? Thanks for the advices. Best regards, Mirko Suznjevic
- [tcmtf] Multiplexing period as a metric Mirko Sužnjević
- Re: [tcmtf] Multiplexing period as a metric Jose Saldana
- Re: [tcmtf] Multiplexing period as a metric Jose Saldana
- Re: [tcmtf] Multiplexing period as a metric Jose Saldana