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