[tcmtf] Multiplexing period as a metric
Mirko Sužnjević <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr> Sat, 25 May 2013 08:51 UTC
Return-Path: <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr>
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 92EF621F9446 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Sat, 25 May 2013 01:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 xyOdLhiPfajL for
<tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fer.hr (mail5.fer.hr [161.53.72.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE1921F9425 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>;
Sat, 25 May 2013 01:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL4.fer.hr ([2002:a135:48ea::a135:48ea]) by MAIL5.fer.hr
([2002:a135:48eb::a135:48eb]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002;
Sat, 25 May 2013 10:51:16 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Mirko_Su=BEnjevi=E6?= <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr>
To: "tcmtf@ietf.org" <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Multiplexing period as a metric
Thread-Index: Ac5ZJQQYmEdN5MWATm6eWQ/BlLo+3A==
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:51:15 +0000
Message-ID: <E004A7C54DE04F4BB87DB9F32308DA5C01DE2B@MAIL4.fer.hr>
Accept-Language: en-US, hr-HR
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.53.19.114]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_E004A7C54DE04F4BB87DB9F32308DA5C01DE2BMAIL4ferhr_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [tcmtf] Multiplexing period as a metric
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:51:24 -0000
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