Re: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF

Mirko Sužnjević <> Thu, 06 February 2014 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06EAC1A00F2 for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 05:30:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.134
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cJ3i6zVV1B4D for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 05:30:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8DB01A0116 for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 05:30:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([fe80::40a6:8369:434e:dfdc]) by ([fe80::adf5:20ce:8838:5e78%11]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:30:38 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Mirko_Su=BEnjevi=E6?= <>
To: Jose Saldana <>
Thread-Topic: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF
Thread-Index: Ac8jG5FwXoNRn/wcTIK0OoSJj+UjIQAIKYGQ
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:30:37 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <007601cf231c$f7c78be0$e756a3a0$>
In-Reply-To: <007601cf231c$f7c78be0$e756a3a0$>
Accept-Language: en-US, hr-HR
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: [2001:b68:16:60:6dca:38b:20e1:8d24]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E004A7C54DE04F4BB87DB9F32308DA5C0F3E72MAIL4ferhr_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:30:48 -0000

I think this is just the concept about which we talk in the draft. We got some tolerable latency or it can be called latency budget. Portions of that latency are consumed by the sources of latency. When the service has some latency "left" after all sources have taken their share the quality of the experience should not be degraded. We could rewrite it to have the common terms in the next iteration.

From: tcmtf [] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:23 AM
Subject: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF

Hi all,

The report of the Workshop on Reducing Internet Latency ( talks about a very interesting concept: "latency budget":

"A latency budget is applicable to the application and is consumed by sources of latency."
"Latency budgets can be hard or soft and may be derived from biological or computational expectations."
"The application operates effectively only when the cost is kept within the budget."

Since TCM-TF savings require the addition of an small latency as a counterpart, perhaps we could say something like "if an amount of latency budget is available, a part of it can be consumed in multiplexing packets, thus providing bandwidth savings".

And some sentences of the draft about delay limits could even be rewritten accordingly: for example, instead of talking about "delay recommendations" in section 6, we could talk about "latency budget" for each application.

What do you think?

Best regards,