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

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Thu, 06 February 2014 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4543D1A036C; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 01:22:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.335
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 x48GbmMnJHrG; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 01:22:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3B11A0083; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 01:22:30 -0800 (PST)
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 s169MRDG029812; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:22:27 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:22:33 +0100
Message-ID: <007601cf231c$f7c78be0$e756a3a0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0077_01CF2325.598D0550"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac8jG5FwXoNRn/wcTIK0OoSJj+UjIQ==
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:22:35 -0000

Hi all,
 
The report of the Workshop on Reducing Internet Latency
(http://www.internetsociety.org/latency2013) 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,
 
Jose