From nobody Wed Jun 2 03:13:43 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D483A3D95 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 03:13:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net 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 jCh25xt08IaD for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 03:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F6253A3D94 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 03:13:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1622628810; bh=qP9udRenIe+OxXHeQ3B71FwYNVc7e5EKkCm7UbQ05ZY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:Date:To; b=NRSZj2TlOIwMD1ufgTvw6C5C3Esu41Wgj0Aebe7IoMRZ7fMhNDF3H8P+eI45v3jCP nj+qaji0rBIAO7IGLss71nWYiia5pPNg7gufy/k6oh9nnS8qDCIepKX7AHBBpQDUya o3nIsOWZyvhuM6r67a+PeBfXG+tp7Ux0q69PKzKo= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.250.105] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MpDNf-1l2Pgb3Od5-00qlOC for ; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 12:13:30 +0200 From: Sebastian Moeller Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.20\)) Message-Id: <4D72E5C0-6EA6-4C90-9CD2-A94201806B22@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:13:28 +0200 To: TSVWG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.20) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:GoL76zNsLzuBPSKsotwJIO7dmsrcaS2b892ScwxSYMeIcdF9cFm fo0FrRmtbHEdx9eO4+a33eFo0YmWYCG83Wq+Af7E6hEZWOj8LRW5j6n2Op0h89wo3AeMzOK zuDbDe1U5uMopeb1/jE7gYBD6UOzY+vKEC0xCZUpEOVmI7zQep7riNhIYGJ9HMZwJvlTmm2 X/YFbgngylXJNNVHPTXXw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:VRrO5A7lY8o=:KHtCJgaLJI9Fgxr05PIg4a 5kOFVKgrsX2WwhYkiPk7U4wZyXrwgmDu3PPLKg0KXf1qP5I6FdMd4bw+3m+C0WRq9aSrauHvj 6ZVCjvTAfn/tjRxOd8vvR2Dn2N7ZsGuajHm7NEfR+/quHHnJlrOaqKOTLhOcZ+OiGwzEyK/2X r5y9PDo++nzZ73SiaRAatRT2FhibIxGSkGODq0FSh9i7qKXDjIWAHT2j+yMhZ7jddp8rSVXzG V5k8Whxg0XIvemmSJIK7C2xKnS7XG2IVxovFfe0+D5pdXsfdVolpnljeJMi7lkAgHB3ZwsifX BbzjWdsNP2rwIMwXv9goGVxAZXk+s5zRVdBPL07szid9w9lCSsWsN2kY3PB2+6wV2cddWxZo1 P0ct+GtSPTRdKtI1a6TAEWP2Bo+50y7DG8MJTw804yzZQPUfop7748CZceSbcx9Quvw+m5k9c SahGToknZgphYggSItHJlVzLhdJY/NkKgXVu8OlMeQeK3ipvYT4XxBE5ktIszu+0GdwOdDxv5 zT6ei99PtBOb3ucglPfgJ11Stm17djrT1WDafrImUodLdF7rMp0lEO2df1zk8Q3G8ByMvQ/cR 1RPDsqJSAazJo2KVMQd7d90w/2n0iy3aCpqxo+fg8oBYAs2bg4UkE/3E/uDGhADE0KTcX1n4a Cjyx9HcrVnPpLV2DfbWaWGTpKR0c6RttpD6g264gyBXg4euRsMTMiP1Ml8u6WHy/bxyUOSAkk QWM2XQQtHROsl3DXzPwUvoig66O7/uB4A2VR6Ko+idlucxhlilTnP2fryKZuf72TEusCY38wP G7P+8l97GfdHZ9CPGTbs+OR0mxA/mS89g/kwhyXHxfAL5jLWQUetiwnA0TzYyQHa4Nby6+4vp oEm2oMaLXvdEFJT7Shx19muBVDfm+My55jX0GFV1NdY1akCldnC+/OmYDaFGGibYa+Y4if4QR i0rn7/3pwDpYDonAFxEHZ537ygw/MAasn4GjoR2ZIExLVPBSAgnELXFQTMWzPcaWoWdhyA0YX HIbAZCHoZqW6sE/oldEuAiZwy3Jw0kbplKqLTpu2ueRsHKl7OhvuwKquJ/yNlpeVG4JT+nS4x AjBz0325awGRk85M2EughSXz3Xp9yfMJQms Archived-At: Subject: [tsvwg] Question regarding slide 3 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tsvwg-sessb-31-tcp-prague-status-of-implementation-and-evaluation-00#page=3 X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Transport Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 10:13:42 -0000 Hi Bob, Koen, I recently had a look at = https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tsvwg-sessb-= 31-tcp-prague-status-of-implementation-and-evaluation-00#page=3D3 again, = and I wonder whether you could share more information about the = data/experiments underlaying that figure. It looks similar to Figure 7 of = https://www.bobbriscoe.net/projects/latency/dctth_journal_draft20190726.pd= f, except the individual CDFs look slightly different. Figure7 does not = have much of a legend and is also not referenced at all in the = manuscript. Could you share the exact test conditions, as well as the = modifications to fq_codel you mention in the manuscript as well as the = ce_threshold value you used (assuming you used that at all), please? Also, in that manuscript you seemed to have used fq_codel with target = 5ms and interval 100ms and compared it against DualPI2 with a 1 ms = ref_delay target" for the L-queue. How does your modified fq_codel stack = up in comparison, how are target and interval interpreted for ECT(1) = traffic? Best Regards Sebastian=