Re: [v6ops] comments on draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-00

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Tue, 02 September 2014 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1871A0435 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.35
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 yoMn8eqHgqMZ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x235.google.com (mail-qc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC1321A0424 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id i17so6883708qcy.40 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=u02SSYfTZsvPMKYMeQV4Y2IaXPsnJVrS9O/fcjhorKU=; b=R5hgZ4xOSWIfWBFW/JKua6kwlTcjBU21N/Vz86hbW5ByzetR/GlR4Mh2AseSfKvaqj YLNChrYOdfAregkeJsDY4jcDSNQw1PVYrpRkrJKloF4Au9nc9uwU5OXz6/iLZVP4RSqs ESncFHUj7C7/rI2K0IPnDd22/WUKGZX97074vi9ahPrOgu4A54are7W/jSjWBSVFJbpy fgKT6dfKX61p653NRgFLGAKAvvB4efJYm3UohJMNNJh8OfUNJm7hUcIbp8sh3KfcmxLR jVk9hNDZpWrEJTGS+I0c1klmOyulzEm9ckHXHss0hLAEvzdZOTvWPO2a6zXSVq+Yj/JV btdA==
X-Received: by 10.224.163.138 with SMTP id a10mr56051391qay.72.1409671178034; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.104.135 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53E90FBA.8030701@si6networks.com>
References: <CAJE_bqf_u3+hz1mGnH7JvyNVi4HRpVu7mD4GN86vKwmUm_iWug@mail.gmail.com> <53E5382E.3010302@si6networks.com> <CAJE_bqcyjSLbcRWM_sJcQN1upQNc2+NXO6_7PnV03bTzZOOGJw@mail.gmail.com> <53E90FBA.8030701@si6networks.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 17:19:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFU7BARGnG3EJid9A3ys-fsDSn5tZpm2CErpYqCNb1+Mp1w1XA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/-tC59U_lKuvq518BOp5ZVLrg_D0
Cc: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world@tools.ietf.org, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] comments on draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:19:39 -0000

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>> This explanation was also hard to understand to me:
>>
>>    Since there is some ambiguity when identifying the autonomous system
>>    to which a specific router belongs (see Appendix A.2), our
>>    measurements result in a percentage *range*: the lowest percentage
>>    value represents the "best case scenario" (where, when in doubt, we
>>    assume the packet drops occur in the same AS as the destination AS),
>>    and the highest percentage value represents the "worst case scenario"
>>    (where, when in doubt, we assume the packet drops occur at different
>>    AS than the destination AS).
>>
>> (added a missing closing parenthesis for readability).  One possible
>> reason for this is that the explanation of the best/worst scenarios is
>> too technical and a reader could easily get lost.  Maybe we can just
>> give a higher level semantics here:
>>
>>    Since there is some ambiguity when identifying the autonomous system
>>    to which a specific router belongs, our measurements result in a
>>    percentage *range* (see Appendix A.2).  In the following tables,
>>    the values shown in the parentheses represent the estimated range
>>    of possibility that when a packet is dropped it happens in a
>>    different AS.
>>
>> and leave all other details to the Appendix.
>
> OK, I will keep this option in mind, and also discuss this with my
> co-authors such that we find a way to improve the readabiily of this part.

Sorry, your co-author is being late to the party...;)
I like the idea of dropping 'best/worst case' terminology and just
explain (probably by providing an example of '1000 packets sent, 1180
dropped etc' what those number mean.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry