Hi Al, I believe, we agree here. However, I’m not really sure what needs to be changed/added in the draft now. The only concrete item I have is replacing "application-level“ by "transport-layer payload“. Anything else?
Mirja > > Am 10.06.2016 um 19:16 schrieb MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmor...@att.com>: > > more below, thanks for the clarifications, Mirja! > Al > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch] >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 12:55 PM >> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); Mirja Kühlewind; Benoit Claise >> Cc: w...@mti-systems.com; aqm-cha...@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-ietf-aqm- >> eval-guideli...@ietf.org; Schulthess Nicolas (F&W); aqm@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval- >> guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >> >> Hi Al, >> >> see below. >> >> On 10.06.2016 18:41, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote: >>> Hi, see below, >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net] >>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 9:15 AM >>>> To: Benoit Claise; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) >>>> Cc: w...@mti-systems.com; aqm-cha...@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-ietf- >> aqm- >>>> eval-guideli...@ietf.org; Schulthess Nicolas (F&W); aqm@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval- >>>> guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >>>> >>>> Benoit, >>>> >>>> waiting for Al. But in the mean time see below. >>>> >>>> On 10.06.2016 11:57, Benoit Claise wrote: >>>>> Al, assuming that someone would like to register this metric in a >>>> registry >>>>> (RFC6390), are they any grey areas in the performance metric >>>> definitions in >>>>> the draft? >>>>> From what I understand, a point such this one (from Al) is: >>>>> >>>>> Because we are using Goodput, G, I take as given that there >>>>> must be a protocol with retransmission capability. >>>>> Otherwise, further simplification is possible (with dummy >>>> traffic). >>>> >>>> Not really if you have not retransmission, simply your >>>> goodout=throughput. >>>> Don't see a problem here. >>> [ACM] >>> Although Goodput == Throughput for UDP, you can make a >>> simpler measurement, you don't have to check for uniqueness. >> >> >> That's the view from someone measuring in the network. But if you do >> simulations or have a controlled testbed, the easiest things is to >> measure in >> the application (and you automatically get the right thing). As we don't >> know >> what exactly people do in the end, I think it is right to leave this >> open >> (and leave it as simple as possible in the description text). > [ACM] > Ok, but what layer of the application? The raw media stream(s)? > Or everything in the TCP/UDP payload? > > In lab benchmarking, it's sometimes about measuring at > link speed x number of ports, so every operation makes a difference! > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But yes, Fs and G need to be reported on payload >>>>> at the same layer, so the protocol layer chosen is >>>>> an input parameter for this metric. >>>> >>>> Yes, it need to be the same layer for all your tests; but the goal is >>>> not be >>>> compatible with other tests. So it's your decision. It's guidance how >>>> you >>>> would test AQMs to decide if you want to deploy them in the future >> (or >>>> to >>>> show that your AQM has benefits compared to other AQMs such that >> another >>>> guy >>>> might deploy this in future). >>> [ACM] >>> >>> The current text mentions the "application layer" but needs to add the >> note >>> that the layer chosen needs to be specified/included in with the >> results, so that >>> someone reading results later will know what was tested. >> >> There actually is now a sentence saying: >> >> "Where flow size is the size of the application-level flow in bits and >> goodput is the application-level transfer time (described in >> Section 2.5)." >> >> Is this sufficient? > [ACM] > > I don't mean to prolong this, but I haven't been clear: > The term "application-level" is ambiguous, it could be > RTP, or some other container layer, or one of the MPEG layers, > or the raw media/program stream (with our without meta data). > > If by saying "application-level", the transport-layer payload > is meant, I suggest to say that. > > are we there yet? I know I am :-), it's 19:15 down the road in Geneva! > Al > >> >> Mirja >> >> >>> >>> Al >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aqm mailing list >>> aqm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm >>> > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
