-----Original Message-----
From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 3:41 PM
...
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
[ACM]
Thanks, that would resolve the biggest ambiguity for me.
Like I said last week, I think we're done (with that change).
Thank you Al and Mirja.
I'll clear the DISCUSS on that basis, trusting the AD that the addition
will be introduced.
Regards, Benoit
Al
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
