All, We have pushed an updated version that integrates the suggested changes.
Thanks, Nico -----Message d'origine----- De : aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) Envoyé : mardi 14 juin 2016 09:13 À : Benoit Claise Cc : MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); w...@mti-systems.com; aqm-cha...@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guideli...@ietf.org; Schulthess Nicolas (F&W); aqm@ietf.org Objet : Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Yes, already contacted the authors! Thanks all! > Am 14.06.2016 um 08:42 schrieb Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com>: > > >>> -----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 _______________________________________________ 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
