Re: [aqm] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-pie-07: (with COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan]

Hi Rong,

On 05/24/2016 06:46 PM, Rong Pan (ropan) wrote:
> To be consistent with the pseudo code and avoids the confusion of "turning
> on/off".
> How about we retitle it to “Setting PIE inactive”

Yep. Works for me.

Thanks
Suresh


___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)]

Hi Al, Benoit, hi all,

thanks for the feedback. Sorry for me delaying this maybe a little but I need t 
have another look at the document which will be next week at this point. In 
general I agree that this does not need to only rely on registered metrics 
because is mostly for lab tests; further this might probably not the right doc 
to register new metrics. However, I would still like to have another look at 
the doc and see if we can improve anything or figure out if any of the 
’new’/non-registed metrics should/could be taken up by e.g. ippm.

Mirja


 
> Am 20.05.2016 um 14:53 schrieb MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) :
> 
> All,
> a few replies in-line below,
> Al
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bcla...@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:38 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guideli...@ietf.org; w...@mti-systems.com; aqm-
>> cha...@ietf.org; w...@mti-systems.com; aqm@ietf.org; linda Dunbar;
>> MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
>> Subject: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11:
>> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>> 
>> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: Discuss
>> 
> ...
>> --
>> DISCUSS:
>> --
>> 
>> Has a RFC6390 performance directorate review done for the 2.X metrics?
>> It
>> should.
> [ACM] 
> I reviewed this draft about 18 months ago.
> Mostly, it points to existing RFCs for fundamental metrics,
> and discusses others.  I read this:
>   ...This document provides characterization guidelines that
>   can be used to assess the deployability of an AQM, whether it is
>   candidate for standardization at IETF or not.
> as restricted to lab testing.
> 
>> See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html
>> I guess that the metrics will be recorded in the future (See
>> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-06
>> ), right?
> [ACM] 
> That's up to the authors, they might simply point to 
> metrics in the registry contributed by others 
> (when following these guidelines at a future time).
> 
>> For example, Flow Completion Time and Packet Loss Synchronization are
>> new, I believe.
> [ACM] 
> Flow Completion Time is close to a definition for a new metric,
> and could benefit from more attention, perhaps a few more details.
> RFC6390 will provide some areas for improvement.
> 
> Packet loss sync full methodology is described in [JAY006],
> according to the text. 
> 
>> And some other metrics are already documented in RFC6390 compliant
>> documents. Pointers should be provided.
> [ACM] 
> Most others are discussion sections and provide references.
> 
>> See
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-
>> discard-01#appendix-A
>> for an example
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> COMMENT:
>> --
>> 
>> - Random Early Detection (RED), BLUE, and Proportional Integral
>> controller (PI)
>> Would you have references?
>> 
>> - BDP is mentioned a few times. Please expand.
>> 
>> - Glossary section = terminology section, right? If we want to be
>> consistent across documents
>> 
>> - section 12.2. Why not a MUST below?
>>   In order to understand an AQM's deployment considerations and
>>   performance under a specific environment, AQM proposals SHOULD
>>   describe the parameters that control the macroscopic AQM behavior,
>>   and identify any parameters that require tuning to operational
>>   conditions.
>> 
> 

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise]

Many thanks Al.

Regards, Benoit

All,
a few replies in-line below,
Al


-Original Message-
From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bcla...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:38 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guideli...@ietf.org; w...@mti-systems.com; aqm-
cha...@ietf.org; w...@mti-systems.com; aqm@ietf.org; linda Dunbar;
MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
Subject: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: Discuss


...

--
DISCUSS:
--

Has a RFC6390 performance directorate review done for the 2.X metrics?
It
should.

[ACM]
I reviewed this draft about 18 months ago.
Mostly, it points to existing RFCs for fundamental metrics,
and discusses others.  I read this:
...This document provides characterization guidelines that
can be used to assess the deployability of an AQM, whether it is
candidate for standardization at IETF or not.
as restricted to lab testing.


See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html
I guess that the metrics will be recorded in the future (See
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-06
), right?

[ACM]
That's up to the authors, they might simply point to
metrics in the registry contributed by others
(when following these guidelines at a future time).
  

For example, Flow Completion Time and Packet Loss Synchronization are
new, I believe.

[ACM]
Flow Completion Time is close to a definition for a new metric,
and could benefit from more attention, perhaps a few more details.
RFC6390 will provide some areas for improvement.

Packet loss sync full methodology is described in [JAY006],
according to the text.


And some other metrics are already documented in RFC6390 compliant
documents. Pointers should be provided.

[ACM]
Most others are discussion sections and provide references.


See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-
discard-01#appendix-A
for an example


--
COMMENT:
--

- Random Early Detection (RED), BLUE, and Proportional Integral
controller (PI)
Would you have references?

- BDP is mentioned a few times. Please expand.

- Glossary section = terminology section, right? If we want to be
consistent across documents

- section 12.2. Why not a MUST below?
In order to understand an AQM's deployment considerations and
performance under a specific environment, AQM proposals SHOULD
describe the parameters that control the macroscopic AQM behavior,
and identify any parameters that require tuning to operational
conditions.



___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm