Hi Qin,
I agree with you that the constraints checking should rely on the
implementation. I'm OK that it is not in the scope of this document.
For other comments, I have checked v-13. I think most of them have been
addressed, except for the following one.
Section 2.2., paragraph 16:
> If a metric has no <stat> (and hence no - as well), the metric MUST
recommend adding " surrounding -, or using dash character instead;
if possible, giving the precise BNF grammar will be better, as I
see some metrics names also include the dash character ("-").
> be considered as the 50 percentile (median). Since this scheme is
> common for all metrics defined in this document, below we only
> specify the base identifier.
Although I can understand this sentence, I still think it should be better
clarified.
I would suggest giving the BNF grammar at the beginning of this section,
e.g.,
... Hence, each performance metric's identifier
should indicate the statistic (i.e., an aggregation operation), to
become
<metric-identifier> ::= <metric-base-identifier> [ '-' <stat> ]
where <stat> MUST be one of the following:
And changing the last paragraph of the section to:
If '-' <stat> is not present in <metric-identifier>, the metric MUST
be considered as the 50 percentile (median).
Thanks,
Jensen
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:22 PM Qin Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, Jensen:
>
> Speak as individual, My answer to your following question is false as
> well, even based on RFC7285, defining hopecount as float point value seem
> also weird.
>
> I think we can rely on implementation or some automation tools for
> constraints checking, but it is not scope of this document.
>
> For other comments, I think Richard have addressed in v-13. Please double
> check it. Thanks
>
>
>
> -Qin
>
> [alto] Review for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12
>
> Jensen Zhang <[email protected]> Tue, 13 October 2020 04:17 UTCShow
> header
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/qZrkPza-vEUcIqQMR3OJfk8G-uw/>
>
> Dear ALTOers and authors of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12,
>
>
>
> Below is my review for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jensen
>
>
>
> ==============================================
>
> General issue:
>
>
>
> The document is well written. I only have one question about the design
>
> part:
>
>
>
> the base ALTO protocol only uses the cost-mode to infer the value format,
>
> e.g., "numerical" infers the cost value MUST be a floating-point value; but
>
> this document requires different value formats for different cost-metrics,
>
> e.g., "delay-ow" requires the non-negative floating-point value, and
>
> "hopcount" requires the non-negative integer value. But based on
>
> Sec 11.3.2.3 of RFC7285, in the "constraints" field, "ALTO servers SHOULD
>
> use at least IEEE 754 double-precision floating point [IEEE.754.2008] to
>
> store the cost value". I wonder if a test constraint expression like "eq
>
> 3.1" for the cost-metric "hopcount" is valid. Should the ALTO server reject
>
> such a request? According to RFC7285, it should be valid. But according to
>
> this document, it is clearly always false.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
>
>
>
> Nits and writing suggestions:
>
>
>
> Section 1., paragraph 5:
>
>
>
> > The purpose of this document is to ensure proper usage of the
>
> > performance metrics defined in Table 1; it does not claim novelty of
>
> > the metrics. The Origin column of Table 1 gives the RFC which
>
> > defines each metric.
>
>
>
> Origin -> Origin Example (to be consistent with the table)
>
> > We can rough classify the performance metrics into two categories:
>
> > those derived from the performance of individual packets (i.e., one-
>
> > way delay, round-trip delay, delay variation, hop count, and loss
>
> > rate), and those related with bandwidth (TCP throughput, residue
>
> > bandwidth and max reservable bandwidth). These two categories are
>
> > defined in Section 3 and Section 4 respectively. Note that all
>
> > metrics except round trip delay are unidirectional. Hence, a client
>
> > will need to query both directions if needed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 2., paragraph 1:
>
>
>
> > When defining the metrics in Table 1, this document considers the
>
> > guidelines specified in [RFC6390], which requires fine-grained
>
> > specification of (i) Metric Name, (ii) Metric Description, (iii)
>
> > Method of Measurement or Calculation, (iv) Units of Measurement, (v)
>
> > Measurement Points, and (vi) Measurement Timing. In particular, for
>
> > each metric, this document defines (i) Metric Name, (ii) Metric
>
> > Description, and (iv) Units of Measurement. The Measurement Points
>
> > are always specified by the specific ALTO services; for example,
>
> > endpoint cost service is between the two end points.
>
>
>
> end points -> endpoints
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 2.1., paragraph 11:
>
>
>
> > A particular type of "estimation is direct "import", which indicates
>
> > that the value of the metric is imported directly from a specific
>
> > existing protocol or system. Specifying "import" as source instead
>
>
>
> source -> the source
>
> > of the more generic "estimation" may allow better tracing of
>
> > information flow. For an "import" metric, it is RECOMMENDED that the
>
> > "parameters" field provides details to the system from which raw data
>
> > is imported. In particular, one may notice that the set of end-to-
>
> > end metrics defined in Table 1 has large overlap with the set defined
>
> > in [RFC8571], in the setting of IGP traffic engineering performance
>
> > metrics for each link (i.e., unidirectional link delay, min/max
>
> > unidirectional link delay, unidirectional delay variation,
>
> > unidirectional link loss, unidirectional residual bandwidth,
>
> > unidirectional available bandwidth, unidirectional utilized
>
> > bandwidth). Hence, an ALTO server may use "import" to indicate that
>
> > its end-to-end metrics are computed from link metrics imported from
>
> > [RFC8571].
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 2.2., paragraph 2:
>
>
>
> > percentile, with letter p followed by a number p:
>
>
>
> a number p -> a number
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 2.2., paragraph 16:
>
>
>
> > If a metric has no <stat> (and hence no - as well), the metric MUST
>
>
>
> recommend adding " surrounding -, or using dash character instead;
>
> if possible, giving the precise BNF grammar will be better, as I
>
> see some metrics names also include the dash character ("-").
>
> > be considered as the 50 percentile (median). Since this scheme is
>
> > common for all metrics defined in this document, below we only
>
> > specify the base identifier.
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 3., paragraph 1:
>
>
>
> > This section introduces ALTO network performance metrics including
>
> > one way delay, round trip delay, delay variation, hop count, and
>
> > packet loss rate. They measure the "quality of experience" of the
>
> > stream of packets sent from a resource provider to a resource
>
> > consumer. The measures of each individual packet (pkt) can include
>
> > the delay from the time that the packet enters the network to the
>
> > time that the packet leaves the network (pkt.delay); the number of
>
>
>
> the time that -> the time when
>
> > network hops that the packet traverses (pkt.hopcount); and whether
>
> > the packet is dropped before reaching destination (pkt.dropped). The
>
>
>
> destination -> the destination
>
> > semantics of the performance metrics defined in this section is that
>
> > they are statistics (percentiles) computed from these measures; for
>
> > example, the x-percentile of the one-way delay is the x-percentile of
>
> > the set of delays {pkt.delay} for the packets in the stream.
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 3.1.3., paragraph 1:
>
>
>
> > Intended Semantics: To specify spatial and temporal aggregated delay
>
>
>
> spatial -> the spatial
>
> > of a stream of packets from the specified source and the specified
>
> > destination. The spatial aggregation level is specified in the query
>
> > context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 3.1.4., paragraph 2:
>
>
>
> > "sla": Many networks provide delay in their application-level service
>
> > level agreements. It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of
>
> > an "sla" one-way delay metric provides a link ("link") to the SLA
>
>
>
> I assume that the second link (the one surrounding with ") means a
>
> field called "link", and the first link (the one without ") means
>
> the value of this field is a URI. Please make it clear. Adding an
>
> example could be better.
>
> > definition.
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 5.3., paragraph 2:
>
>
>
> > To address this issue, the only defined "routingcost" metric can be
>
> > ONLY "estimation".
>
>
>
> "ONLY" is not an RFC 2119 key word, doesn't have to be uppercase.
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 7., paragraph 3:
>
>
>
> > Since he This document requests the creation of the "ALTO Cost Source
>
> > Registry" with the following currently defined values:
>
>
>
> This paragraph seems to be incomplete and repeated to the next one.
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
