David,

Please see a quick answer to your questions below.

-Shahid.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 8, 2013, at 1:24 PM, "David Ros" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> On 8 nov. 2013, at 10:38, Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid) 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>> Recommend the following text in section 4.7
>> 
>> Research should focus on improving end user QoE from AQMs rather than 
>> network related metrics only. Often a significant change in a network metric 
>> may only make a minimal change in end-user QoE and thus the value of such 
>> change may be minimal.
> 
> Can this be said to be true for the QoE of *any* application?
> 
> And, if we focus on QoE instead of network metrics, (a) what apps are we 
> going to consider? (b) do we have easy-to-use, readily-available and accurate 
> models for assessing QoE for all those apps?
> 
> (Note, I'm not trying to contradict what you say, I just want to better 
> understand what concrete evaluation guidelines could be given on this)

My text says to focus on QoE as well - meaning both network metrics and service 
QoE.

Key services on the Internet like web browsing have been around for like 20 
years - so major services are slow to change. 

Research does exist on translating application performance to QoE - key new 
example may be HAS where I have mentioned a couple of papers in my talk at 
ICCRG. Note that since this is a research topic, we do not need to have all the 
answers now.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David
> 
>> 
>> Research should make suggestions on how to make good decisions on buffer 
>> sizes with each type of AQM (e.g. 2xBDP) - explaining why or how such buffer 
>> sizes improve end-user QoE and network health.
>> 
>> Research should be done on methods or good configurations that leverage 
>> deployed AQMs such as RED/WRED that reduce delays and prevent lockout with 
>> typical traffic and network conditions. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Fred Baker (fred) [mailto:[email protected]] 
>> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:27 AM
>> To: Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)
>> Cc: Richard Scheffenegger; [email protected]; Naeem Khademi ([email protected]); 
>> Gorry Fairhurst; Wesley Eddy
>> Subject: Re: IETF88 Fri 08Nov13 - 12:30 Regency B
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:56 AM, "Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)" 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> One of the the objectives of newer AQMs being defined here should be to 
>>> minimize tuning, but we should recognize that likely tuning or some 
>>> configuration cannot be eliminated altogether.
>>> 
>>> FB: That's an opinion. One of the objectives of Van and Kathy's work, and 
>>> separately of Rong Pan et al's work, is to design an algorithm that may 
>>> have different initial conditions drawn from a table given the interface it 
>>> finds itself on, but requires no manual tuning. The great failure of RED, 
>>> recommended in RFC 2309, is not that it doesn't work when properly 
>>> configured; it's that real humans don't have the time to properly tune it 
>>> differently for each of the thousands of link endpoints in their networks. 
>>> There is no point in changing away from RED if that is also true of the 
>>> replacement.
>>> 
>>> SA: You argue that "initial conditions" determine some of the parameters of 
>>> newer AQMs (like Codel and PIE), then those same initial conditions would 
>>> also determine some of the key parameters for RED/WRED.
>> 
>> I'm simply going to point out that Van and Kathy spent quite a bit of time 
>> and effort trying to do exactly that, and it didn't pan out. Codel is their 
>> suggestion of a replacement that is largely auto-tuning within a specified 
>> range of situations.
>> 
>> On your other points, please suggest text, and the WG can discuss whether 
>> they buy it.
>> _______________________________________________
>> aqm mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
> 
> =================================================================
> David ROS
> http://www.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr/~dros/
> 
> Deadlines really start to press a week or two after they pass. -- John Perry
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Reply via email to