Dear all,
Apologies for the long delay.
I have review the latest version of the draft. In my opinion the
document still needs a detailed review about the representation (the
text): the structure of the document would make more sense if the
information in section 2, 3, and 4 would appear in different order, the
document still could use a more consistent terminology, and the
structure of section 5-12 could be more consistent. I am happy to
provide the detailed review, but since it is a lot of work, I have
several concerns about the content of the document, which I would prefer
to clear first.
The document proposes the evaluation methodology for AQMs which consists
of the following topology and scenarios:
0. the experiments should be performed on the topology, described in
Figure 1 in Section 3, where the bottleneck between routers L and R
is of *unspecified* capacity, which SHOULD include*both symmetric
and asymmetric*, and the buffer MAY be set to a BDP. If I understand
correctly, it is further RECOMMENDED to use a range of input
parameters for the evaluated AQM (this may only be required if
several AQMs are being compared)
1. (section 5) several experiments with different TCP congestion
control schemes (+UDP) which should be performed on *unspecified*
bottleneck capacity and *unspecified* RTT, which should or should
not be the same as the one with which the AQM is configured.
2. (section 6) RTT fairness, where two groups of *unspecified*
number of flows share a bottleneck of *unspecified* capacity, where
the first group sees RTT of 100ms and the second is in range [5ms;560ms]
3. (section 7) burst absorption, is a group of four scenarios, which
include web-traffic, bursty video frames, which should be generated
in an unspecified manner (*left to the tester to decide*), CBR
traffic of *unspecified* rate, and TCP flow, all of which is
evaluated using a set of metrics that MAY be generated. I might be
missing something, but I don't understand how any of these metrics
can be used to characterize burst absorption.
4. (section 8) stability, including (a) varying the number of flows
on a bottleneck of *unspecified* capacity with *unspecified* RTT,
according to the provided formulas, (b) varying network capacity
between 10Mbps an 100Mbps for one TCP flow (if I understand it
correctly)
5. (section 9) which includes (a) traffic mix of a combination
applications, including TCP, web-traffic, bi-direction VoIP using
*unspecified congestion* control (I am not sure, but I think there
are options), CBR of *unspecified* rate, and adaptive video
streaming also with *unspecified* congestion control, with one
combination required and other left to the tester to decide; and (b)
bi-directional traffic, which should evaluate the effect on dropping
DNS/TCP Syn packets* using a specified number of bulk TCP flows
using the the throughput-delay tradeoff graph; (in both scenarios
capacities and RTT are *unspecified* as well)
* I assume that DNS/SYN packets are mentioned in this section by mistake
Do you think that a person without a substantial background knowledge on
the evaluation of AQM schemes can perform this evaluation (resolve all
unspecified conditions) in a reasonable amount of time?
In the abstract, the document says that it describes characterization
guidelines for an AQM proposal, to decide whether it should be adopted
by the AQM WG. The WG currently has two AQMs (dropping/marking policy)
in last call. Did someone evaluate these AQMs according to the specified
guidelines?
Moreover, it seems to me that the WG is about to conclude. What exactly
is the purpose of standardizing this document then ?
Regards,
Polina
On 12/01/2015 08:19 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
Thanks for making this update.
I don't think Roland and Polina who had made last call comments had
yet had the time to check that the changes in the last revision met
what they were expecting, so I'd like to give them (and anyone else
who has comments) a couple of weeks to check this revision out, and
assuming there are no major issues or objections by around 12/15, will
plan to end the working group last call, and send the document to the
area director for publication.
On 11/27/2015 5:50 AM, Kuhn Nicolas wrote:
Dear all,
This updated version integrates:
- modification on the buffer sizes, following some discussion points
raised by Michael Scharf on the tcpm mailing list [1];
- some nits raised by Greg Skinner.
Kind regards,
Nicolas KUHN
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg09894.html
-----Message d'origine-----
De : aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de
internet-dra...@ietf.org
Envoyé : vendredi 27 novembre 2015 11:44
À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc : aqm@ietf.org
Objet : [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet
Scheduling Working Group of the IETF.
Title : AQM Characterization Guidelines
Authors : Nicolas Kuhn
Preethi Natarajan
Naeem Khademi
David Ros
Filename : draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt
Pages : 35
Date : 2015-11-27
Abstract:
Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a
slew
of performance issues. These performance issues can be addressed by
some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in
combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing.
The IETF Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling working group
was formed to standardize AQM schemes that are robust, easily
implementable, and successfully deployable in today's networks.
This
document describes various criteria for performing precautionary
characterizations of AQM proposals. This document also helps in
ascertaining whether any given AQM proposal should be taken up for
standardization by the AQM WG.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
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
