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) <[email protected]>: > > All, > a few replies in-line below, > Al > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:38 AM >> To: The IESG >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; aqm- >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
