Hi Mirja, That sounds fairly reasonable to me. Would it be possible to ask the authors provide a bit more detail on Flow Completion Time?
> >> 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. I imagine that related benchmarking efforts may wish to measure this metric, and there would be independent implementations based on the description provided here. regards from Geneve' Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 4:46 AM > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); Benoit Claise > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG; draft-ietf-aqm-eval- > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval- > guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Hi Benoit, > > I finally had another look at the document as well as at RFC6390. I > guess the metrics in question are Flow completion time (sec 2.1.), Flow > start up time (2.2.) and Packet loss synchronization (2.4.). And you are > right that these metric could be see as Application-Specific Performance > Metric as defined in RFC6390. However, I agree with Al that given the > scope of this document is providing > "a generic list of scenarios against which an > AQM proposal should be evaluated, considering both potential > performance gain and safety of deployment.“, > I don’t think these metric need to be defined and registered this way. > > I guess as soon as we have a registry, maybe there is someone interest > in IPPM to catch up these metrics again and provide a RFC6390 definition > but I would rather not like this document doing it. > > Is that acceptable for you? > > We could add one more sentence in the abstract to make the scope on lab > testing during development and before deployment clear. Would that help? > > Mirja > > > > > Am 25.05.2016 um 14:22 schrieb Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > <[email protected]>: > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
