> -----Original Message----- > From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 3:41 PM ... > Hi Al, > > I believe, we agree here. However, I’m not really sure what needs to be > changed/added in the draft now. The only concrete item I have is > replacing "application-level“ by "transport-layer payload“. Anything > else? > > Mirja [ACM] Thanks, that would resolve the biggest ambiguity for me. Like I said last week, I think we're done (with that change).
Al > > > > > > Am 10.06.2016 um 19:16 schrieb MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > <[email protected]>: > > > > more below, thanks for the clarifications, Mirja! > > Al > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 12:55 PM > >> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); Mirja Kühlewind; Benoit Claise > >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG; draft-ietf- > aqm- > >> [email protected]; Schulthess Nicolas (F&W); [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval- > >> guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > >> > >> Hi Al, > >> > >> see below. > >> > >> On 10.06.2016 18:41, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote: > >>> Hi, see below, > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 9:15 AM > >>>> To: Benoit Claise; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > >>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG; draft-ietf- > >> aqm- > >>>> [email protected]; Schulthess Nicolas (F&W); [email protected] > >>>> Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval- > >>>> guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > >>>> > >>>> Benoit, > >>>> > >>>> waiting for Al. But in the mean time see below. > >>>> > >>>> On 10.06.2016 11:57, Benoit Claise wrote: > >>>>> Al, assuming that someone would like to register this metric in a > >>>> registry > >>>>> (RFC6390), are they any grey areas in the performance metric > >>>> definitions in > >>>>> the draft? > >>>>> From what I understand, a point such this one (from Al) is: > >>>>> > >>>>> Because we are using Goodput, G, I take as given that there > >>>>> must be a protocol with retransmission capability. > >>>>> Otherwise, further simplification is possible (with dummy > >>>> traffic). > >>>> > >>>> Not really if you have not retransmission, simply your > >>>> goodout=throughput. > >>>> Don't see a problem here. > >>> [ACM] > >>> Although Goodput == Throughput for UDP, you can make a > >>> simpler measurement, you don't have to check for uniqueness. > >> > >> > >> That's the view from someone measuring in the network. But if you do > >> simulations or have a controlled testbed, the easiest things is to > >> measure in > >> the application (and you automatically get the right thing). As we > don't > >> know > >> what exactly people do in the end, I think it is right to leave this > >> open > >> (and leave it as simple as possible in the description text). > > [ACM] > > Ok, but what layer of the application? The raw media stream(s)? > > Or everything in the TCP/UDP payload? > > > > In lab benchmarking, it's sometimes about measuring at > > link speed x number of ports, so every operation makes a difference! > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> But yes, Fs and G need to be reported on payload > >>>>> at the same layer, so the protocol layer chosen is > >>>>> an input parameter for this metric. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, it need to be the same layer for all your tests; but the goal > is > >>>> not be > >>>> compatible with other tests. So it's your decision. It's guidance > how > >>>> you > >>>> would test AQMs to decide if you want to deploy them in the future > >> (or > >>>> to > >>>> show that your AQM has benefits compared to other AQMs such that > >> another > >>>> guy > >>>> might deploy this in future). > >>> [ACM] > >>> > >>> The current text mentions the "application layer" but needs to add > the > >> note > >>> that the layer chosen needs to be specified/included in with the > >> results, so that > >>> someone reading results later will know what was tested. > >> > >> There actually is now a sentence saying: > >> > >> "Where flow size is the size of the application-level flow in bits > and > >> goodput is the application-level transfer time (described in > >> Section 2.5)." > >> > >> Is this sufficient? > > [ACM] > > > > I don't mean to prolong this, but I haven't been clear: > > The term "application-level" is ambiguous, it could be > > RTP, or some other container layer, or one of the MPEG layers, > > or the raw media/program stream (with our without meta data). > > > > If by saying "application-level", the transport-layer payload > > is meant, I suggest to say that. > > > > are we there yet? I know I am :-), it's 19:15 down the road in Geneva! > > Al > > > >> > >> Mirja > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Al > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> aqm mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > > aqm mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
