Subject: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 02:38:24 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Has a RFC6390 performance directorate review done for the 2.X metrics? It
should.
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? 
For example, Flow Completion Time and Packet Loss Synchronization are
new, I believe.
And some other metrics are already documented in RFC6390 compliant
documents. Pointers should be provided.
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.

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 08:53:44 -0400

All,
a few replies in-line below,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:38 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; aqm-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; linda Dunbar;
> MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Subject: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
...
[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.

> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-06
[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
[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. 

> documents. Pointers should be provided.
[ACM] 
Most others are discussion sections and provide references.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 08:20:28 +0200

Many thanks Al.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:22:49 +0200

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-masked]>:
> 
> All,