Subject: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:54:15 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-06: No Objection

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-ippm-capacity-metric-method/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3

   5.  Less emphasis on ISP gateway measurements, possibly due to less
       traffic crossing ISP gateways in future.

nit: sentence fragment.

Section 5

   This section sets requirements for the following components to
   support the Maximum IP-layer Capacity Metric.

editorial/nit: I don't think I understand what "the following
components" are.  Is this referencing some preexisting template for a
metric definition?  (Same for §6 and §7.)

Section 5.3

   The number of these IP-layer bits is designated n0[dtn,dtn+1] for a
   specific dt.

(editorial) I'm a little confused by this notation for n0.  In Section 4
we say that "dtn" references a specific sub-interval, but the brackets
and two items look like they should be the start an end of an interval,
for which perhaps just the 'n' would be more appropriate (but we'd want
a half-open interval, and would need to worry about 0- vs 1-indexing for
n, etc.).

   Anticipating a Sample of Singletons, the interval dt SHOULD be set to
   a natural number m so that T+I = T + m*dt with dtn+1 - dtn = dt and
   with 1 <= n <= m.

nit: "dt [...] set to m" doesn't make any sense.
nit: this looks like more of a "for 1 <= n <= m" than an "and with".

   Mathematically, this definition can be represented as:

                                      ( n0[dtn,dtn+1] )
                      C(T,dt,PM) = -------------------------
                                             dt

(nit) the "n" appears (in 'dtn') only on the right side but there is no
operation applied over it, so this "equation" seems unbalanced without
also specifying 'n'.  I think the introductory text should mention
something about "for each n" or for a given interval dtn" or similar.

   o  n0 is the total number of IP-layer header and payload bits that
      can be transmitted in Standard Formed packets [RFC8468] from the

(nit) RFC 8468 spells it "standard-formed".

   o  C(T,dt,PM) the IP-Layer Capacity, corresponds to the value of n0
      measured in any sub-interval ending at dtn (meaning T + n*dt),
      divided by the length of sub-interval, dt.

If it's supposed to be "ending at dtn", then why is the "dtn+1" in the
picture at all?

   o  PM represents other performance metrics [see section 5.4 below];
      their measurement results SHALL be collected during measurement of
      IP-layer Capacity and associated with the corresponding dtn for
      further evaluation and reporting.

(nit) this seems to duplicate (be a subset of) the paragraph before
"Mathematically, this definition can be represented".

   o  The bit rate of the physical interface of the measurement device
      must be higher than that of the link whose C(T,I,PM) is to be
      measured.

(nit) I thought we were measuring a path, not a link.

Section 5.4

   RTD[dtn-1,dtn] is defined as a sample of the [RFC2681] Round-trip

Do we really want to be using n0[dtn,dtn+1] but RTD[dtn-1,dtn]?  Can we
pick a consistent sub-interval notation?

Section 6.3

   Define the Maximum IP-layer capacity, Maximum_C(T,I,PM), to be the
   maximum number of IP-layer bits n0[dtn,dtn+1] that can be transmitted
   in packets from the Src host and correctly received by the Dst host,

(nit) the relevant formulae include a dt divisor, but I don't see
anything in this prose that would correspond to such a divisor.

   The interval dt SHOULD be set to a natural number m so that T+I = T +
   m*dt with dtn+1 - dtn = dt and with 1 <= n <= m.

nit: "dt [...] set to m" doesn't make any sense.
nit: this looks like more of a "for 1 <= n <= m" than an "and with".

   Mathematically, this definition can be represented as:

                                      max  ( n0[dtn,dtn+1] )
                                     [T,T+I]
                Maximum_C(T,I,PM) = -------------------------
                                               dt
               where:
                  T                                      T+I
                  _________________________________________
                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
              dtn=1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  n+1
                                                     n=m

(nit) as mentioned previously, the definition of "dtn" lists it as being
the sub-interval, not the boundary point/time of a sub-interval.

Section 6.5

   If traffic conditioning (e.g., shaping, policing) applies along a
   path for which Maximum_C(T,I,PM) is to be determined, different
   values for dt SHOULD be picked and measurements be executed during
   multiple intervals [T, T+I].  A single constant interval dt SHOULD be
   chosen so that is an integer multiple of increasing values k times
   serialisation delay of a path MTU at the physical interface speed
   where traffic conditioning is expected.  [...]

nit: "so that is an integer multiple" seems to be missing a word.

Also, this seems to say that different values for dt SHOULD be picked,
but also that a constant dt SHOULD be chosen.  How can those both be
recommended and be consistent with each other?  (I mean, I assume that
the intent is to multiple runs with different (fixed) dt, but that's not
what the text seems to say.)

Section 7.3

   Define the IP-layer Sender Bit Rate, B(S,st), to be the number of IP-
   layer bits (including header and data fields) that are transmitted
   from the Source during one contiguous sub-interval, st, during the
   test interval S (where S SHALL be longer than I), and where the
   fixed-size packet count during that single sub-interval st also
   provides the number of IP-layer bits in any interval: n0[stn-1,stn].

(1) there doesn't seem to be any restriction that the observed packets
list Dst as the destination address, so formally it seems this would
count *all* traffic generated by Sender, not just the traffic relevant
for the (path capacity) test.
(2) It seems a little unfortunate that we reuse the 'n0' symbol here for
a different meaning than in the earlier capacity metrics.

   Measurements according to these definitions SHALL use the UDP
   transport layer.  Any feedback from Dst host to Src host received by
   Src host during an interval [stn-1,stn] MUST NOT result in an
   adaptation of the Src host traffic conditioning during this interval
   (rate adjustment occurs on st boundaries).

Hmm, this "MUST NOT" is interesting, as it seems to imply extremely
tight coordination between the measurement point for this metric and the
Source itself.  (Note that the toplevel §7 admits the possibility that
measurement will occur at a location other than the Src host to network
path interface, via "(or as close as practical)".)

Section 8.1

   At the beginning of a test, the sender begins sending at rate R1 and
   the receiver starts a feedback timer at interval F (while awaiting

It's a little hard to search for, but I didn't find any previous mention
of 'F' or it being defined as a parameter or term.  Should it be a
listed parameter somewhere?

   If the feedback indicates that sequence number anomalies were
   detected OR the delay range was above the upper threshold, the
   offered load rate is decreased.  Also, if congestion is now confirmed
   by the current feedback message being processed, then the offered
   load rate is decreased by more than one rate (e.g., Rx-30).  [...]

Does "congestion is now confirmed" mean that "congestion confirmed" is
like a one-way latch and this transition only occurs at most once over
the course of a test?  Or could the Rx-30 happen multiple times?
(The pseudocode indicates the former.)

   If the feedback indicates that there were no sequence number
   anomalies AND the delay range was above the lower threshold, but
   below the upper threshold, the offered load rate is not changed.

The way this is written suggests that there will always be a lower and
an upper threshold for delay, but the rest of the document so far didn't
give me that impression.  E.g., we talk about PM only as "at least one
fundamental metric and target performance threshold MUST be supplied",
and to me having both upper and lower thresholds would be two
thresholds, not one.

Section 8.2

   Here, as with any Active Capacity test, the test duration must be
   kept short. 10 second tests for each direction of transmission are
   common today.  The default measurement interval specified here is I =
   10 seconds).  In combination with a fast search method and user-
   network coordination, the concerns raised in RFC 6815[RFC6815] are
   alleviated.  [...]

I skimmed RFC 6815 and had a bit of a hard time making the connection
for why combining a 10-second interval, fast search method, and
user-network coordination alleviate the concerns of RFC 6815.  There
doesn't seem to be much in 6815 itself about how testing in production
can be done safely, so my current working assumption is that the
conclusion presented here reflects the results of "new work" being
recorded for the first time (in the RFC series) in this document.  If
that assumption is correct, I'd suggest spending some more words to
support the conclusion, e.g., making analogies to other "normal" traffic
patterns and how the benchmarking setup is not qualitatively different
from them.

Section 8.3

   As testing continues, implementers should expect some evolution in
   the methods.  The ITU-T has published a Supplement (60) to the
   Y-series of Recommendations, "Interpreting ITU-T Y.1540 maximum IP-
   layer capacity measurements", [Y.Sup60], which is the result of
   continued testing with the metric and method described here.

I pulled up the [Y.Sup60] reference, and it does not seem to reference
this draft by name.  On what basis do we conclude that it "is the result
of continued testing with the metric and method described here"?
Skimming/searching, I do see many similar formulae and methods
presented, but how do we conclude they are precisely the same?

Section 10

Should we say something about making sure that I is reasonably bounded?
IIRC we say so elsewhere in the text but not exactly here.

   2.  A REQUIRED user client-initiated setup handshake between
       cooperating hosts and allows firewalls to control inbound
       unsolicited UDP which either go to a control port [expected and
       w/authentication] or to ephemeral ports that are only created as
       needed.  [...]

nit: the grammar is odd in the first part of this sentence; the part
before the "and" doesn't seem like it can join up with anything after
the "and".  Is the intent something like "It is REQUIRED to have a user
client-initiated setup handshake between cooperating hosts that allows
firewalls to [...]"?

   3.  Integrity protection for feedback messages conveying measurements
       is RECOMMENDED.

(In some sense you want authentication as well as integrity protection.)

   5.  Senders MUST be rate-limited.  This can be accomplished using the
       pre-built table defining all the offered load rates that will be
       supported (Section 8.1).  The recommended load-control search
       algorithm results in "ramp up" from the lowest rate in the table.

nit: since (effectively) each implementation will have their own
pre-built table, I think it should be "using a pre-built table".

Appendix 13

If we start at Rx (row) 1, is it going to cause problems when we drop
down to Rx = 0 in the loss/congestion cases?

The mechcanism in the pseudocode to stop taking large increments in
sending rate above the "hSpeedThresh" does not seem to be described in
the prose in §8.1.  (That said, it seems like a good idea, given the
likely table composition.)

(Also, indenting one tab for the outer conditionals and two more for the
inner ones looks a bit unusual.)

Section 14

It's not entirely clear to me why RFC 2330 is classified as normative
but RFC 7312 is informative, just based on the locations where they are
referenced.

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 03:08:29 +0000

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your detailed review; it will be a better draft when we're done, as always!

All the changes identified below are implemented in my working version.

Please see replies below, [acm]
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:54 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; Ian Swett <[email-masked]>; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-
> method-06: (with COMMENT)
> 
...
[acm] 
ok
s/Less/There is less/

> components" are. 
[acm] 
I see your point. In the IPPM Framework RFC2330 (Section 11), the singleton and the sample metrics are defined separately, and statistics are the metrics that summarize samples. 

We could say this more directly:

This section sets requirements for the singleton metric that supports the Maximum IP-layer Capacity Metric definition in Section 6.

> Is this referencing some preexisting template for a
[acm]
Yes.  The original template has its origins in RFC1242 (1991 in BMWG).  BMWG and IPPM shared a single session at IETF meetings during IPPM's formation, and the first IPPM metric in RFC2498 uses a template very similar to RFC1242.

Sorry if this is TMI.

> a half-open interval, and would need to worry about 0- vs 1-indexing for
[acm] 
Maybe if we tweak the definition of dtn in section 4, we can help without causing more confusion:
OLD
o  dtn, a specific sub-interval, n, one of m sub-intervals in I
NEW
o  dtn, the beginning boundary of a specific sub-interval, n, one of m sub-intervals in I

> nit: this looks like more of a "for 1 <= n <= m" than an "and with".
[acm] 
Ok, here's the revised text I suggest:

Anticipating a Sample of Singletons, the number of sub-intervals with duration dt SHOULD be set to a natural number m, so that T+I = T + m*dt with dtn+1 - dtn = dt for 1 <= n <= m.

(The definition of dt in Section 4 effectively defines m with fewer dependencies, but this sentence tries to tie the whole system of variables together.)

> something about "for each n" or for a given interval dtn" or similar.
[acm] 
Thanks, that's a good fix.

> (nit) RFC 8468 spells it "standard-formed".
[acm] 
Thanks, fixed.

> If it's supposed to be "ending at dtn", then why is the "dtn+1" in the
[acm] 
Good catch, there was a version where dtn was at the end of the sub-interval in the IPPM memo, but we moved it for consistency with other specifications.
Fixed as "...beginning at dtn, ..."
Section 6.3 too.

> "Mathematically, this definition can be represented".
[acm] 
It's a simplification of the paragraph above: it seemed odd not to list PM and a short explanation along with the other dependent aspects.
 
> (nit) I thought we were measuring a path, not a link.
[acm] 
yes, path, and s/device/devices/
Similar in 6.3.

> pick a consistent sub-interval notation?
[acm] 
Sorry to have left a few of these behind in the notation conversion!
Fixed.

> anything in this prose that would correspond to such a divisor.
[acm] 
Yes, you're right:
Define the Maximum IP-layer capacity, Maximum_C(T,I,PM), to be the 
maximum number of IP-layer bits n0[dtn,dtn+1] divided by dt that ...

> nit: this looks like more of a "for 1 <= n <= m" than an "and with".
[acm] 
Same fix as Section 5.3

The number of sub-intervals with duration dt SHOULD be set to a natural number m, so that T+I = T + m*dt with dtn+1 - dtn = dt for 1 <= n <= m.

>                 Maximum_C(T,I,PM) = -------------------------
[acm] 
Right, tweaked in the parameter definition now, section 4.

> nit: "so that is an integer multiple" seems to be missing a word.
[acm] 
Yes, "it" is the word, thanks.

> what the text seems to say.)
[acm] 
Yes, I see your point, this paragraph describes tests at multiple values of dt.

OLD
A single constant interval dt SHOULD be chosen so that it is an integer 
multiple of increasing values k times serialisation delay of a path MTU 
at the physical interface speed where traffic conditioning is expected.
NEW
Each duration dt SHOULD be chosen so that it is an integer 
multiple of increasing values k times serialization delay of a path MTU 
at the physical interface speed where traffic conditioning is expected.

> for the (path capacity) test.
[acm] 
Yes, I agree that's not what we intended. Let's add both Src and Dst:

... that are transmitted from the Source with address pair Src and Dst 
during one contiguous sub-interval, st, ...

> a different meaning than in the earlier capacity metrics.
[acm] 
Yes, the earlier definition of n0 demands correct reception at the destination
and we can't assure that at a sender measurement point with UDP.

I think we can just drop n0:
OLD
... and where the fixed-size packet count during that single sub-interval st also 
provides the number of IP-layer bits in any interval: n0[stn-1,stn].
NEW
... and where the fixed-size packet count during that single sub-interval st also 
provides the number of IP-layer bits in any interval, [stn,stn+1].

Now, it strikes me that we didn't define stn with the same rigor as dtn, so I added 
a definition for stn in section 7.2 Parameters section above:

o  stn, the beginning boundary of a specific sub-interval, n, one of N sub-intervals in S

> path interface, via "(or as close as practical)".)
[acm] 
Yes, that's what we had in mind, but we also envision the measurement point
*internal* to the Src host making synchronization of rate adjustments and 
measurements more practical, too. We're just asking to get very close to the 
physical interface.

so in toplevel §7:
... (or as close as practical within the Src host).

But now, all the realities of measurement in front of mind, I think SHOULD NOT
will be sufficient.

> listed parameter somewhere?
[acm] 
We define a lot of variables in this section, with limited scope of use.
F is one of them, but I found that we had already defined F in Section 4!
So... F becomes FT, and like R1 and ss and cc, gets no special treatment
beyond a definition in the text (IF you're ok with that).

> (The pseudocode indicates the former.)
[acm] 
Yes, we are trying to describe the pseudocode, and "congestion confirmed"
latches when the slowAdjCount equals the slowAdjThresh (and after that,
slowAdjCount continues upward, the slowAdjCount < slowAdjThresh condition
fails and slowAdjCount is never reset to zero).

So, I think we want to say:
OLD
Also, if congestion is now confirmed by the current feedback message...
NEW
Also, if congestion is now confirmed for the first time by the 
current feedback message...

> and to me having both upper and lower thresholds would be two
[acm] 
That's true, we tried not to force our current/best algorithm into the 
metric definition. We require some measurement to use for feedback 
in rate adjustment, otherwise you just have iPerf or other fixed rate 
tools that can only blast packets.

You can build an "ok" feedback system with just one metric and one threshold, 
but there are drawbacks and it may take longer duration tests to measure
the true maximum capacity due to a technical limitation.
So, we gave a really good algorithm, in 8.1, in pseudocode, and even 
in running code

> can be done safely,
[acm] 
That's certainly true, but we did say:

   The world will not spin off axis while waiting for appropriate and
   standardized methods to emerge from the consensus process.

> so my current working assumption is that the
> recorded for the first time (in the RFC series) in this document.  
[acm] 

When you put it that way, yes. Although it is a different metric from
RFC2544 Throughput, the load adjustment search algorithm alone helps
to make this method safer to use than any fixed-rate UDP packet blaster,
or even a binary search-controlled measurement because of near real-time 
feedback.

The other reasons why this work is different are that
RFC 2544 Throughput measurements intend to overload the isolated test 
environment for extended periods of time: 

24. Trial duration (from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2544#section-24)

   The aim of these tests is to determine the rate continuously
   supportable by the DUT.  The actual duration of the test trials must
   be a compromise between this aim and the duration of the benchmarking
   test suite.  The duration of the test portion of each trial SHOULD be
   at least 60 seconds. ...

Many automated RFC2544 test devices start a test at the highest load, and
search their way down to the zero-loss Throughput, subjecting the 
device under test to potentially extreme overload multiple times before 
reaching the test outcome

> If that assumption is correct, I'd suggest spending some more words to
[acm] 

OK, I put some more background together and made the case stronger:
the memo we wrote hear is exactly what the RFC6815 authors were asking for.

The Max IP Capacity metric and method for assessing is very different from classic RFC2544
Throughput metric and methods : it uses near-real-time load adjustments that are sensitive to loss and delay, similar to other congestion control algorithms used on the Internet every day, along with limited duration. On the other hand, RFC2544 Throughput measurements can produce sustained overload conditions for extended periods of time. Individual trials in a test governed by a binary search can last 60 seconds for each step, and the final confirmation trial may be even longer. This is very different from "normal" traffic levels, but overload conditions are not a concern in the isolated test environment. The concerns raised in RFC6815 were that RFC2544 methods would be let loose on production networks, and instead the authors challenged the standards community to develop metrics and methods like those described in this memo.

> presented, but how do we conclude they are precisely the same?
[acm] 
I'll soften that a bit. The Max IP-Layer Capacity metric is 
the same, but it is likely that a few details in the method have diverged
over time -- much of the ITU-T testing and spec development came first.

NEW
... [Y.Sup60], which is the result of continued testing with the metric, 
and those results have improved the method described here.

> IIRC we say so elsewhere in the text but not exactly here.
[acm] 
I added a direct reference to I at the end of item 6.:

... Testing with the Service Provider's measurement hosts SHOULD be limited in frequency and/or overall volume of test traffic (for example, the range of I duration values SHOULD be limited).
> client-initiated setup handshake between cooperating hosts that allows
[acm] 
Thanks, good re-wording, it's in.

> (In some sense you want authentication as well as integrity protection.)
[acm] 
Yes. The running code has optional authentication now.

NEW
3. Client-server authentication and integrity protection for feedback 
   messages conveying measurements is RECOMMENDED.

> pre-built table, I think it should be "using a pre-built table".
[acm] 
OK, "a" it is.

> down to Rx = 0 in the loss/congestion cases?
[acm] 
It would, but the current table includes a Row zero, which is where we 
cold-start. I guess it would less confusing to say:

Rx = 0  # The current sending rate (equivalent to a row of the table)

> likely table composition.)
[acm] 
It's getting late here now, but I think it's in the first two If statements:

if ( seqErr == 0 && delay < lowThresh ) {                         # no loss or delay problems, and
        if ( Rx < hSpeedTresh && slowAdjCount < slowAdjThresh ) { # Rate < hSpeedThresh && etc.
                        Rx += highSpeedDelta;                     # can still use large increments
                        slowAdjCount = 0;
        } else {                                                  # otherwise (Rate >= hSpeedThresh)
                        if ( Rx < maxLoadRates - 1 )              # after checking headroom,
                                        Rx++;                     # can only increase by one

> inner ones looks a bit unusual.)
[acm] 
I like unusual :-)

> but RFC 7312 is informative, just based on the locations where they are
[acm] 
It's more than that. RFC 7312 describes some unusual access conditions that might be encountered and is only cited at the end of the Intro, once. Certainly the measured evidence of bimodal (turbo-mode) access behavior is in the category of RFC 7312 "messy stuff", but we still manage that pretty well and it's not specifically mentioned in 7312.

OTOH, RFC 2330 is the IPPM Framework, with an exception to be Informative status, yet Normative in our memos, and much is owed to 2330, starting with the singleton, sample, statistic metric development, unmentioned stuff about clocks and accuracy, etc.

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:03:25 -0800

Hi Al,

Also inline...

> Yes.  The original template has its origins in RFC1242 (1991 in BMWG).  BMWG and IPPM shared a single session at IETF meetings during IPPM's formation, and the first IPPM metric in RFC2498 uses a t…

Not at all!  I was wondering if there was a foundational RFC that laid out
"when defining a metric, use this format", and it sounds like there isn't
quite that, but there is a de facto standard format and thus this will be
familiar to most readers.

> o  dtn, the beginning boundary of a specific sub-interval, n, one of m sub-intervals in I

That would probably do the trick; good idea!

> at the physical interface speed where traffic conditioning is expected.

Thanks!

> ... (or as close as practical within the Src host).

I was expecting the common case to be in the host, at least, but I guess I
hadn't thought too much about the location within the host as being so
important.  Thanks for clarifying!

> beyond a definition in the text (IF you're ok with that).

That should be fine.

> current feedback message...

+1

> So, we gave a really good algorithm, in 8.1, in pseudocode, and even 

That all makes sense to me.  I'm not sure if there's a good way to shoehorn
some of that insight into the text of the document itself, but it also
doesn't seem like something that's critical to do.

> Throughput metric and methods : it uses near-real-time load adjustments that are sensitive to loss and delay, similar to other congestion control algorithms used on the Internet every day, along wi…

Thanks; that is what I was asking for.
I think this is related to Magnus's Discuss point, though, and I cannot
speak for whether it will make him happy as well...

> and those results have improved the method described here.

Thanks.  My primary concern here was that it seemed like we were making
statements about what some other SDO did, and typically it's good to have
sign-off from the other SDO before doing that.  The NEW option doesn't seem
to have that issue, so it should be good.

> Rx = 0  # The current sending rate (equivalent to a row of the table)

Yes, I think so.

>                                         Rx++;                     # can only increase by one

I followed up on this out-of-band -- I agree that the pseudocode is good,
and was wondering that the prose in Section 8.1 was divergent from the
pseudocode.  Your proposal for new prose text looks good:

% However, if a rate threshold between high and very high sending
% rates (such as 1Gbps) is exceeded, the offered load rate is only
% increased by one (Rx+1) above the rate threshold in any congestion state.

> OTOH, RFC 2330 is the IPPM Framework, with an exception to be Informative status, yet Normative in our memos, and much is owed to 2330, starting with the singleton, sample, statistic metric develop…

Understood.

Thanks for all the updates and explanations!

-Ben

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 20:19:43 +0000

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your reply.  I deleted some early agreements below, and
added very few more replies.

Please see [acm] with no indents...

> From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 5:03 PM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email-masked]>
> Cc: The IESG <[email-masked]>; draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Ian Swett
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-
> metric-method-06: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Al,
> 
> Also inline...
> 
... <we agreed on changes in earlier sections>

> > beyond a definition in the text (IF you're ok with that).
[acm] 
Since this came-up again with Magnus, I made FT a parameter in section 4.

> doesn't seem like something that's critical to do.
[acm] 
Thanks.

> > 24. Trial duration (from
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2544*section-24__;Iw!!BhdT!zEoCgaLen-TJZODnn94eTalwD4PeqYAT9DJPq4WKsUdT8dlW3SvLdotESTp-B0s$ )
> >
> > Throughput metric and methods : it uses near-real-time load adjustments
> that are sensitive to loss and delay, similar to other congestion control
> algorithms used on the Internet every day, along with limited duration. On
> the other hand, RFC2544 Throughput measurements can produce sustained
> overload conditions for extended periods of time. Individual trials in a
> test governed by a binary search can last 60 seconds for each step, and
> the final confirmation trial may be even longer. This is very different
> from "normal" traffic levels, but overload conditions are not a concern in
> the isolated test environment. The concerns raised in RFC6815 were that
> RFC2544 methods would be let loose on production networks, and instead the
> authors challenged the standards community to develop metrics and methods
> like those described in this memo.
> 
[acm] 
Great!

> speak for whether it will make him happy as well...
[acm] 
Of course. It's part of the topic: testing production networks safely.
We've been running versions of this method on the Internet for years,
as the references and IPPM's literature clearly show.

> to have that issue, so it should be good.
[acm] 
Nice, thanks.

> > ... Testing with the Service Provider's measurement hosts SHOULD be
> limited in frequency and/or overall volume of test traffic (for example,
> the range of I duration values SHOULD be limited).
> > >
[acm] 

We fixed this in a separate exchange, after you discovered my mis-read.
Thanks!

> > It's more than that. RFC 7312 describes some unusual access conditions
> that might be encountered and is only cited at the end of the Intro, once.
> Certainly the measured evidence of bimodal (turbo-mode) access behavior is
> in the category of RFC 7312 "messy stuff", but we still manage that pretty
> well and it's not specifically mentioned in 7312.
> >
> > OTOH, RFC 2330 is the IPPM Framework, with an exception to be
> Informative status, yet Normative in our memos, and much is owed to 2330,
> starting with the singleton, sample, statistic metric development,
> unmentioned stuff about clocks and accuracy, etc.
> >
> 
> Understood.
> 
[acm] 
You're welcome. Thanks for a very productive exchange!

Al (for the co-authors)