From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 164AE3CB35 for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 21:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id d11so36888wrw.8 for ; Tue, 04 May 2021 18:41:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E31hgLl6u3svyYJYeQwytKkhlBdLOwVXceyT2drCML8=; b=mZ/5qK49cIxuqLCPL8TrbjaWaTNN1MhoE5+MEJlWbxsz9Jc2ApwQq4wdQqFtvGVvPU GSHxV9DK/+cOi97rfOAERfqJrDnLiWqMMHh4LJgevBpdxQKKEm0MPUW/nrr/pWIvj15v XxlxdPgitMRqK4E9/SNqQ0mZc26ne0Phk5poeqHaGZSL/HBSiVv/7ZO4XKOafgMxoAFi Va96+A15CE4yCYMI8j5yT1PwVaHFR+YOlVhwEVLNDOGy2EmHyQ1M/Hc388J2dbU1kemw NtlRLrr/e83ilzX+g09v+JvwvyvkhPnZUwgKdlo7Y424Ex6vb2KIEQlxiPKlo8+SSkCK z47Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E31hgLl6u3svyYJYeQwytKkhlBdLOwVXceyT2drCML8=; b=lUrpOOZUNY6dgRCwdqax8wJumtQ06zoZGhG64wDIMMt4y1/PRs95rvg8vQDvhSU9XR XIDxh6Dm1WRswBRiJUAO0EJiW6VUf86eSve0DlOSfiCcjb70TxxtkllwGEIHn9FHos57 qIKK4HzLVyn1pn17mE4Pffh/ZF3BsmZ4zVsYMMBgmLd2Awdj5J1VpDDRpAJC7Fie1fZ8 hx66NrmcI5i9zxS61X1FLr59mqs2l/hjl7/kEkAkpHrXAsLlsLKQgkk3CgKxCidPr7ak O6stXaQWQ1MkLslCnvg7euAt2/FIrPHXHzLlLTboXQldfyWf19t4vrBrH8XnNHziyKOB XWnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+H9Tm6/75h8ZioC7hewTCOscAGkRCg0uk0rT7B7w+L5m8ULwr 79riH9i7ovtHbtYp4rfViGU86sfCgjsL7ttmAN++ZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxgDqZISVZKk+9JwlMloqDb2UeJbbiQ+MCRRMNtn4UbYxRXTAf104q6Az1o281zTDhqzideUaZ/uPCyvFaE76Q= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5903:: with SMTP id v3mr35068935wrd.405.1620178901965; Tue, 04 May 2021 18:41:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Matt Mathis Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 18:41:29 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Livingood, Jason" Cc: bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] Terminology for Laypeople X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 01:41:43 -0000 I suggest moving further up the stack - any random Zoomer or gamer understands that Application Lag is a bad thing. Furthermore statements of the form "Lag is most often caused by LUL or even BB" are likely to be true without caveat. Inverting the statement "BB causes LAG (or even LUL)" are less generally true because the vast majority of queues in the internet are drop tail, protected by adjacent managed queues (e.g. all of the queues in switch fabrics within a chassi are protected my managed queues at the input/output cards). Statements of causality up the stack are almost always vague and inaccurate or precise and too complicated. I agree with your colleague that since people don't understand micro bursts, they assume links that are underloaded in the average are unloaded. (But note that this issue is an artifact of self clocked protocols, and may change as more paced CC rolls out). So my vote would be [Working] Application Lag, just to move a little further up the stack. Thanks, --MM-- The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay We must not tolerate intolerance; however our response must be carefully measured: too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling out of con= trol; too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval. On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:02 PM Livingood, Jason via Bloat wrote: > > Like many of you I have been immersed in buffer bloat discussions for man= y years, almost entirely within the technical community. Now that I am star= ting to explain latency & latency under load to internal non-technical folk= s, I have noticed some people don=E2=80=99t really understand =E2=80=9Ctrad= itional=E2=80=9D latency vs. latency under load (LUL). > > > > As a result, I am planning to experiment in some upcoming briefings and c= all traditional latency =E2=80=9Cidle latency=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 a measure = of latency conducted on an otherwise idle connection. And then try calling = LUL either =E2=80=9Cactive latency=E2=80=9D or perhaps =E2=80=9Cworking lat= ency=E2=80=9D (suggested by an external colleague =E2=80=93 can=E2=80=99t t= ake credit for that one) =E2=80=93 to try to communicate it is latency when= the connection is experiencing normal usage. > > > > Have any of you here faced similar challenges explaining this to non-tech= nical audiences? Have you had any success with alternative terms? What do y= ou think of these? > > > > Thanks for any input, > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat