[Rpm] Seeking RPM Server package for OpenWrt

[Christoph Paasch]

> On Mar 23, 2022, at 12:23 PM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn at mork.no> wrote:
> 
> Christoph Paasch <cpaasch at apple.com> writes:
> 
>> Hello Bjorn,
>> 
>> Thanks for taking a look at this! Please see inline:
>> 
>>> On Mar 23, 2022, at 5:34 AM, Bjørn Mork via Rpm <rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Paul Spooren <mail at aparcar.org> writes:
>>> 
>>>> The spec wants a 8GB file which seems a bit much for common home
>>>> routers. We could look into reading from /dev/zero since the body
>>>> content isn’t relevant but still the device is likely slower at
>>>> offering the content than your laptop can chew. A dedicated device
>>>> could be required.
>>> 
>>> There is no need to read anything from a file or device. You can just
>>> serve the same memory buffer in a loop.
>> 
>> That's right! It does not really need to be a file. Some webserver
>> implementations have such a capability to generate random content in
>> memory. (e.g.,
>> https://docs.trafficserver.apache.org/en/9.0.x/admin-guide/plugins/generator.en.html
>> <https://docs.trafficserver.apache.org/en/9.0.x/admin-guide/plugins/generator.en.html>)
>> 
>>> I did a quick look at the document and it seems under-specified. Page
>>> after page with blah-blah, but
>>> - not defining Content-Type for any of the URLs
>> 
>> In what way is the content-type relevant for the responsiveness measurement ?
> 
> It becomes relevant once one of the client or server implementations
> start making assumptions about it. Worst case is that you have two
> implementations making different assumptions. So you specify strict
> requirments to avoid that.

We could add a line saying that the content-type does not matter and must be ignored.

> This is pretty basic for any API. Maybe use OpenAPI or similar to
> for clarity instead of the home-grown API spec? 

I feel like OpenAPI is quite a different beast compared to what we are doing here.

>>> - not defining ciphers or any other TLS options, despite the rather
>>> restrictive TLSv1.3 requirment
>> 
>> I'm not sure in what way the cipher-suites are relevant to the
>> responsiveness measurement itself. In terms of deployment, it is the
>> same as for any other webservice. It is something that is usually not
>> specified in an IETF-draft as cipher-suites come and go.
> 
> They're relevant the same way the Content-Type is. If you don't say
> anything then you might end up with all sorts of incompatible
> configurations.

This is a deployment problem, not a specification-problem for the particular purpose of measuring responsiveness.

For example, we don't specify whether IPv4 or IPv6 should be used.
Also, if we list cipher-suites and one of them gets deprecated our RFC would need to be updated as well.

>> The TLSv1.3 requirement comes from the fact that we want to measure
>> TLS handshake latency, and by requiring TLSv1.3 we know that the
>> handshake is exactly 1 round-trip. Probably something to clarify in
>> the draft! I filed
>> https://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/issues/37
>> <https://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/issues/37>.
> 
> Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining. And I believe you should
> include the explanation in the draft as well.
> 
>>> - no config examples for common web servers
>> 
>> It is uncommon for an IETF-draft to provide such kind of
>> configurations, because IETF-drafts are aiming to be implementation
>> independent as implementations change, but standards don't. We have
>> several configurations (and two implementations - one in Go and one in
>> Swift) available at https://github.com/network-quality/server/
>> <https://github.com/network-quality/server/>.
> 
> I believe it's common to include a reference implementation if it's
> semi-trivial, like the server side of this spec is.
> 
> And it's not unheard of that this reference implementation is given as
> configuration examples, in cases where the documenent can be implemented
> by configuring existing software. For example:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8806

Yeah, it could make sense to put something in the appendix (https://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/issues/39)

> 
> Now I must admit that I haven't actually tried. But I assume it's
> possible to use most web servers for this purpose. Or a pretty simple
> python script, maybe. 
> 
>>> - no actual client algorithm
>> 
>> Section 4 of the draft tries to explain the client algorithm. With
>> specifically Section 4.1.4 formalizing the "working conditions"
>> generation. Can you explain a bit more what parts are unclear to you?
> 
> Re-reading this, I realize that I went out to harsh here. Sorry.
> 
> I think it can be improved by replacing things like
> 
> "It is left to the implementation what to do when saturation is not
> reached within that time-frame."
> 
> with a precise description of what to do.

There are two approaches here:

Either, the implementation aborts and errors out.
Or, the implementation nevertheless measures the responsiveness and either presents the result as a valid result or as a result with a low confidence score.

We can probably outline the options that an implementation has. (https://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/issues/40)


Thanks for your feedback,
Christoph