From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com (new1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCA9B3CB39 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F5D58051B; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap53 ([10.202.2.103]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:40:51 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lucaspardue.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1705700451; x= 1705704051; bh=X/BrR5h/eg8sceu40bBN5RvhnehNfJlNVhgVvL8DGYk=; b=A afXbHV2n1eAAxW99XgQm0zm9qGsAJZTB8mhlX04+RJS9vlDNp92Le78XWWJwscrO Ak6OLU6jotoFSgiTIBguTBxudm0arldkSjHCMkLCFd7dXIGcrwV7sz4KCOAML3Mk UljT3FdcqFRqb1JCXH9++Fr8nksAZ0tmczLMEIbQrZQUiV5MRTPqFLXyvZRIcEYs Na75Tdg1RK295jC2gGQAiX/mGy8c8jS4utkK+sjERHuFRQs/XHN7KHw6/PDHaOUE A31RI2hHaBnuElN3gLcLUsvKO1X+O/NAgn5iuoFDPrU+Cs/z0KbXYqkMFmGg0sDG DwezHq9FjPUUL82poBOvQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1705700451; x=1705704051; bh=X/BrR5h/eg8sceu40bBN5RvhnehN fJlNVhgVvL8DGYk=; b=IHv2e3DOcvAgEqM0WXCZU2HqM4raA2zGX/QspXO+w0Eo Wex/L9DTi9TPIEpp15oHevwSCl6KqiJKj4zOzBVA7WrCt6w+viq3OBv0oF15DtTu Rj67yOwsCHVJHv0BQ+IPyPAM8xg4ewfP5dtlPjKHchW6+hLEyvF0n0qL9z2xwwJO 28VUdoiEionpg/kCRbc3Y7I19Mx9yUomVARLy8xp3fZV2FzOq6DNZp/6+Vdb68Xx 3JIdij9gkb4Vj/jrE8M0SP6CSnVRiJPe4kRF1kmPJ98+SNAH5DH2wFirnHEZlt/N o5HmHlCO9Pph0IaOCfhRbvU0MKgYSM5+nXGvon3Aug== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrvdektddgudeglecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvvefutgesrgdtreerreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfn uhgtrghsucfrrghrughuvgdfuceolhhutggrsheslhhutggrshhprghrughuvgdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeelgeduvdetveelieekteetjeeftdeludektdeuffej uddthffhlefhueefgeetnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomheplhhutggrsheslhhutggrshhprghrughuvgdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i23b94938:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 18BD33640125; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:40:51 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-1374-gc37f3abe3d-fm-20240102.001-gc37f3abe MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <966b41f794e95ca8675d613ca84d22a8@rjmcmahon.com> References: <7494CC8D-7BAB-41DB-9FF7-7306747F2DC9@apple.com> <14EC339A-9A84-40C5-AFCC-474DF03C16B6@gmx.de> <628E2A62-5C2F-448A-83B8-08FC4FB57E7C@apple.com> <966b41f794e95ca8675d613ca84d22a8@rjmcmahon.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 21:40:27 +0000 From: "Lucas Pardue" To: rjmcmahon , "Christoph Paasch" Cc: Rpm , "IETF IPPM WG" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=5c3f6752c3d64fc5b0fb9049107162ed Subject: Re: [Rpm] [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness X-BeenThere: rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: revolutions per minute - a new metric for measuring responsiveness List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 21:40:51 -0000 --5c3f6752c3d64fc5b0fb9049107162ed Content-Type: text/plain Punting on OWD seems fine to me. It's nice but it's more work. This draft is close to done. We can extend RPM directly or indirectly with enhancements in this WG, sounds exciting potential. I'm partly suggestion OWD punting because we've have had proposals presented in the QUIC WG for how to do that in the transport layer. Measurements methods defined in IPPM could benefit from that. I see a document giving sufficient treatment to the options as some that deserves ample time time to gather consensus. Cheers Lucas --5c3f6752c3d64fc5b0fb9049107162ed Content-Type: text/html
Punting on OWD seems fine to me. It's nice but it's more work. This draft is close to done. We can extend RPM directly or indirectly with enhancements in this WG, sounds exciting potential.

I'm partly suggestion OWD punting because we've have had proposals presented in the QUIC WG for how to do that in the transport layer. Measurements methods defined in IPPM could benefit from that. I see a document giving sufficient treatment to the options as some that deserves ample time time to gather consensus.

Cheers
Lucas


--5c3f6752c3d64fc5b0fb9049107162ed--