feat(MLRsearch): version 04 of the IETF draft

Change-Id: I13110e9e32f83cb86f5ddb36380fcda1c36e18ee
Signed-off-by: Vratko Polak <vrpolak@cisco.com>

3 files changed, 1487 insertions, 505 deletions

diff --git a/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-03.md b/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-03.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 40180dc55b..0000000000
--- a/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-03.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,501 +0,0 @@
----
-title: Multiple Loss Ratio Search
-abbrev: MLRsearch
-docname: draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-03
-date: 2022-11-09
-
-ipr: trust200902
-area: ops
-wg: Benchmarking Working Group
-kw: Internet-Draft
-cat: info
-
-coding: us-ascii
-pi:    # can use array (if all yes) or hash here
-  toc: yes
-  sortrefs:   # defaults to yes
-  symrefs: yes
-
-author:
-      -
-        ins: M. Konstantynowicz
-        name: Maciek Konstantynowicz
-        org: Cisco Systems
-        email: mkonstan@cisco.com
-      -
-        ins: V. Polak
-        name: Vratko Polak
-        org: Cisco Systems
-        email: vrpolak@cisco.com
-
-normative:
-  RFC1242:
-  RFC2285:
-  RFC2544:
-  RFC9004:
-
-informative:
-  TST009:
-    target: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-TST/001_099/009/03.04.01_60/gs_NFV-TST009v030401p.pdf
-    title: "TST 009"
-  FDio-CSIT-MLRsearch:
-    target: https://s3-docs.fd.io/csit/rls2110/report/introduction/methodology_data_plane_throughput/methodology_data_plane_throughput.html#mlrsearch-tests
-    title: "FD.io CSIT Test Methodology - MLRsearch"
-    date: 2021-11
-  PyPI-MLRsearch:
-    target: https://pypi.org/project/MLRsearch/0.3.0/
-    title: "MLRsearch 0.3.0, Python Package Index"
-    date: 2021-04
-
---- abstract
-
-This document proposes improvements to [RFC2544] throughput search by
-defining a new methodology called Multiple Loss Ratio search
-(MLRsearch). The main objectives for MLRsearch are to minimize the
-total test duration, search for multiple loss ratios and improve
-results repeatibility and comparability.
-
-The main motivation behind MLRsearch is the new set of challenges and
-requirements posed by testing Network Function Virtualization
-(NFV) systems and other software based network data planes.
-
-MLRsearch offers several ways to address these challenges, giving user
-configuration options to select their way.
-
---- middle
-
-{::comment}
-    As we use kramdown to convert from markdown,
-    we use this way of marking comments not to be visible in rendered draft.
-    https://stackoverflow.com/a/42323390
-    If other engine is used, convert to this way:
-    https://stackoverflow.com/a/20885980
-{:/comment}
-
-# Purpose and Scope
-
-The purpose of this document is to describe Multiple Loss Ratio search
-(MLRsearch), a throughput search methodology optimized for software
-DUTs.
-
-Applying vanilla [RFC2544] throughput bisection to software DUTs
-results in a number of problems:
-
-- Binary search takes too long as most of trials are done far from the
-  eventually found throughput.
-- The required final trial duration and pauses between trials also
-  prolong the overall search duration.
-- Software DUTs show noisy trial results (noisy neighbor problem),
-  leading to big spread of possible discovered throughput values.
-- Throughput requires loss of exactly zero packets, but the industry
-  frequently allows for small but non-zero losses.
-- The definition of throughput is not clear when trial results are
-  inconsistent.
-
-MLRsearch aims to address these problems by applying the following set
-of enhancements:
-
-- Allow searching with multiple loss ratio goals.
-  - Each trial result can affect any search goal in principle
-    (trial reuse).
-- Multiple phases within one loss ratio goal search, middle ones need
-  to spend less time on trials.
-  - Middle phases also aim at lesser precision.
-  - Use Forwarding Rate (FR) at maximum offered load
-    [RFC2285] (section 3.6.2) to initialize the first middle phase.
-- Take care when dealing with inconsistent trial results.
-  - Loss ratios goals are handled in an order that precludes any
-    interference from later trials to earlier goals.
-- Apply several load selection heuristics to save even more time
-  by trying hard to avoid unnecessarily narrow intervals.
-
-MLRsearch configuration options are flexible enough to
-support both conservative settings (unconditionally compliant with [RFC2544],
-but longer search duration and worse repeatability) and aggressive
-settings (shorter search duration and better repeatability but not
-compliant with [RFC2544]).
-
-No part of [RFC2544] is intended to be obsoleted by this document.
-
-# Problems
-
-## Long Test Duration
-
-Emergence of software DUTs, with frequent software updates and a
-number of different packet processing modes and configurations, drives
-the requirement of continuous test execution and bringing down the test
-execution time.
-
-In the context of characterising particular DUT's network performance, this
-calls for improving the time efficiency of throughput search.
-A vanilla bisection (at 60sec trial duration for unconditional [RFC2544]
-compliance) is slow, because most trials spend time quite far from the
-eventual throughput.
-
-[RFC2544] does not specify any stopping condition for throughput search,
-so users can trade-off between search duration and precision goal.
-But, due to exponential behavior of bisection, small improvement
-in search duration needs relatively big sacrifice in the result precision.
-
-## DUT within SUT
-
-[RFC2285] defines:
-- *DUT* as
-  - The network forwarding device to which stimulus is offered and
-    response measured [RFC2285] (section 3.1.1).
-- *SUT* as
-  - The collective set of network devices to which stimulus is offered
-    as a single entity and response measured [RFC2285] (section 3.1.2).
-
-[RFC2544] specifies a test setup with an external tester stimulating the
-networking system, treating it either as a single DUT, or as a system
-of devices, an SUT.
-
-In case of software networking, the SUT consists of a software program
-processing packets (device of interest, the DUT),
-running on a server hardware and using operating system functions as appropriate,
-with server hardware resources shared across all programs
-and the operating system.
-
-DUT is effectively "nested" within SUT.
-
-Due to a shared multi-tenant nature of SUT, DUT is subject to
-interference (noise) coming from the operating system and any other
-software running on the same server. Some sources of noise can be
-eliminated (e.g. by pinning DUT program threads to specific CPU cores
-and isolating those cores to avoid context switching). But some
-noise remains after all such reasonable precautions are applied. This
-noise does negatively affect DUT's network performance. We refer to it
-as an *SUT noise*.
-
-DUT can also exhibit fluctuating performance itself, e.g. while performing
-some "stop the world" internal stateful processing. In many cases this
-may be an expected per-design behavior, as it would be observable even
-in a hypothetical scenario where all sources of SUT noise are
-eliminated. Such behavior affects trial results in a way similar to SUT
-noise. We use *noise* as a shorthand covering both *DUT fluctuations* and
-genuine SUT noise.
-
-A simple model of SUT performance consists of a baseline *noiseless performance*,
-and an additional noise. The baseline is assumed to be constant (enough).
-The noise varies in time, sometimes wildly. The noise can sometimes be negligible,
-but frequently it lowers the observed SUT performance in a trial.
-
-In this model, SUT does not have a single performance value, it has a spectrum.
-One end of the spectrum is the noiseless baseline,
-the other end is a *noiseful performance*. In practice, trial results
-close to the noiseful end of the spectrum happen only rarely.
-The worse performance, the more rarely it is seen.
-
-Focusing on DUT, the benchmarking effort should aim
-at eliminating only the SUT noise from SUT measurement.
-But that is not really possible, as there are no realistic enough models
-able to distinguish SUT noise from DUT fluctuations.
-
-However, assuming that a well-constructed SUT has the DUT as its
-performance bottleneck, the "DUT noiseless performance" can be defined
-as the noiseless end of SUT performance spectrum. (At least for
-throughput. For other quantities such as latency there will be an
-additive difference.) By this definition, DUT noiseless performance
-also minimizes the impact of DUT fluctuations.
-
-In this document, we reduce the "DUT within SUT" problem to estimating
-the noiseless end of SUT performance spectrum from a limited number of
-trial results.
-
-Any improvements to throughput search algorithm, aimed for better
-dealing with software networking SUT and DUT setup, should employ
-strategies recognizing the presence of SUT noise, and allow discovery of
-(proxies for) DUT noiseless performance
-at different levels of sensitivity to SUT noise.
-
-## Repeatability and Comparability
-
-[RFC2544] does not suggest to repeat throughput search, and from just one
-throughput value, it cannot be determined how repeatable that value is.
-In practice, poor repeatability is also the main cause of poor
-comparability, e.g. different benchmarking teams can test the same DUT
-but get different throughput values.
-
-[RFC2544] throughput requirements (60s trial, no tolerance to single frame loss)
-force the search to converge around the noiseful end of SUT performance
-spectrum. As that end is affected by rare trials of significantly low
-performance, the resulting throughput repeatability is poor.
-
-The repeatability problem is the problem of defining a search procedure
-which reports more stable results
-(even if they can no longer be called "throughput" in [RFC2544] sense).
-According to baseline (noiseless) and noiseful model, better repeatability
-will be at the noiseless end of the spectrum.
-Therefore, solutions to the "DUT within SUT" problem
-will help also with the repeatability problem.
-
-Conversely, any alteration to [RFC2544] throughput search
-that improves repeatability should be considered
-as less dependent on the SUT noise.
-
-An alternative option is to simply run a search multiple times, and report some
-statistics (e.g. average and standard deviation). This can be used
-for "important" tests, but it makes the search duration problem even
-bigger.
-
-## Throughput with Non-Zero Loss
-
-[RFC1242] (section 3.17) defines throughput as:
-    The maximum rate at which none of the offered frames
-    are dropped by the device.
-
-and then it says:
-    Since even the loss of one frame in a
-    data stream can cause significant delays while
-    waiting for the higher level protocols to time out,
-    it is useful to know the actual maximum data
-    rate that the device can support.
-
-Contrary to that, many benchmarking teams settle with non-zero
-(small) loss ratio as the goal for a "throughput rate".
-
-Motivations are many: modern protocols tolerate frame loss better;
-trials nowadays send way more frames within the same duration;
-impact of rare noise bursts is smaller as the baseline performance
-can compensate somewhat by keeping the loss ratio below the goal;
-if SUT noise with "ideal DUT" is known, it can be set as the loss ratio goal.
-
-Regardless of validity of any and all similar motivations,
-support for non-zero loss goals makes any search algorithm more user-friendly.
-[RFC2544] throughput is not friendly in this regard.
-
-Searching for multiple loss ratio goals also helps to describe the SUT
-performance better than a single goal result. Repeated wide gap between
-zero and non-zero loss loads indicates the noise has a large impact on
-the overall SUT performance.
-
-It is easy to modify the vanilla bisection to find a lower bound
-for intended load that satisfies a non-zero-loss goal,
-but it is not that obvious how to search for multiple goals at once,
-hence the support for multiple loss goals remains a problem.
-
-## Inconsistent Trial Results
-
-While performing throughput search by executing a sequence of
-measurement trials, there is a risk of encountering inconsistencies
-between trial results.
-
-The plain bisection never encounters inconsistent trials.
-But [RFC2544] hints about possibility if inconsistent trial results in two places.
-The first place is section 24 where full trial durations are required, presumably
-because they can be inconsistent with results from shorter trial durations.
-The second place is section 26.3 where two successive zero-loss trials
-are recommended, presumably because after one zero-loss trial
-there can be subsequent inconsistent non-zero-loss trial.
-
-Examples include:
-
-- a trial at the same load (same or different trial duration) results
-  in a different packet loss ratio.
-- a trial at higher load (same or different trial duration) results
-  in a smaller packet loss ratio.
-
-Any robust throughput search algorithm needs to decide how to continue
-the search in presence of such inconsistencies.
-Definitions of throughput in [RFC1242] and [RFC2544] are not specific enough
-to imply a unique way of handling such inconsistencies.
-
-Ideally, there will be a definition of a quantity which both generalizes
-throughput for non-zero-loss (and other possible repeatibility enhancements),
-while being precise enough to force a specific way to resolve trial
-inconsistencies.
-But until such definition is agreed upon, the correct way to handle
-inconsistent trial results remains an open problem.
-
-# MLRsearch Approach
-
-The following description intentionally leaves out some important implementation
-details. This is both to hide complexity that is not important for overall
-understanding, and to allow future improvements in the implementation.
-
-## Terminology
-
-- *trial duration*: Amount of time over which frames are transmitted
-  towards SUT and DUT in a single measurement step.
-  - **MLRsearch input parameter** for final MLRsearch measurements.
-- *loss ratio*: Ratio of the count of frames lost to the count of frames
-  transmitted over a trial duration, a.k.a. packet loss ratio. Related
-  to packet loss rate [RFC1242] (section 3.6).
-  In MLRsearch loss ratio can mean either a trial result or a goal:
-  - *trial loss ratio*: Loss ratio measured during a trial.
-  - *loss ratio goal*: **MLRsearch input parameter**.
-    - If *trial loss ratio* is smaller or equal to this,
-      the trial **satisfies** the loss ratio goal.
-- *load*: Constant offered load stimulating the SUT and DUT. Consistent
-  with offered load [RFC2285] (section 3.5.2).
-  - MLRsearch works with intended load instead, as it cannot deal with
-    situations where the offered load is considerably different than
-    intended load.
-- *throughput*: The maximum load at which none of the offered frames are
-  dropped by the SUT and DUT. Consistent with [RFC1242] (section 3.17).
-- *conditional throughput*: The forwarding rate measured at the maximum
-  load at which a list of specified conditions are met i.e. loss ratio
-  goal and trial duration.
-  - Throughput is then a special case of conditional throughput
-    for zero loss ratio goal and long enough trial duration.
-  - Conditional throughput is aligned with forwarding rate (FR)
-    [RFC2285] (section 3.6.1), adding trial duration to offered load
-    required when reporting FR.
-- *lower bound*: One of values tracked by MLRsearch during the search runtime.
-  It is specific to the current trial duration and current loss ratio goal.
-  It represents a load value with at least one trial result available.
-  If the trial satisfies the current loss ratio goal,
-  it is a *valid* bound (else *invalid*).
-- *upper bound*: One of values tracked by MLRsearch during the search runtime.
-  It is specific to the current trial duration and current loss ratio goal.
-  It represents a load value with at least one trial result available.
-  If the trial satisfies the current loss ratio goal,
-  it is an *invalid* bound (else *valid*).
-- *interval*: The span between lower and upper bound loads.
-- *precision goal*: **MLRsearch input parameter**, acting as a search
-  stop condition, given as either absolute or relative width goal. An
-  interval meets precision goal if:
-  - The difference of upper and lower bound loads (in pps)
-    is not more than the absolute width goal.
-  - The difference as above, divided by upper bound load (in pps)
-    is not more than the relative width goal.
-
-## Description
-
-The MLRsearch approach to address the identified problems is based
-on the following main strategies:
-
-- MLRsearch main inputs include the following search goals and parameters:
-  - One or more **loss ratio goals**.
-    - e.g. a zero-loss goal and one (or more) non-zero-loss goals.
-  - **Target trial duration** condition governing required trial duration
-    for final measurements.
-  - **Target precision** condition governing how close final lower and
-    upper bound load values must be to each other for final
-    measurements.
-- Search is executed as a sequence of phases:
-  - *Initial phase* initializes bounds for the first middle phase.
-  - *Middle phase*s narrow down the bounds, using shorter trial
-    durations and lower precision goals. Several middle phases can
-    precede each final phase.
-  - *Final phase* (one per loss ratio goal) finds bounds matching input
-    goals and parameters to serve as the overal search output.
-- Each search phase produces its *ending* upper bound and lower bound:
-  - Initial phase may produce invalid bounds.
-  - Middle and final phases produce valid bounds.
-  - Middle or final phases needs at least two values to act as 
-    *starting* bounds (may be invalid).
-  - Each phase may perform several trial measurements, until phase's
-    ending conditions are all met.
-  - Trial results from previous phases may be re-used.
-- Initial phase establishes the starting values for bounds, using
-  forwarding rates (FR) [RFC2285] (section 3.6.1)
-  from a few trials of minimal duration, as follows:
-  - 1st trial is done at *maximum offered load (MOL)* [RFC2285] (section 3.5.3),
-    resulting in Forwarding rate at maximum offered load (FRMOL)
-    [RFC2285] (section 3.6.2).
-  - 2nd trial is done at *FRMOL*, resulting in forwarding rate at FRMOL (FRFRMOL),
-    newly defined here.
-  - 3rd trial is done at *FRFRMOL*, so its results are available for the next phase.
-  - By default, FRMOL is used as an upper bound, FRFRMOL as a lower bound.
-    - Adjustments may apply here for some cases e.g. when 2nd trial got
-      zero loss or if FRFRMOL is too close to FRMOL.
-- Middle phases are producing ending bounds by improving upon starting bounds:
-  - Each middle phase uses the same loss ratio goal as the final phase it precedes.
-    - Called *current loss ratio goal* for upper and lower bound purposes.
-  - Each middle phase has its own *current trial duration*
-    and *current precision goal* parameters, computed from
-    MLRsearch input parameters.
-    As phases progress, these parameters approach MLRsearch main input values.
-    - Current trial duration starts from a configurable minimum (e.g. 1 sec)
-      and increases in a geometric sequence.
-    - Current precision goal always allows twice as wide intervals
-      as the following phase.
-  - The starting bounds are usually the ending bounds from the preceding phase.
-    - Unless there are many previous trial results that are more promising.
-  - Each middle phase operates in a sequence of four actions:
-    1. Perform trial at the load between the starting bounds.
-      - Depending on the trial result this becomes the first
-        new valid upper or lower bound for current phase.
-    2. Re-measure at the remaining starting lower or upper (respectively) bound.
-    3. If that did not result in a valid bound, start an *external search*.
-      - That is a variant of exponential search.
-        - The "growth" is given by input parameter *expansion_coefficient*.
-      - This action ends when a new valid bound is found.
-        - Or if an already existing valid bound becomes close enough.
-    4. Repeatedly bisect the current interval until the bounds are close enough.
-- Final search phase operates in exactly the same way as middle phases.
-  There are two reasons why it is named differently:
-  - The current trial duration and current precision goal within the phase
-    are equal to the target trial duration and target precision input parameters.
-  - The forwarding rates of the ending bounds become the output of MLRsearch.
-    - Specifically, the forwarding rates of the final lower bounds
-      are the conditional throughput values per given loss ratio goals.
-
-## Enhancement: Multiple trials per load
-
-An enhancement of MLRsearch is to introduce a *noise tolerance* input parameter.
-The idea is to perform several medium-length trials (instead of a single long trial)
-and tolerate a configurable fraction of them to not-satisfy the loss ratio goal.
-
-MLRsearch implementation with this enhancement exists in FD.io CSIT project
-and test results of VPP and DPDK (testpmd, l3fwd) DUTs look promising.
-
-This enhancement would make the description of MLRsearch approach
-considerably more complicated, so this document version only describes
-MLRsearch without this enhancement.
-
-# How the problems are addressed
-
-Configurable loss ratio goals are in direct support for non-zero-loss conditional througput.
-In practice the conditional throughput results' stability
-increases with higher loss ratio goals.
-
-Multiple trials with noise tolerance enhancement will also indirectly
-increase result stability and it will allow MLRsearch
-to add all the benefits of Binary Search with Loss Verification,
-as recommended in [RFC9004] (section 6.2)
-and specified in [TST009] (section 12.3.3).
-
-The main factor improving the overall search time is the introduction
-of middle phases. The full implementation can bring a large number of
-heuristics related to how exactly should the next trial load be chosen,
-but the impact of those is not as big.
-
-The Description subsection lacks any details on how to handle inconsistent
-trial results. In practice, there tend to be a three-way trade-off
-between i) short overall search time, ii) result stability
-and iii) how simple the definition of the returned conditional throughput can be.
-The third one is important for comparability between different MLRsearch
-implementations.
-
-# IANA Considerations
-
-No requests of IANA.
-
-# Security Considerations
-
-Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
-technology characterization of a DUT/SUT using controlled stimuli in a
-laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
-specified in the sections above.
-
-The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup and
-MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic into
-a production network or misroute traffic to the test management network.
-
-Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
-solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
-
-Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
-benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
-from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
-networks.
-
-# Acknowledgements
-
-Many thanks to Alec Hothan of OPNFV NFVbench project for thorough
-review and numerous useful comments and suggestions.
-
---- back
diff --git a/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-04.md b/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-04.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..4db8506131
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-04.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1479 @@
+---
+title: Multiple Loss Ratio Search
+abbrev: MLRsearch
+docname: draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-04
+date: 2023-07-10
+
+ipr: trust200902
+area: ops
+wg: Benchmarking Working Group
+kw: Internet-Draft
+cat: info
+
+coding: us-ascii
+pi:    # can use array (if all yes) or hash here
+  toc: yes
+  sortrefs:   # defaults to yes
+  symrefs: yes
+
+author:
+      -
+        ins: M. Konstantynowicz
+        name: Maciek Konstantynowicz
+        org: Cisco Systems
+        email: mkonstan@cisco.com
+      -
+        ins: V. Polak
+        name: Vratko Polak
+        org: Cisco Systems
+        email: vrpolak@cisco.com
+
+normative:
+  RFC1242:
+  RFC2285:
+  RFC2544:
+  RFC9004:
+
+informative:
+  TST009:
+    target: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-TST/001_099/009/03.04.01_60/gs_NFV-TST009v030401p.pdf
+    title: "TST 009"
+  FDio-CSIT-MLRsearch:
+    target: https://csit.fd.io/cdocs/methodology/measurements/data_plane_throughput/mlr_search/
+    title: "FD.io CSIT Test Methodology - MLRsearch"
+    date: 2022-11
+  PyPI-MLRsearch:
+    target: https://pypi.org/project/MLRsearch/0.4.0/
+    title: "MLRsearch 0.4.0, Python Package Index"
+    date: 2021-04
+
+--- abstract
+
+This document proposes improvements to [RFC2544] throughput search by
+defining a new methodology called Multiple Loss Ratio search
+(MLRsearch). The main objectives for MLRsearch are to minimize the
+total test duration, search for multiple loss ratios and improve
+results repeatibility and comparability.
+
+The main motivation behind MLRsearch is the new set of challenges and
+requirements posed by testing Network Function Virtualization
+(NFV) systems and other software based network data planes.
+
+MLRsearch offers several ways to address these challenges, giving user
+configuration options to select their preferred way.
+
+--- middle
+
+{::comment}
+    As we use kramdown to convert from markdown,
+    we use this way of marking comments not to be visible in rendered draft.
+    https://stackoverflow.com/a/42323390
+    If other engine is used, convert to this way:
+    https://stackoverflow.com/a/20885980
+{:/comment}
+
+# Purpose and Scope
+
+The purpose of this document is to describe Multiple Loss Ratio search
+(MLRsearch), a throughput search methodology optimized for software
+DUTs.
+
+Applying vanilla [RFC2544] throughput bisection to software DUTs
+results in a number of problems:
+
+- Binary search takes too long as most of trials are done far from the
+  eventually found throughput.
+- The required final trial duration (and pauses between trials) also
+  prolong the overall search duration.
+- Software DUTs show noisy trial results (noisy neighbor problem),
+  leading to big spread of possible discovered throughput values.
+- Throughput requires loss of exactly zero packets, but the industry
+  frequently allows for small but non-zero losses.
+- The definition of throughput is not clear when trial results are
+  inconsistent.
+
+MLRsearch aims to address these problems by applying the following set
+of enhancements:
+
+- Allow searching for multiple search goals, with differing goal loss ratios.
+  - Each trial result can affect any search goal in principle
+    (trial reuse).
+- Multiple preceding targets for each search goal, earlier ones need
+  to spend less time on trials.
+  - Earlier targets also aim at lesser precision.
+  - Use Forwarding Rate (FR) at maximum offered load
+    [RFC2285] (section 3.6.2) to initialize the initial targets.
+- Take care when dealing with inconsistent trial results.
+  - Loss ratios goals are handled in an order that minimizes the chance
+    of interference from later trials to earlier goals.
+- Apply several load selection heuristics to save even more time
+  by trying hard to avoid unnecessarily narrow bounds.
+
+MLRsearch configuration options are flexible enough to
+support both conservative settings (unconditionally compliant with [RFC2544],
+but longer search duration and worse repeatability) and aggressive
+settings (shorter search duration and better repeatability but not
+compliant with [RFC2544]).
+
+No part of [RFC2544] is intended to be obsoleted by this document.
+
+# Terminology
+
+When a subsection is defining a term, the first paragraph
+acts as a definition. Other paragraphs are treated as a description,
+they provide additional details without being needed to define the term.
+
+Definitions should form a directed acyclic graph of dependencies.
+If a section contains subsections, the section definition
+may depend on the subsection definitions.
+Otherwise, any definition may depend on preceding definitions.
+In other words, if the section definition were to come after subsections,
+there would be no forward dependencies for people reading just definitions
+from start to finish.
+
+Descriptions provide motivations and explanations,
+they frequently reference terms defined only later.
+Motivations in section descriptions are the reason
+why section text comes before subsection text.
+
+## General notions
+
+General notions are the terms defined in this section.
+
+It is useful to define the following notions
+before delving into MLRsearch architecture,
+as the notions appear in multiple places
+with no place being special enough to host definition.
+
+### General and specific quantities
+
+General quantity is a quantity that may appear multiple times
+in MLRsearch specification, perhaps each time in a different role.
+The quantity when appearing in a single role is called
+a specific quantity.
+
+It is useful to define the general quantity,
+so definitions of specific quantities may refer to it.
+We say a specific quantity is based on a general quantity,
+if the specific quantity definition refers to and
+relies on the general quantity definition.
+
+It is natural to name specific quantities by adding an adjective
+(or a noun) to the name of the general quantity.
+But existing RFCs typically explicitly define a term acting
+in a specific role, so the RFC name directly refers to a specific
+quantity, while the corresponding general quantity
+is defined only implicitly.
+Therefore this documents defines general quantities explicitly,
+even if the same term already appears in an RFC.
+
+In practice, it is required to know which unit of measurement
+is used to accompany a numeric value of each quantity.
+The choice of a particular unit of measurement is not important
+for MLRsearch specification though, so specific units
+mentioned in this document are just examples or recommendations,
+not requirements.
+
+When reporting, it is REQUIRED to state the units used.
+
+### Composite
+
+A composite is a set of named attributes.
+Each attribute is either a specific quantity or a composite.
+
+MLRsearch specification frequently groups multiple specific quantities
+into a composite. Description of such a composite brings an insight
+to motivations why this or other terms are defined as they are.
+Such insight will be harder to communicate
+with the specific quantities alone.
+
+Also, it simplifies naming of specific quantities, as they usually can
+share a noun or adjective referring to their common composite.
+Most of relations between composites and their specific quantities
+can be described using plain English.
+
+Perhaps the only exception involves referring to specific quantities
+as attributes. For example if there is a composite called 'target',
+and one of its specific quantities is 'target width' defined using
+a general quantity 'width', we can say 'width is one of target attributes'.
+
+### SUT
+
+As defined in RFC 2285:
+The collective set of network devices to which stimulus is offered
+as a single entity and response measured.
+
+While RFC 2544 mostly refers to DUT as a single
+(network interconnecting) device, section 19 makes it clear
+multiple DUTs can be treated as a single system,
+so most of RFC 2544 also applies to testing SUT.
+
+MLRsearch specification only refers to SUT (not DUT),
+even if it consists of just a single device.
+
+### Trial
+
+A trial is the part of test described in RFC 2544 section 23.
+
+When traffic has been sent and SUT response has been observed,
+we say the trial has been performed, or the trial has been measured.
+Before that happens, multiple possibilities for upcoming trial
+may be under consideration.
+
+### Load
+
+Intended, constant load for a trial, usually in frames per second.
+
+Load is the general quantity implied by Constant Load of RFC 1242,
+Data Rate of RFC 2544 and Intended Load of RFC 2285.
+All three specify this value applies to one (input or output) interface,
+so we can talk about unidirectional load also
+when bidirectional or multi-port traffic is applied.
+
+MLRsearch does not rely on this distinction, it works also if
+the load values correspond to an aggregate rate
+(sum over all SUT tested input or output interface unidirectional loads),
+as long as all loads share the same semantics.
+
+Several RFCs define useful quantities based on Offered Load
+(instead of Intended Load), but MLRsearch specification
+works only with (intended) load. Those useful quantities
+still serve as motivations for few specific quantities used in MLRsearch
+specification.
+
+MLRsearch assumes most load values are positive.
+For some (but not all) specific quantities based on load,
+zero may also be a valid value.
+
+### Duration
+
+Intended duration of the traffic for a trial, usually in seconds.
+
+This general quantity does not include any preparation nor waiting
+described in section 23 of RFC 2544.
+Section 24 of RFC 2544 places additional restrictions on duration,
+but those restriction apply only to some of the specific quantities based
+on duration.
+
+Duration is always positive in MLRsearch.
+
+### Duration sum
+
+For a specific set of trials, this is the sum of their durations.
+
+Some of specific quantities based on duration sum are derived quantities,
+without a specific set of trials to sum their durations.
+
+Duration sum is never negative in MLRsearch.
+
+### Width
+
+General quantity defined for an ordered pair (lower and higher)
+of load values, which describes a distance between the two values.
+
+The motivation for the name comes from binary search.
+The binary search tries to approximate an unknown value
+by repeatedly bisecting an interval of possible values,
+until the interval becomes narrow enough.
+Width of the interval is a specific quantity
+and the termination condition compares that
+to another specific quantity acting as the threshold.
+The threshold value does not have a specific interval associated,
+but corresponds to a 'size' of the compared interval.
+As size is a word already used in definition of frame size,
+a more natural word describing interval is width.
+
+The MLRsearch specification does use (analogues of) upper bound
+and lower bound, but does not actually need to talk about intervals.
+Still, the intervals are implicitly there, so width is the natural name.
+
+Actually, there are two popular options for defining width.
+Absolute width is based on load, the value is the higher load
+minus the lower load.
+Relative width is dimensionless, the value is the absolute width
+divided by the higher load. As intended loads for trials are positive,
+relative width is between 0.0 (including) and 1.0 (excluding).
+
+Relative width as a threshold value may be useful for users
+who do not presume what is the typical performance of SUT,
+but absolute width may be a more familiar concept.
+
+MLRsearch specification does not prescribe which width has to be used,
+but widths MUST be either all absolute or all relative,
+and it MUST be clear from report which option was used
+(it is implied from the unit of measurement of any width value).
+
+### Loss ratio
+
+The loss ratio is a general quantity, dimensionless floating point value
+assumed to be between 0.0 and 1.0, both including.
+It is computed as the number of frames forwarded by SUT, divided by
+the number of frames that should have been forwarded during the trial.
+
+If the number of frames that should have been forwarded is zero,
+the loss ratio is considered to be zero
+(but it is better to use high enough loads to prevent this).
+
+Loss ratio is basically the same quantity as Frame Loss Rate of RFC 1242,
+just not expressed in percents.
+
+RFC1242 Frame Loss Rate:
+Percentage of frames that should have been forwarded
+by a network device under steady state (constant)
+load that were not forwarded due to lack of
+resources.
+
+(RFC2544 restricts Frame Loss Rate to a type of benchmark,
+for loads 100% of 'maximum rate', 90% and so on.)
+
+### Exceed ratio
+
+This general quantity is a dimensionless floating point value,
+defined using two duration sum quantities.
+One duration sum is referred to as the good duration sum,
+the other is referred to as the bad duration sum.
+The exceed ratio value is computed as the bad duration sum value
+divided by the sum of the two sums. If both sums are zero,
+the exceed ratio is undefined.
+
+As there are no negative duration sums in MLRsearch,
+exceed ratio values are between 0.0 and 1.0 (both including).
+
+## Architecture
+
+MLRsearch architecture consists of three main components:
+the manager, the controller and the measurer.
+
+The search algorithm is implemented in the controller,
+and it is the main focus of this document.
+
+Most implementation details of the manager and the measurer are
+out of scope of this document, except when describing
+how do those components interface with the controller.
+
+### Manager
+
+The manager is the component that initializes SUT, traffic generator
+(called tester in RFC 2544), the measurer and the controller
+with intended configurations. It then handles the execution
+to the controller and receives its result.
+
+Managers can range from simple CLI utilities to complex
+Continuous Integration systems. From the controller point of view
+it is important that no additional configuration (nor warmup)
+is needed for SUT and the measurer to perform trials.
+
+The interface between the manager and the controller
+is defined in the controller section.
+
+One execution of the controller is called a search.
+Some benchmarks may execute multiple searches on the same SUT
+(for example when confirming the performance is stable over time),
+but in this document only one invocation is concerned
+(others may be understood as the part of SUT preparation).
+
+Creation of reports of appropriate format can also be understood
+as the responsibility of the manager. This document places requirements
+on which information has to be reported.
+
+### Measurer
+
+The measurer is the component which performs one trial
+as described in RFC 2544 section 23, when requested by the controller.
+
+From the controller point of view, it is a function that accepts
+trial input and returns trial output.
+
+This is the only way the controller can interact with SUT.
+In practice, the measurer has to do subtle decisions
+when converting the observed SUT behavior into a single
+trial loss ratio value. For example how to deal with
+out of order frames or duplicate frames.
+
+On software implementation level, the measurer is a callable,
+injected by the manager into the controller instance.
+
+The act of performing one trial (act of turning trial input
+to trial output) is called a measurement, or trial measurement.
+This way we can talk about trials that were measured already
+and trials that are merely planned (not measured yet).
+
+#### Trial input
+
+The load and duration to use in an upcoming trial.
+
+This is a composite.
+
+Other quantities needed by the measurer are assumed to be constant
+and set up by the manager before search starts (see traffic profile),
+so they do not count as trial input attributes.
+
+##### Trial load
+
+Trial load is the intended load for the trial.
+
+This is a specific quantity based on load,
+directly corresponding to RFC 2285 intended load.
+
+##### Trial duration
+
+Trial duration is the intended duration for the trial.
+
+This is a specific quantity based on duration, so it specifies
+only the traffic part of the trial, not the waiting parts.
+
+#### Traffic profile
+
+Any other configuration values needed by the measurer to perform a trial.
+
+The measurer needs both trial input and traffic profile to perform the trial.
+As trial input contains the only values that vary during one the search,
+traffic profile remains constant during the search.
+
+Traffic profile when understood as a composite is REQUIRED by RFC 2544
+to contain some specific quantities (for example frame size).
+Several more specific quantities may be RECOMMENDED.
+
+Depending on SUT configuration (e.g. when testing specific protocols),
+additional values need to be included in the traffic profile
+and in the test report. (See other IETF documents.)
+
+#### Trial ouput
+
+A composite consisting of trial loss ratio
+and trial forwarding rate.
+
+Those are the only two specific quantities (among other quantities
+possibly measured in the trial, for example offered load)
+that are important for MLRsearch.
+
+##### Trial loss ratio
+
+Trial loss ratio is a specific quantity based on loss ratio.
+The value is related to a particular measured trial,
+as measured by the measurer.
+
+##### Trial forwarding rate
+
+Trial forwarding rate is a derived quantity.
+It is computed as one minus trial loss ratio,
+that multiplied by trial load.
+
+Despite the name, the general quantity this specific quantity
+corresponds to is load (not rate).
+The name is inspired by RFC 2285, which defines Forwarding Rate
+specific to one output interface.
+
+As the definition of loss ratio is not neccessarily per-interface
+(one of details left for the measurer), using the definition above
+(instead of RFC 2285) makes sure trial forwarding rate
+is always between zero and the trial load (both including).
+
+#### Trial result
+
+Trial result is a composite consisting of trial input attributes
+and trial output attributes.
+
+Those are all specific quantites related to a measured trial MLRsearch needs.
+
+While distinction between trial input and output is important
+when defining the interface between the controller and the measurer,
+it is easier to talk about trial result
+when describing how measured trials influence the controller behavior.
+
+### Controller
+
+The component of MLRsearch architecture that calls the measurer
+and returns conditional throughputs to the manager.
+
+This component implements the search algorithm,
+the main content of this document.
+
+Contrary to Throughput as defined in RFC 1242,
+the definition of conditional throughput is quite sensitive
+to the controller input (as provided by the manager),
+and its full definition needs several terms
+which would otherwise be hidden as internals of the controller
+implementation.
+
+The ability of conditional throughput to be less sensitive
+to performance variance, and the ability of the controller
+to find conditional throughputs for multiple search goals
+within one search (and in short overall search time)
+are strong enough motivations for the need of increased complexity.
+
+### Controller input
+
+A composite of max load, min load, and a set of search goals.
+
+The search goals (as elements of the set of search goals)
+are usually not named and unordered.
+
+It is fine if all search goals of the set have the same value
+of a particular attribute. In that case, the common value
+may be treated as a global attribute (similarly to max and min load).
+
+The set of search goals MUST NOT be empty.
+Two search goals within the set MUST differ in at least one attribute.
+The manager MAY avoid both issues by presenting empty report
+or de-duplicating the search goals, but it is RECOMMENDED
+for the manager to raise an error to its caller,
+as the two conditions suggest the test is improperly configured.
+
+#### Max load
+
+Max load is a specific quantity based on load.
+No trial load is ever higher than this value.
+
+RFC 2544 section 20 defines maximum frame rate
+based on theoretical maximum rate for the frame size on the media.
+RFC 2285 section 3.5.3 specifies Maximum offered load (MOL)
+which may be lower than maximum frame rate.
+There may be other limitations preventing high loads,
+for examples resources available to traffic generator.
+
+The manager is expected to provide a value that is not greater
+than any known limitation. Alternatively, the measurer
+is expected to work at max load, possibly reporting as lost
+any frames that were not able to leave Traffic Generator.
+
+From the controller point of view, this is merely a global upper limit
+for any trial load candidates.
+
+#### Min load
+
+Min load is a specific quantity based on load.
+No trial load is ever lower than this value.
+
+The motivation of this quantity is to prevent trials
+with too few frames sent to SUT.
+
+Also, practically if a SUT is able to reach only very small
+forwarding rates (min load indirectly serves as a threshold for how small),
+it may be considered faulty (or perhaps the test is misconfigured).
+
+#### Search goal
+
+A composite of 7 attributes (see subsections).
+
+If not otherwise specified, 'goal' always refers to a search goal
+in this document.
+
+The controller input may contain multiple search goals.
+The name Multiple Loss Ratio search was created back when
+goal loss ratio was the only attribute allowed to vary between goals.
+
+Each goal will get its conditional throughput discovered
+and reported at the end of the search.
+
+The definitions of the 7 attributes are not very informative by themselves.
+Their motivation (and naming) becomes more clear
+from the impact they have on conditional throughput.
+
+##### Goal loss ratio
+
+A specific quantity based on loss ratio.
+A threshold value for trial loss ratios.
+MUST be lower than one.
+
+Trial loss ratio values will be compared to this value,
+a trial will be considered bad if its loss ratio is higher than this.
+
+For example, RFC 2544 throughput has goal loss ratio of zero,
+a trial is bad once a sigle frame is lost.
+
+Loss ratio of one would classify each trial as good (regardless of loss),
+which is not useful.
+
+##### Goal initial trial duration
+
+A specific quantity based on duration.
+A threshold value for trial durations.
+MUST be positive.
+
+MLRsearch is allowed to use trials as short as this when focusing
+on this goal.
+The conditional throughput may be influenced by shorter trials,
+(measured when focusing on other search goals).
+
+{::comment}
+    FIXME: Should shorter trials be explicitly ignored?
+{:/comment}
+
+##### Goal final trial duration
+
+A specific quantity based on duration.
+A threshold value for trial durations.
+MUST be no smaller than goal initial trial duration.
+
+MLRsearch is allowed to use trials as long as this when focusing
+on this goal. If more data is needed, repeated trials
+at the same load and duration are requested by the controller.
+
+##### Goal min duration sum
+
+A specific quantity based on duration sum.
+A threshold value for a particular duration sum.
+
+MLRsearch requires at least this amount of (effective) trials
+for a particular load to become part of MLRsearch outputs.
+
+It is possible (though maybe not prectical) for goal min duration sum
+to be smaller than goal final trial duration.
+
+In practice, the sum of durations actually spent on trial measurement
+can be smaller (when trial results are quite one-sided) or even larger
+(in presence of shorter-than-final trial duration results at the same load).
+
+If the sum of all (good and bad) long trials is at least this,
+and there are no short trials, then the load is guaranteed
+to be classified as either an upper or a lower bound.
+
+In some cases, the classification is known sooner,
+when the 'missing' trials cannot change the outcome.
+
+When short trials are present, the logic is more complicated.
+
+##### Goal exceed ratio
+
+A specific quantity based on exceed ratio.
+A threshold value for particulat sets of trials.
+
+An attribute used for classifying loads into upper and lower bounds.
+
+If the duration sum of all (current duration) trials is at least
+min duration sum, and more than this percentage of the duration sum
+comes from bad trials, this load is an upper bound.
+
+If there are shorter duration trials, the logic is more complicated.
+
+##### Goal width
+
+A specific quantity based on width.
+A threshold value for a particular width.
+MUST be positive.
+
+This defines the exit condition for this search goal.
+
+Relevant bounds (of the final target) need to be this close
+before conditional throughput can be reported.
+
+##### Preceding targets
+
+A non-negative integer affecting the behavior of the controller.
+
+How many additional non-final targets to add.
+Each next preceding target has double width
+and min duration sum geometrically closer to initial trial duration.
+
+The usage of preceding targets is an important source
+of MLRsearch time savings (compared to simpler search algorithms).
+
+Having this value configurable lets the manager
+tweak the overall search duration based on presumed knowledge
+of SUT performance stability.
+
+### Controller internals
+
+Terms not directly corresponding to the controller's input nor output,
+but needed indirectly as dependencies of the conditional throughput
+definition.
+
+Following these definitions specifies virtually all of the controller
+(MLRsearch algorithm) logic.
+
+#### Pre-initial trials
+
+Up to three special trials executed at the start of the search.
+The first trial load is max load,
+subsequent trial load are computed from preceding trial
+forwarding rate.
+
+The main loop of the controller logic needs at least one trial result,
+and time is saved if the trial results are close to future conditional
+throughput values.
+
+The exact way to compute load for second and third trial
+(and whether even measure second or third trial)
+are not specified here, as the implementation details
+have negligible effect on the reported conditional throughput.
+
+{::comment}
+    TODO: Still, recommend something like this:
+    Loads need to fit several different initial targets at once.
+    Duration is the largest among initial trial durations,
+    loads are computed from forwarding rate an smallest loss ratio goal.
+    Also, the initial target current width is set based on these.
+{:/comment}
+
+#### Search target
+
+A composite of 5 specific quantites (see subsections).
+Frequently called just target.
+
+Similar to (but distinct from) the search goal.
+
+Each search goal prescribes a final target,
+probably with a chain of preceding targets.
+
+More details in the Derived targets section.
+
+##### Target loss ratio
+
+Same as loss ratio of the corresponding goal.
+
+##### Target exceed ratio
+
+Same as exceed ratio of the corresponding goal.
+
+##### Target width
+
+Similar to goal width attribute.
+Doubled from goal width for each level of preceding target.
+
+##### Target min duration sum
+
+Similar to goal min duration sum attribute.
+Geometrically interpolated between
+initial target duration and goal min duration sum.
+
+##### Target trial duration
+
+When MLRsearch focuses on this target, it measures trials
+with this duration.
+The value is equal to the minimum of goal final trial duration
+and target min duration sum.
+
+Also, this value is used to classify trial results
+as short (if trial duration is shorter than this) or long.
+
+#### Derived targets
+
+After receiving the set of search goals,
+MLRsearch internally derives a set of search targets.
+
+The derived targets can be seen as forming a chain,
+from initial target to final target.
+The chain is linked by a reference from a target to its preceding
+(towarsds initial) target.
+
+The reference may be implemented as 6th attribute od target.
+
+##### Final target
+
+The final target is the target where the most of attribute values
+are directly copied from the coresponding search goal.
+Final target width is the same as goal width,
+final target trial duration is the same as goal final trial duration,
+and final target min duration sum is the same
+as the goal min duration sum.
+
+The conditional throughput is found when focusing on the final target.
+All non-final targets do not directly affect the conditional throughput,
+they are there just as an optimization.
+
+##### Preceding target
+
+Each target may have a preceding target.
+Goal attribute Preceding targets governs how many targets are created
+in addition to the final target corresponding to the search goal.
+
+Any preceding target has double width, meaning one balanced bisection
+is needed to reduce preceding target width to the next target width.
+
+Preceding target min duration sum is exponentially smaller,
+aiming for prescribed initial target min duration sum.
+
+Preceding target trial duration is either its min duration sum,
+or the corresponding goal's final trial duration, whichever is smaller.
+
+As the preceding min duration sum is shorter than the next duration sum,
+MLRsearch is able to achieve the preceding target width
+sooner (than with the next target min duration sum).
+
+This way an approximation of the conditional throughput is found,
+with the next target needing not as much time to improve the approximation
+(compared to not starting with the approximation).
+
+##### Initial target
+
+Initial target is a target without any other target preceding it.
+Initial target min duration sum is equal to the corresponding goal's
+initial trial duration.
+
+As a consequence, initial target trial duration is equal to its min duration sum.
+
+#### Trial classification
+
+Any trial result can be classified according to any target along two axes.
+
+The two classifications are independent.
+
+This classification is important for defining the conditional throughput.
+
+##### Short trial
+
+If the (measured) trial duration is shorter than
+the target trial duration, the trial is called long.
+
+##### Long trial
+
+If the (measured) trial duration is not shorter than
+the target trial duration, the trial is called long.
+
+##### Bad trial
+
+If the (measured) trial loss ratio is larger than the target loss ratio,
+the trial is called bad.
+
+For example, if the target loss ratio is zero,
+a trial is bad as soon as one frame was lost.
+
+##### Good trial
+
+If the (measured) trial loss ratio is not larger than the target loss ratio,
+the trial is called good.
+
+For example, if the target loss ratio is zero,
+a trial is good only when there were no frames lost.
+
+#### Load stat
+
+A composite of 8 quantities (see subsections)
+The quantites depend on a target and a load,
+and are computed from all trials measured at that load so far.
+
+The MLRsearch output is the conditional througput,
+which is a specific quantity based on load.
+As MLRsearch may measure multiple trials at the same load,
+and those trials may not have the same duration,
+we need a way to classify a set of trial results at the same load.
+
+As the logic is not as straightforward as in other parts
+of MLRsearch algorithm, it is best defined using the following
+derived quantities.
+
+Load stat is the composite for one load and one target.
+Set of load stats for one load an all targets is commonly called load stats.
+
+##### Long good duration sum
+
+Sum of durations of all long good trials
+(at this load, according to this target).
+
+##### Long bad duration sum
+
+Sum of durations of all long bad trials
+(at this load, according to this target).
+
+##### Short good duration sum
+
+Sum of durations of all short good trials
+(at this load, according to this target).
+
+##### Short bad duration sum
+
+Sum of durations of all short bad trials
+(at this load, according to this target).
+
+##### Effective bad duration sum
+
+One divided by tagret exceed ratio, that plus one.
+Short good duration sum divided by that.
+Short bad duration sum minus that, or zero if that would be negative.
+Long bad duration sum plus that is the effective bad duration sum.
+
+Effective bad duration sum is the long bad duration sum
+plus some fraction of short bad duration sum.
+The fraction is between zero and one (both possibly including).
+
+If there are no short good trials, effective bad duration sum
+becomes the duration sum of all bad trials (long or short).
+
+If an exceed ratio computed from short good duration sum
+and short bad duration sum is equal or smaller than the target exceed ratio,
+effective bad duration sum is equal to just long bad duration sum.
+
+Basically, short good trials can only lessen the impact
+of short bad trials, while short bad trials directly contribute
+(unless lessened).
+
+A typical example of why a goal needs higher final trial duration
+than initial trial duration is when SUT is expected to have large buffers,
+so a trial may be too short to see frame losses due to
+a buffer becoming full. So a short good trial does not give strong information.
+On the other hand, short bad trial is a strong hint SUT would lose many frames
+at that load and long duration.
+But if there is a mix of short bad and short good trials,
+MLRsearch should not cherry-pick only the short bad ones.
+
+The presented way of computing the effective bad duration sum
+aims to be a fair treatment of short good trials.
+
+If the target exceed ratio is zero, the given definition contains
+positive infinty as an intermediate value, but still simplifies
+to a finite result (long bad duration sum plus short bad duration sum).
+
+##### Missing duration sum
+
+The target min duration sum minus effective bad duration sum
+and minus long good duration sum, or zero if that would be negative.
+
+MLRsearch may need up to this duration sum of additional long trials
+before classifing the load.
+
+##### Optimistic exceed ratio
+
+The specific quantity based on exceed ratio, where bad duration sum is
+the effective bad duration sum, and good duration sum is
+the long good duration sum plus the missing duration sum.
+
+This is the value MLRsearch would compare to target exceed ratio
+assuming all of the missing duration sum ends up consisting of long good trials.
+
+If there was a bad long trial, optimistic exceed ratio
+becomes larger than zero.
+Additionally, if the target exceed ratio is zero, optimistic exceed ratio
+becomes larger than zero even on one short bad trial.
+
+##### Pessimistic exceed ratio
+
+The specific quantity based on exceed ratio, where bad duration sum is
+the effective bad duration sum plus the missing duration sum,
+and good duration sum is the long good duration sum.
+
+This is the value MLRsearch would compare to target exceed ratio
+assuming all of the missing duration sum ends up consisting of bad good trials.
+
+Note that if the missing duration sum is zero,
+optimistic exceed ratio becomes equal to pessimistic exceed ratio.
+
+This is the role target min duration sum has,
+it guarantees the two load exceed ratios eventually become the same.
+Otherwise, pessimistic exceed ratio
+is always bigger than the optimistic exceed ratio.
+
+Depending on trial results, the missing duration sum may not be large enough
+to change optimistic (or pessimistic) exceed ratio
+to move to the other side compared to target exceed ratio.
+In that case, MLRsearch does not need to measure more trials
+at this load when focusing on this target.
+
+#### Target bounds
+
+With respect to a target, some loads may be classified as upper or lower bound,
+and some of the bounds are treated as relevant.
+
+The subsequent parts of MLRsearch rely only on relevant bounds,
+without the need to classify other loads.
+
+##### Upper bound
+
+A load is classified as an upper bound for a target,
+if and only if both optimistic exceed ratio
+and pessimstic load exceed ratio are larger than the target exceed ratio.
+
+During the search, it is possible there is no upper bound,
+for example because every measured load still has too high
+missing duration sum.
+
+If the target exceed ratio is zero, and the load has at least one bad trial
+(short or long), the load becomes an upper bound.
+
+##### Lower bound
+
+A load is classified as a lower bound for a target,
+if and only if both optimistic exceed ratio
+and pessimstic load exceed ratio are no larger than the target exceed ratio.
+
+During the search, it is possible there is no lower bound,
+for example because every measured load still has too high
+missing duration sum.
+
+If the target exceed ratio is zero, all trials at the load of
+a lower bound must be good trials (short or long).
+
+Note that so far it is possible for a lower bound to be higher
+than an upper bound.
+
+##### Relevant upper bound
+
+For a target, a load is the relevant upper bound,
+if and only if it is an upper bound, and all other upper bounds
+are larger (as loads).
+
+In some cases, the max load when classified as a lower bound
+is also effectively treated as the relevant upper bound.
+(In that case both relevant bounds are equal.)
+
+If that happens for a final target at the end of the search,
+the controller output may contain max load as the relevant upper bound
+(even if the goal exceed ratio was not exceeded),
+signalling SUT performs well even at max load.
+
+If the target exceed ratio is zero, the relevant upper bound
+is the smallest load where a bad trial (short or long) has been measured.
+
+##### Relevant lower bound
+
+For a target, a load is the relevant lower bound if two conditions hold.
+Both optimistic exceed ratio and pessimstic load exceed ratio
+are no larger than the target exceed ratio,
+and there is no smaller load classified as an upper bound.
+
+This is a second place where MLRsearch is not symmetric
+(the first place was effective bad duration sum).
+
+While it is not likely for a MLRsearch to find a smaller upper bound
+and a larger load satisfying first condition for the lower bound,
+it still may happen and MLRsearch has to deal with it.
+The second condition makes sure the relevant lower bound
+is smaller than the relevant upper bound.
+
+In some cases, the min load when classified as an upper bound
+is also effectively treated as the relevant lower bound.
+(In that case both relevant bounds are equal.)
+
+If that happens for a final target at the end of the search,
+the controller output may contain min load as the relevant lower bound
+even if the exceed ratio was 'overstepped',
+signalizing the SUT does not even reach the minimal required performance.
+
+The manager has to make sure this is distingushed in report
+from cases where min rate is a legitimate conditional throughput
+(e.g. the exceed ratio was not overstepped at the min load).
+
+##### Relevant bounds
+
+The pair of the relevant lower bound and the relevant upper bound.
+
+Useful for determining the width of the relevant bounds.
+Any of the bounds may be the effective one (max load or min load).
+
+A goal is achieved (at the end of the search) when the final target's
+relevant bounds have width no larger than the goal width.
+
+#### Candidate selector
+
+A stateful object (a finite state machine)
+focusing on a single target, used to determine next trial input.
+
+Initialized for a pair of targets:
+the current target and its preceding target (if any).
+
+Private state (not shared with other selectors) consists of mode and flags.
+Public state (shared with all selectors) is the actual relevant bounds
+for both targets (current and precedinig).
+
+After accepting a trial result, each selector can nominate
+one candidate (or no candidate) for the next trial measurement.
+
+##### Current target
+
+This is the target this selector tries to achieve.
+
+##### Preceding target
+
+The target (if any) preceding to the current target.
+
+While this selector does not focus on the preceding target,
+the relevant bounds for the preceding target are used as hints
+when the current bound does not have enough of its relevant bounds.
+
+##### Candidate
+
+The trial input (if any) this selecor nominates.
+
+The trial duration attribute is always the current target trial duration.
+The trial load attribute depends on the selector state.
+
+Candidates have defined ordering, to simplify finding the winner.
+If load differs, the candidate with lower load is preferred.
+If load is the same but duration differs, the candidate
+with larger duration is preferred.
+
+##### Selector mode
+
+During its lifetime, selector proceeds through the following modes.
+In order, but some modes may be skipped or revisited.
+
+Each mode has its own strategy of determining the candidate load (if any).
+
+###### Waiting
+
+Not enough relevant bounds (even for the preceding target).
+In this mode, the selector abstains from nominating a candidate.
+
+This selector leaves this mode when preceding target's selector is done.
+
+###### Halving
+
+Candidate is in the middle of the relevant bounds of the preceding target.
+
+If the relevant bounds are narrow enough already, this mode is skipped.
+As the preceding target had double width, just one halving load
+needs to be measured.
+
+Selector uses a flag to avoid re-entering this mode
+once it finished measuring the halved load.
+
+###### Upgrading
+
+This mode activates when one relevant bound for the current target is present
+and there is a matching relevant bound of the preceding target
+within the current target width.
+Candidate is the load of the matching bound from the preceding target.
+
+At most one bound load is measured, depending on halving outcome.
+Private flags are used to avoid upgrading at later times
+once selector finished measuring the upgraded load.
+
+###### Extending
+
+Refined already but the other relevant bound for the current target
+is still missing.
+Nominate new candidate according to external search.
+Initial target selectors skip all previous modes.
+
+A private value is used to track the width to be used in next load extension
+(increasing geometrically).
+For initial target selectors, the starting width may be chosen
+based on pre-initial trial results.
+
+If both relevant bounds are present at the current load,
+but the lower bound is far away (compared to tracked width),
+the candidate from this mode is preferred (as long as the load
+is larger than the candidate load of bisecting mode).
+
+###### Bisecting
+
+Both relevant bounds for the current target are available, but they are too far
+from each other. Candidate is in the middle.
+
+Contrary to halving, the candidate load does not need to be at the exact middle.
+For example if the width of the current relevant bounds
+is three times as large as the target width,
+it is advantageous to split the interval in 1:2 ratio
+(choosing the lower candidate load), as it can save one bisect.
+
+###### Done
+
+Both relevant bounds for the current target are available,
+the width is no larger than the target width.
+No candidate.
+
+If a selector reaches the done state,
+it is still possible later trials invalidate its relevant lower bound
+(by proving a lower load is in fact a new uper bound),
+making the selector transition into extending or bisecting mode.
+
+##### Active selector
+
+Derived from a common goal, the earliest selector which nominates a candidate
+is considered to be the active selector for this goal.
+Candidates from other selectors of the same goal are ignored.
+
+It is quite possible selectors focusing on other goals
+have already found a lower bound relevant to multiple targets in a chain.
+In that case, we want the most-initial of the target selectors
+(not already in done mode) to have the nomination.
+
+Otherwise (when in extending mode and missun relevant upper bound)
+the closer-to-final selectors would nominate candidates
+at lower load but at too high duration sum,
+preventing some of the time savings.
+
+##### Winner
+
+If the candidate previously nominated by a selector was the one
+that got measured, the candidate is called a winner.
+
+A selector observing its previous candidate was a winer
+can use simplified logic when determining the mode,
+as it knows no other selectors may have changed the relevant loads unexpectedly.
+
+### Controller output
+
+The output object the controller returns to the manager
+is a mapping assigning each search goal its conditional output (if it exists).
+
+The controller MAY include more information (if manager accepts it),
+for example load stat at relevant bounds.
+
+There MAY be several ways how to communicate the fact a conditional output
+does not exist (e.g. min load is classified as an upper bound).
+The manager MUST NOT present min load as a conditional output in that case.
+
+If max load is a lower bound, it leads to a valid conditional output value.
+
+#### Conditional throughput
+
+The conditional throughput is the average of trial forwarding rates
+across long good trials measured at the (offered load classified as)
+relevant lower bound (for the goal, at the end of the search).
+The average is the weighted arithmetic mean, weighted by trial duration.
+
+If the goal exceed ratio is zero, the definition of the relevant bounds
+simplifies significantly.
+If additionally the goal loss ratio is zero,
+and the goal min duration sum is equal to goal final trial duration,
+conditional throughput becomes conditionally compliant with RFC 2544 throughput.
+If the goal final trial duration is at least 60 seconds,
+the conditional througput becomes unconditionally compliant
+with RFC 2544 throughput.
+
+# Problems
+
+## Long Test Duration
+
+Emergence of software DUTs, with frequent software updates and a
+number of different packet processing modes and configurations, drives
+the requirement of continuous test execution and bringing down the test
+execution time.
+
+In the context of characterising particular DUT's network performance, this
+calls for improving the time efficiency of throughput search.
+A vanilla bisection (at 60sec trial duration for unconditional [RFC2544]
+compliance) is slow, because most trials spend time quite far from the
+eventual throughput.
+
+[RFC2544] does not specify any stopping condition for throughput search,
+so users can trade-off between search duration and achieved precision.
+But, due to exponential behavior of bisection, small improvement
+in search duration needs relatively big sacrifice in the throughput precision.
+
+## DUT within SUT
+
+[RFC2285] defines:
+- *DUT* as
+  - The network forwarding device to which stimulus is offered and
+    response measured [RFC2285] (section 3.1.1).
+- *SUT* as
+  - The collective set of network devices to which stimulus is offered
+    as a single entity and response measured [RFC2285] (section 3.1.2).
+
+[RFC2544] specifies a test setup with an external tester stimulating the
+networking system, treating it either as a single DUT, or as a system
+of devices, an SUT.
+
+In case of software networking, the SUT consists of a software program
+processing packets (device of interest, the DUT),
+running on a server hardware and using operating system functions as appropriate,
+with server hardware resources shared across all programs
+and the operating system.
+
+DUT is effectively "nested" within SUT.
+
+Due to a shared multi-tenant nature of SUT, DUT is subject to
+interference (noise) coming from the operating system and any other
+software running on the same server. Some sources of noise can be
+eliminated (e.g. by pinning DUT program threads to specific CPU cores
+and isolating those cores to avoid context switching). But some
+noise remains after all such reasonable precautions are applied. This
+noise does negatively affect DUT's network performance. We refer to it
+as an *SUT noise*.
+
+DUT can also exhibit fluctuating performance itself, e.g. while performing
+some "stop the world" internal stateful processing. In many cases this
+may be an expected per-design behavior, as it would be observable even
+in a hypothetical scenario where all sources of SUT noise are
+eliminated. Such behavior affects trial results in a way similar to SUT
+noise. We use *noise* as a shorthand covering both *DUT fluctuations* and
+genuine SUT noise.
+
+A simple model of SUT performance consists of a baseline *noiseless performance*,
+and an additional noise. The baseline is assumed to be constant (enough).
+The noise varies in time, sometimes wildly. The noise can sometimes be negligible,
+but frequently it lowers the observed SUT performance in a trial.
+
+In this model, SUT does not have a single performance value, it has a spectrum.
+One end of the spectrum is the noiseless baseline,
+the other end is a *noiseful performance*. In practice, trial results
+close to the noiseful end of the spectrum happen only rarely.
+The worse performance, the more rarely it is seen in a trial.
+
+Focusing on DUT, the benchmarking effort should aim
+at eliminating only the SUT noise from SUT measurement.
+But that is not really possible, as there are no realistic enough models
+able to distinguish SUT noise from DUT fluctuations.
+
+However, assuming that a well-constructed SUT has the DUT as its
+performance bottleneck, the "DUT noiseless performance" can be defined
+as the noiseless end of SUT performance spectrum. (At least for
+throughput. For other quantities such as latency there will be an
+additive difference.) By this definition, DUT noiseless performance
+also minimizes the impact of DUT fluctuations.
+
+In this document, we reduce the "DUT within SUT" problem to estimating
+the noiseless end of SUT performance spectrum from a limited number of
+trial results.
+
+Any improvements to throughput search algorithm, aimed for better
+dealing with software networking SUT and DUT setup, should employ
+strategies recognizing the presence of SUT noise, and allow discovery of
+(proxies for) DUT noiseless performance
+at different levels of sensitivity to SUT noise.
+
+## Repeatability and Comparability
+
+[RFC2544] does not suggest to repeat throughput search. And from just one
+throughput value, it cannot be determined how repeatable that value is.
+In practice, poor repeatability is also the main cause of poor
+comparability, e.g. different benchmarking teams can test the same SUT
+but get different throughput values.
+
+[RFC2544] throughput requirements (60s trial, no tolerance to single frame loss)
+force the search to fluctuate close the noiseful end of SUT performance
+spectrum. As that end is affected by rare trials of significantly low
+performance, the resulting throughput repeatability is poor.
+
+The repeatability problem is the problem of defining a search procedure
+which reports more stable results
+(even if they can no longer be called "throughput" in [RFC2544] sense).
+According to baseline (noiseless) and noiseful model, better repeatability
+will be at the noiseless end of the spectrum.
+Therefore, solutions to the "DUT within SUT" problem
+will help also with the repeatability problem.
+
+Conversely, any alteration to [RFC2544] throughput search
+that improves repeatability should be considered
+as less dependent on the SUT noise.
+
+An alternative option is to simply run a search multiple times, and report some
+statistics (e.g. average and standard deviation). This can be used
+for "important" tests, but it makes the search duration problem even
+more pronounced.
+
+## Throughput with Non-Zero Loss
+
+[RFC1242] (section 3.17) defines throughput as:
+    The maximum rate at which none of the offered frames
+    are dropped by the device.
+
+and then it says:
+    Since even the loss of one frame in a
+    data stream can cause significant delays while
+    waiting for the higher level protocols to time out,
+    it is useful to know the actual maximum data
+    rate that the device can support.
+
+Contrary to that, many benchmarking teams settle with non-zero
+(small) loss ratio as the goal for a "throughput rate".
+
+Motivations are many: modern protocols tolerate frame loss better;
+trials nowadays send way more frames within the same duration;
+impact of rare noise bursts is smaller as the baseline performance
+can compensate somewhat by keeping the loss ratio below the goal;
+if SUT noise with "ideal DUT" is known, it can be set as the loss ratio goal.
+
+Regardless of validity of any and all similar motivations,
+support for non-zero loss goals makes any search algorithm more user-friendly.
+[RFC2544] throughput is not friendly in this regard.
+
+Searching for multiple goal loss ratios also helps to describe the SUT
+performance better than a single goal result. Repeated wide gap between
+zero and non-zero loss conditional throughputs indicates
+the noise has a large impact on the overall SUT performance.
+
+It is easy to modify the vanilla bisection to find a lower bound
+for intended load that satisfies a non-zero-loss goal,
+but it is not that obvious how to search for multiple goals at once,
+hence the support for multiple loss goals remains a problem.
+
+## Inconsistent Trial Results
+
+While performing throughput search by executing a sequence of
+measurement trials, there is a risk of encountering inconsistencies
+between trial results.
+
+The plain bisection never encounters inconsistent trials.
+But [RFC2544] hints about possibility if inconsistent trial results in two places.
+The first place is section 24 where full trial durations are required, presumably
+because they can be inconsistent with results from shorter trial durations.
+The second place is section 26.3 where two successive zero-loss trials
+are recommended, presumably because after one zero-loss trial
+there can be subsequent inconsistent non-zero-loss trial.
+
+Examples include:
+
+- a trial at the same load (same or different trial duration) results
+  in a different packet loss ratio.
+- a trial at higher load (same or different trial duration) results
+  in a smaller packet loss ratio.
+
+Any robust throughput search algorithm needs to decide how to continue
+the search in presence of such inconsistencies.
+Definitions of throughput in [RFC1242] and [RFC2544] are not specific enough
+to imply a unique way of handling such inconsistencies.
+
+Ideally, there will be a definition of a quantity which both generalizes
+throughput for non-zero-loss (and other possible repeatibility enhancements),
+while being precise enough to force a specific way to resolve trial
+inconsistencies.
+But until such definition is agreed upon, the correct way to handle
+inconsistent trial results remains an open problem.
+
+# How the problems are addressed
+
+Configurable loss ratio in MLRsearch search goals are there
+in direct support for non-zero-loss conditional throughput.
+In practice the conditional throughput results' stability
+increases with higher loss ratio goals.
+
+Multiple trials with noise tolerance enhancement,
+as implemented in MLRsearch using non-zero goal exceed ratio value,
+also indirectly increases the result stability.
+That allows MLRsearch to achieve all the benefits
+of Binary Search with Loss Verification,
+as recommended in [RFC9004] (section 6.2)
+and specified in [TST009] (section 12.3.3).
+
+The main factor improving the overall search time is the introduction
+of preceding targets. Less impactful time savings
+are achieved by pre-initial trials, halving mode
+and smart splitting in bisecting mode.
+
+In several places, MLRsearch is "conservative" when handling
+(potentially) inconsistent results. This includes the requirement
+for the relevant lower bound to be smaller than any upper bound,
+the unequal handling of good and bad short trials,
+and preference to lower load when choosing the winner among candidates.
+
+While this does no guarantee good search stability
+(goals focusing on higher loads may still invalidate existing bounds
+simply by requiring larger min duration sums),
+it lowers the change of SUT having an area of poorer performance
+below the reported conditional througput loads.
+In any case, the definition of conditional throughput
+is precise enough to dictate "conservative" handling
+of trial inconsistencies.
+
+# IANA Considerations
+
+No requests of IANA.
+
+# Security Considerations
+
+Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
+technology characterization of a DUT/SUT using controlled stimuli in a
+laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
+specified in the sections above.
+
+The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup and
+MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic into
+a production network or misroute traffic to the test management network.
+
+Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
+solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
+
+Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
+benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
+from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
+networks.
+
+# Acknowledgements
+
+Many thanks to Alec Hothan of OPNFV NFVbench project for thorough
+review and numerous useful comments and suggestions.
+
+--- back
diff --git a/docs/ietf/process.txt b/docs/ietf/process.txt
index 261756fc8a..78f7d7f34f 100644
--- a/docs/ietf/process.txt
+++ b/docs/ietf/process.txt
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Copyright (c) 2022 Cisco and/or its affiliates.
+# Copyright (c) 2023 Cisco and/or its affiliates.
 # Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
 # you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
 # You may obtain a copy of the License at:
@@ -15,10 +15,14 @@
 Commands to convert RFC text from .md (so I do not need to search next time).
 
 Initial:
-$ kdrfc --version
+$ sudo aptitude install ruby-rubygems
 $ sudo gem install kramdown-rfc2629
+$ kdrfc --version
 
 Main:
-$ kdrfc draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-03.md
+$ kdrfc draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-04.md
+
+If that complains, do it manually at https://author-tools.ietf.org/
 
-If that complains, do it manually at https://author-tools.ietf.org/
\ No newline at end of file
+Finally:
+https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits