From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Jan 2 05:38:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFCB21F8A6F for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 05:38:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tNXlqQXmLseP for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 05:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr8.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr8.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F0D21F8A71 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 05:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr8.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q02Dbrju060900 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:37:53 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F01B330.4080806@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:37:52 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <20120102124204.27668.58844.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120102124204.27668.58844.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120102124204.27668.58844.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:38:25 -0000 IPPM group, Happy new year. Authors: Please update this draft. All others: please read and comment on this document so we can finish it. Henk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 04:42:04 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat To: acmorton@att.com, gomathi@att.com, gmaguluri@att.com CC: Henk Uijterwaal , Matthew Zekauskas The following draft will expire soon: Filename: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics Title: Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View State: I-D Exists Expires: 2012-01-08 (in 5 days, 19 hours) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Jan 2 05:38:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34E121F8B05 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 05:38:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YKje61aDoMbc for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 05:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B7021F8AFF for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 05:38:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q02DbwLR033076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:37:59 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F01B336.1010405@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:37:58 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <20120102124211.27668.72574.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120102124211.27668.72574.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120102124211.27668.72574.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:38:31 -0000 IPPM group, Happy new year. Authors: Please update this draft. All others: please read and comment on this document so we can finish it. Henk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 04:42:11 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat To: acmorton@att.com CC: Henk Uijterwaal , Matthew Zekauskas The following draft will expire soon: Filename: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss Title: Round-trip Loss Metrics State: I-D Exists Expires: 2012-01-08 (in 5 days, 19 hours) From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jan 6 11:13:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF9821F8843; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:13:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GN6ELrr7sSLG; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:13:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA52121F87F4; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:13:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120106191349.12072.34398.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:13:49 -0800 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-02.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:13:50 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Round-trip Loss Metrics Author(s) : Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-02.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-01-06 Many user applications (and the transport protocols that make them possible) require two-way communications. To assess this capability, and to achieve test system simplicity, round-trip loss measurements are frequently conducted in practice. The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol specified in RFC 5357 establishes a round-trip loss measurement capability for the Internet. However, there is currently no metric specified according to the RFC 2330 framework. This memo adds round-trip loss to the set of IP Performance Metrics (IPPM). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-02.txt From acmorton@att.com Fri Jan 6 11:26:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB8C21F886B for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:26:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kf1NM2gWVHTL for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:26:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE68421F8867 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:26:49 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1325878007!9252197!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 3350 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2012 19:26:48 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-6.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Jan 2012 19:26:48 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q06JRExQ025799 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:27:17 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q06JR6EI025318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:27:06 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:26:29 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q06JQQMP027474 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:26:28 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q06JQORK027272 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:26:24 -0500 Message-Id: <201201061926.q06JQORK027272@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-181-16.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.181.16](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120106192442gw100e4ljoe>; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:24:43 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.181.16] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:27:21 -0500 To: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4F01B336.1010405@uijterwaal.nl> References: <20120102124211.27668.72574.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F01B336.1010405@uijterwaal.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:26:50 -0000 At 08:37 AM 1/2/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >Authors: Please update this draft. >All others: please read and comment on this document so we can finish it. > >Henk > > >Subject: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss > >Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 04:42:11 -0800 Hi Henk, Although strike-readiness training is obliterating an obscene amount of my otherwise productive time, I stole some cycles for IPPM work today. I updated this draft, checking for open issues raised on the list last year, and nits raised by the nit checker. The results are in 02, below. I expect to make some more progress on drafts and promised comments this weekend... regards, Al Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-02.txt Cc: ippm@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. Title : Round-trip Loss Metrics Author(s) : Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-02.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-01-06 Many user applications (and the transport protocols that make them possible) require two-way communications. To assess this capability, and to achieve test system simplicity, round-trip loss measurements are frequently conducted in practice. The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol specified in RFC 5357 establishes a round-trip loss measurement capability for the Internet. However, there is currently no metric specified according to the RFC 2330 framework. This memo adds round-trip loss to the set of IP Performance Metrics (IPPM). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-02.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sat Jan 7 07:12:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7EB521F855B; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:12:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ek4Aa+f12Ehp; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:12:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F8F21F845E; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:12:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120107151249.24896.11699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:12:49 -0800 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:12:50 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View Author(s) : Al Morton Gomathi Ramachandran Ganga Maguluri Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2012-01-07 Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses in mind. The memo provides "long-term" reporting considerations (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds), based on analysis of the two key audience points-of-view. It describes how the audience categories affect the selection of metric parameters and options when seeking info that serves their needs. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt From acmorton@att.com Sat Jan 7 07:26:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A581821F8563 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:26:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jynPoUa-gzXg for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:26:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2AFD21F855C for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:26:14 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1325949972!9428662!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 7358 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2012 15:26:12 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-14.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Jan 2012 15:26:12 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q07FQf50018287 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:26:41 -0500 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q07FQbGL018279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:26:38 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:25:54 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q07FPsgt003660 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:25:54 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q07FPng0003596 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:25:49 -0500 Message-Id: <201201071525.q07FPng0003596@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-19-29.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.19.29](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120107152407gw100e4lkle>; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:24:08 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.19.29] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:26:45 -0500 To: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4F01B330.4080806@uijterwaal.nl> References: <20120102124204.27668.58844.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F01B330.4080806@uijterwaal.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:26:15 -0000 At 08:37 AM 1/2/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >Authors: Please update this draft. >All others: please read and comment on this document so we can finish it. > >Henk As promised, here's the update of reporting metrics where we've finished section 6 based on recent measurement and reporting experience. Also checked nits and the list (discussion of this draft has been rather long-term, dating back many years). regards, Al A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. Title : Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View Author(s) : Al Morton Gomathi Ramachandran Ganga Maguluri Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2012-01-07 Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses in mind. The memo provides "long-term" reporting considerations (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds), based on analysis of the two key audience points-of-view. It describes how the audience categories affect the selection of metric parameters and options when seeking info that serves their needs. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Jan 9 01:04:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319F221F844C for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:04:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tLgwxqZsE-Kt for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:04:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5629621F8449 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0993nmP045358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:03:50 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F0AAD75.8020405@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:03:49 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <20120102124211.27668.72574.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F01B336.1010405@uijterwaal.nl> <201201061926.q06JQOAO027273@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201201061926.q06JQOAO027273@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:04:28 -0000 Hi Al, IPPM-group, > Although strike-readiness training is obliterating an obscene amount > of my otherwise productive time, I stole some cycles for IPPM work > today. > > I updated this draft, checking for open issues raised on the list > last year, and nits raised by the nit checker. The results are in 02, > below. Al: Thanks for updating the draft. It looks as if the changes are very minor and, as there has been little discussion on the draft, I think we can go to WGLC for this one. IPPM-group: please read the draft, if there are issues you want to bring up before WGLC, bring them up now. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Jan 9 01:05:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18EE21F86AE for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:05:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LC8iJd9b0FbF for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D1521F866E for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:05:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0994pPM005723 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:04:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F0AADB3.5090507@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:04:51 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <20120102124211.27668.72574.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F01B336.1010405@uijterwaal.nl> <201201061926.q06JQOAO027273@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201201061926.q06JQOAO027273@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:05:29 -0000 > I updated this draft, checking for open issues raised on the list > last year, and nits raised by the nit checker. The results are in 02, > below. As a participant: while the text in section 10 is correct, this is mainly background information for the IANA. There should be statement saying that the entire section 10 can be removed on publication. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Jan 9 01:18:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D0021F85E9 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:18:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kfWqa9T-38Yb for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:18:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073B521F8536 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:18:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q099HgJd034871 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:17:44 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F0AB0B5.1050702@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:17:41 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <20120102124204.27668.58844.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F01B330.4080806@uijterwaal.nl> <201201071525.q07FPnTL003595@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201201071525.q07FPnTL003595@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:18:17 -0000 IPMM Group, Al: thanks for updating the draft. > As promised, here's the update of reporting metrics where we've > finished section 6 based on recent measurement and reporting > experience. Also checked nits and the list (discussion of this > draft has been rather long-term, dating back many years). Group: If I read the draft correctly, the only section with open issues is 6.6.1. The current text is a summary of possibilities. If you feel that this is not enough, please comment. If not, we go to WGLC with the document. Al: If I missed anything still to be discussed, please speak up. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Jan 9 01:32:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D06421F8690 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:32:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GOVMChRGMfcX for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:32:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9242721F8545 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:32:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q099WC1L054260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:32:13 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:32:12 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Wrapping up X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:32:45 -0000 IPPM, One of my new year's resolutions was to wrap up the work of this group. Besides the 2 drafts that were recently updated, there are these little items left on our plate: 1. Draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt: There were some comments raised on WGLC. Authors: please take a look at the archives and respond to them. 2. RFC5136 update RFC In Quebec, there was a proposal for an update draft from, IIRC, some of the Ericsson folks. Nothing has happened since then, if people still feel that this document is needed, speak up. 3. TWAMP. a. Packet trains. There has been some discussion on this with the conclusion that we need a document to specify what problem we want to solve . Nobody took any action so-far. b. Yakov raised some issues with TWAMP in Prague but there was no follow-up, I suggest to table this. c. There is a suggestion to rewrite the entire spec, but as there is little momentum to work on (a) and (b), I suggest to table this as well. d. An Interop event has been mentioned, has there ever been one and did anything come out of it that is of interest to the group. 4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'll keep going. If you are interested in working on any of these topics in the near future, speak up now. If nobody speaks up by January 23, 2012, I'm going to declare them dead. The near future is defined here as "the Paris IETF meeting", that is, if you are interested in any of these topics, you don't have to do anything by January 23, but I do expect significant progress on a topic by Paris. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From mchiba@gmail.com Mon Jan 9 11:44:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B8F21F8419 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:44:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5IhjwRELL0Eh for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:44:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3EA21F875A for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:44:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by obcuz6 with SMTP id uz6so5067681obc.31 for ; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:44:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=9A2A1HR9OyPX9HDkNP8Z3o7IWMmMUscPEUMqC57ZpJE=; b=Q1T1ZiDh8oUZhdCXTCzSrUMNnLmNy9NMgWI0INo1WNXL4Q80r0G0LUuN8XIUGLOV/G Shxwbw+urc/H1mdNy3+2kEJZJ0lBAGPEedzz6ngx3zsgo+sJyBVKRig2jk95f20Ezkha twOfcO9G/ADjFlEMDwLAkk8qlFAsGnH95s4t4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.75.65 with SMTP id a1mr15883658obw.32.1326138260933; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:44:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.192.35 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:44:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:44:20 -0800 Message-ID: From: Murtaza Chiba To: Henk Uijterwaal , ippm@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93996e1f74c0f04b61d9fe8 Subject: Re: [ippm] Wrapping up X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:44:23 -0000 --14dae93996e1f74c0f04b61d9fe8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello All, Happy new year to all. We (the authors) would love to hear comments on the Cisco SLA Protocol draft. The related IPR statement has been sent to the list just before the new year. The IPR statement, in brief, is a defensive non-discriminatory clause. Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00.txt IPR Statement: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1659/ Thanks and Regards, -murtaza On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > IPPM, > > One of my new year's resolutions was to wrap up the work of this group. > Besides > the 2 drafts that were recently updated, there are these little items left > on > our plate: > > 1. Draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt: > There were some comments raised on WGLC. Authors: please take a look at > the > archives and respond to them. > > 2. RFC5136 update RFC > In Quebec, there was a proposal for an update draft from, IIRC, some of > the > Ericsson folks. Nothing has happened since then, if people still feel > that > this document is needed, speak up. > > 3. TWAMP. > a. Packet trains. There has been some discussion on this with the > conclusion > that we need a document to specify what problem we want to solve . > Nobody > took any action so-far. > b. Yakov raised some issues with TWAMP in Prague but there was no > follow-up, > I suggest to table this. > c. There is a suggestion to rewrite the entire spec, but as there is > little > momentum to work on (a) and (b), I suggest to table this as well. > d. An Interop event has been mentioned, has there ever been one and did > anything come out of it that is of interest to the group. > > 4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 > This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'll keep going. > > If you are interested in working on any of these topics in the near future, > speak up now. If nobody speaks up by January 23, 2012, I'm going to > declare > them dead. The near future is defined here as "the Paris IETF meeting", > that is, if you are interested in any of these topics, you don't have to > do anything by January 23, but I do expect significant progress on a topic > by Paris. > > Henk > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl > http://www.uijterwaal.nl > Phone: +31.6.55861746 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. > (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > --14dae93996e1f74c0f04b61d9fe8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello All,
=A0 =A0 =A0Happy new year to all. We (the authors= ) would love to hear comments on the Cisco SLA Protocol draft. The related = IPR statement has been sent to the list just before the new year. The IPR s= tatement, in brief, is a defensive non-discriminatory clause.=A0

Draft:

IPR Statement:

Thanks and Regards,
-murtaza





On Mon= , Jan 9, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Henk Uijterwaal <henk@uijterwaal.nl> wrote:
IPPM,

One of my new year's resolutions was to wrap up the work of this group.= =A0Besides
the 2 drafts that were recently updated, there are these little items left = on
our plate:

1. Draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt:
=A0 There were some comments raised on WGLC. =A0Authors: please take a loo= k at the
=A0 archives and respond to them.

2. RFC5136 update RFC
=A0 In Quebec, there was a proposal for an update draft from, IIRC, some o= f the
=A0 Ericsson folks. =A0Nothing has happened since then, if people still fe= el that
=A0 this document is needed, speak up.

3. TWAMP.
=A0 a. Packet trains. =A0There has been some discussion on this with the c= onclusion
=A0 =A0 =A0that we need a document to specify what problem we want to solv= e . =A0Nobody
=A0 =A0 =A0took any action so-far.
=A0 b. Yakov raised some issues with TWAMP in Prague but there was no foll= ow-up,
=A0 =A0 =A0I suggest to table this.
=A0 c. There is a suggestion to rewrite the entire spec, but as there is l= ittle
=A0 =A0 =A0momentum to work on (a) and (b), I suggest to table this as wel= l.
=A0 d. An Interop event has been mentioned, has there ever been one and di= d
=A0 =A0 =A0anything come out of it that is of interest to the group.

4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01
=A0 This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'll keep goi= ng.

If you are interested in working on any of these topics in the near future,=
speak up now. =A0If nobody speaks up by January 23, 2012, I'm going to = declare
them dead. =A0The near future is defined here as "the Paris IETF meeti= ng",
that is, if you are interested in any of these topics, you don't have t= o
do anything by January 23, but I do expect significant progress on a topic<= br> by Paris.

Henk





--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Henk Uijterwaal =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Email: = henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0http://ww= w.uijterwaal.nl
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0Phone: += 31.6.55861746
---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (John Glan= field, on an engineering project)
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

--14dae93996e1f74c0f04b61d9fe8-- From henk.uijterwaal@gmail.com Mon Jan 9 23:20:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F2821F84F8 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:20:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fXq+StHyAE1F for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:20:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D175C21F874F for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:20:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by wibhj6 with SMTP id hj6so4072172wib.31 for ; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:20:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pCJJ9Q6yMTx+4Iso+AdVzadWracTlBVUORt4RfLKOFo=; b=gYC0v9ruGaxtWQMePqXKRLZuKDGqW6H9E9cLTpuLgw1osRGHh05lgWI7ORkTCVB/uA CWAjY+r8eW9UqZJrf8pTj0SRLbPKPbJyI3OTAH43ogJWiIILuM5S+zqoSAm4SxwmXrih JbTmSpp0DzVa0+HdRhY8idOGmEWG+9DDTe+O0= Received: by 10.180.91.42 with SMTP id cb10mr1211665wib.15.1326180047069; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:20:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local ([2001:980:1203:1:e6ce:8fff:fe11:e7a8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fv6sm18207682wib.8.2012.01.09.23.20.43 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:20:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F0BE6CA.3090608@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:20:42 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ippm] Wrapping up X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: henk@uijterwaal.nl List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:20:49 -0000 Murtaza, > Happy new year to all. We (the authors) would love to hear comments on the > Cisco SLA Protocol draft. The related IPR statement has been sent to the list > just before the new year. The IPR statement, in brief, is a defensive > non-discriminatory clause. Happy new year to you too. I suggest to follow the same approach for this as for the other open items. If people in the IPPM WG are interested in this topic and have cycles to work on it, speak up in the next 2 weeks, if not, we should discuss where this draft fits best. We is defined as you plus fellow authors, the AD and IPPM chairs. Henk > > Draft: > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00.txt > > IPR Statement: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1659/ > > Thanks and Regards, > -murtaza > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Henk Uijterwaal > wrote: > > IPPM, > > One of my new year's resolutions was to wrap up the work of this group. Besides > the 2 drafts that were recently updated, there are these little items left on > our plate: > > 1. Draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt: > There were some comments raised on WGLC. Authors: please take a look at the > archives and respond to them. > > 2. RFC5136 update RFC > In Quebec, there was a proposal for an update draft from, IIRC, some of the > Ericsson folks. Nothing has happened since then, if people still feel that > this document is needed, speak up. > > 3. TWAMP. > a. Packet trains. There has been some discussion on this with the conclusion > that we need a document to specify what problem we want to solve . Nobody > took any action so-far. > b. Yakov raised some issues with TWAMP in Prague but there was no follow-up, > I suggest to table this. > c. There is a suggestion to rewrite the entire spec, but as there is little > momentum to work on (a) and (b), I suggest to table this as well. > d. An Interop event has been mentioned, has there ever been one and did > anything come out of it that is of interest to the group. > > 4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 > This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'll keep going. > > If you are interested in working on any of these topics in the near future, > speak up now. If nobody speaks up by January 23, 2012, I'm going to declare > them dead. The near future is defined here as "the Paris IETF meeting", > that is, if you are interested in any of these topics, you don't have to > do anything by January 23, but I do expect significant progress on a topic > by Paris. > > Henk > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl > > http://www.uijterwaal.nl > Phone: +31.6.55861746 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. > (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Mon Jan 9 23:47:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBF721F87F1 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:47:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ysLZlxcmh1Nl for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B3421F87B3 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:47:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from he111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.23]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 10 Jan 2012 08:47:19 +0100 Received: from HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.5.229]) by HE111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:47:19 +0100 From: To: Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:47:18 +0100 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Wrapping up Thread-Index: AczOscm/o2Qroi/1SZK6P31ZKczWDAAJEXzg Message-ID: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D13131D63A5@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Wrapping up X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:47:22 -0000 Hi Hank, 4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'll keep going. I plan to work on this draft. Regards, Ruediger From pescape@unina.it Fri Jan 13 02:15:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF5A21F852B for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:15:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96zEMsmPEJZ7 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.unina.it (smtp1.unina.it [192.132.34.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF1521F84DD for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.73] (host161-126-static.85-94-b.business.telecomitalia.it [94.85.126.161]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp1.unina.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0DAFYEt031071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:15:35 +0100 From: "Antonio Pescape'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:15:37 +0100 Message-Id: <40EB588E-0EE8-482D-B5DC-B91C848853E2@unina.it> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [ippm] PAM 2012: Call for Participation X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:15:38 -0000 [Our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D CALL FOR PARTICIPATION Passive and Active Measurement (PAM) Conference 2012 VIENNA, AUSTRIA, MARCH 12-14, 2012 http://pam2012.ftw.at/ =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D PROGRAM=20 The Program is out and it is online at = http://pam2012.ftw.at/program.shtml=20 REGISTRATION Registration Site is now open. Early registration is until February 4th, = 2012. (http://pam2012.ftw.at/registration.shtml)=20 CO-LOCATED EVENT Fourth COST TMA International Workshop on Traffic Monitoring and = Analysis Vienna, Austria, March 12, 2012 The Program is out and it is online at = http://pam2012.ftw.at/TMA/program.html ------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Pescape' Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica University of Napoli ''Federico II'' Via Claudio, 21 - 80125, Napoli (Italy) [Room n. 3.10] tel. +39 081 7683856 - fax +39 081 7683816 e-mail : pescape@unina.it (or pescape@ieee.org) Personal web-page: http://wpage.unina.it/pescape Teaching web-site (in Italian): = http://www.docenti.unina.it/antonio.pescape From acmorton@att.com Sun Jan 15 18:48:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B0B21F8505 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:48:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.052 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xhqezRXUMw5H for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:48:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A71521F84FF for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:48:00 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1326682078!10726538!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 21494 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2012 02:47:59 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-3.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jan 2012 02:47:59 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0G2mSd9009172 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:48:28 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0G2mP3C009155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:48:26 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:47:44 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0G2lhfu023670 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:47:43 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0G2lZs0023538 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:47:40 -0500 Message-Id: <201201160247.q0G2lZs0023538@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-36-177.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.36.177](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120116024544gw100e4ldre>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:45:46 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.36.177] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:47:55 -0500 To: henk@uijterwaal.nl, ippm@ietf.org, mchiba From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4F0BE6CA.3090608@gmail.com> References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> <4F0BE6CA.3090608@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: [ippm] Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- [was: Re: Wrapping up] X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:48:01 -0000 At 02:20 AM 1/10/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >Murtaza, > > > Happy new year to all. We (the authors) would love to hear > comments on the > > Cisco SLA Protocol draft. The related IPR statement has been sent > to the list > > just before the new year. The IPR statement, in brief, is a defensive > > non-discriminatory clause. > >Happy new year to you too. I suggest to follow the same approach for this as >for the other open items. If people in the IPPM WG are interested in this >topic and have cycles to work on it, speak up in the next 2 weeks, if not, we >should discuss where this draft fits best. We is defined as you plus fellow >authors, the AD and IPPM chairs. > >Henk > > > > > Draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00.txt > > > > IPR Statement: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1659/ > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > -murtaza > > Now that the IPR situation is clarified, I reviewed the draft. I encourage others to read this, it is a low-complexity alternative to TWAMP with the security features that TWAMP-Light lacks. My comments are below, I'm willing to work this further. Al In a couple of places, I saw configuration specifications in the protocol spec. These need to formalized if they are to be included, or removed (or identified more clearly as examples?) where they don't seem appropriate. Section 2: The Measurement Phase forms the second phase and is comprised of a sequence of Request/Response messages. These messages may be exchanged as often as required. The number and frequency with which messages are sent is controlled by configuration on the Sender element. I suggest: ... The number and frequency with which messages are sent SHOULD be controlled by configuration on the Sender element, along with the waiting time for a Control Response. 2.2. Measurement Phase Upon receiving the Control Response message with the Status set to Success, the second phase of the protocol, the Measurement Phase, is initiated. In all other cases when the Status is not success no measurement traffic is initiated. In the Measurement Phase the Sender sends a stream of measurement messages. The measurement message stream consists of packets/frames that are spaced a configured number of milliseconds apart. I suggest that the description of the measurement stream become an example: The measurement stream typically consists of packets/frames with a periodic inter-packet distribution [RFC3432] or pseudo-random distribution. Also, I suggest to make the following statement clear with words to this effect: The Sender need not wait for a Measurement Response packet to arrive before sending another Measurement Request packet, and in many cases it will not be possible in order to maintain the desired inter-packet distribution. 2.1.1.1. Command Header The Command Header fields hold the following meaning: ... | --------- | --------- | -------------------------- | | Send | 64 | This field is set to the time the command | | Timestamp | | was sent and is updated for a response. | | | | This field MAY be used for secure | | | | environment. SHOULD be updated for a | | | | response. When not being used it MUST be | | | | set to all 0's. The format is as given | | | | in RFC1305 | +-----------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+ There's some ambiguity in when a packet "was sent" when the timestamp must be inserted before sending takes place, of course. I suggest s/was sent/submitted to stack for transmission/ or similar sentiment. That's what I have so far. From acmorton@att.com Sun Jan 15 19:16:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B0C21F84EC for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:16:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.647 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jaM4O35aRJCR for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:16:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51E721F849C for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:16:56 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1326683814!40035892!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 3848 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2012 03:16:55 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-8.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jan 2012 03:16:55 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0G3HNLZ021075 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:17:23 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0G3HLCo021050 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:17:21 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:16:38 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0G3Gb3n002193 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:16:37 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0G3GW6w002063 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:16:32 -0500 Message-Id: <201201160316.q0G3GW6w002063@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-36-177.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.36.177](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120116031442gw100e4ldse>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:14:43 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.36.177] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:17:30 -0500 To: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: [ippm] Rate Measurement Problem [was: Re: Wrapping up] X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:16:57 -0000 At 04:32 AM 1/9/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >... >3. TWAMP. > a. Packet trains. There has been some discussion on this with the > conclusion > that we need a document to specify what problem we want to solve. Nobody > took any action so-far. Actually, some progress has been made on this topic. I prepared a problem statement draft prior to Taipei, and discussed it with several people at the meeting. Dave McDysan kindly gave me comments, which I've incorporated into the 01 version. Others have offered to provide comments, and an updated draft is now ready. Al A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Rate Measurement Problem Statement Author(s) : Al Morton Filename : draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-01.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2012-01-15 There is a rate measurement scenario which has wide-spread attention of users and seemingly all industry participants, including regulators. This memo presents an access rate-measurement problem statement for IP Performance Metrics. Key aspects require the ability to control packet size on the tested path and enable asymmetrical packet size testing in a controller-responder architecture. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-01.txt From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Jan 16 00:25:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB43521F854F for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:25:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8uuz++Qi0JUf for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:25:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5253421F8549 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:25:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0G8P4r6003393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:25:05 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F13DEE0.30003@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:25:04 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> <201201160316.q0G3GWGL002062@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201201160316.q0G3GWGL002062@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Rate Measurement Problem X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:25:37 -0000 IPPM group, Two things have happened in this area in the last week: a) The authors of draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-02.txt have asked for this document to be published as an informational RFC, with the goal of documenting the work done by them. As a chair, I think this is a reasonable request. The problem that this draft tries to solve is close to what we think the generic problem is and the work done for this draft shows that the problem can be solved. I think that it'd be good if this is documented in a permanent way. b) draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-01.txt has been submitted. I think I missed the -00 version of this, but at a first glance, this is a step towards a problem statement and a general solution for the problem. For this document, I'd like to see some review from the group and get a feeling if there is sufficient energy left from the group to work on this. If you have opinions on either one of these, please speak up in the next week. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From btv1==3621991ea33==gdowd@symmetricom.com Mon Jan 16 08:11:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF15321F8432 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:11:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.831 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.831 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.566, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PFHKwtwxsgPA for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:11:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail5.symmetricom.com (mail5.symmetricom.com [69.25.98.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBCA21F8685 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:10:55 -0800 (PST) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1326730247-3e5b786a0001-e7AMy4 Received: from SJC-HUB-01.symmetricom.com ([192.168.10.171]) by mail5.symmetricom.com with ESMTP id DM0niowcGw6twusf; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:10:47 -0800 (PST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: gdowd@symmetricom.com X-ASG-Whitelist: Client Received: from SJC-MBX-01.symmetricom.com ([169.254.1.132]) by SJC-HUB-01.symmetricom.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:10:47 -0800 From: Greg Dowd To: Al Morton , "henk@uijterwaal.nl" , "ippm@ietf.org" , mchiba Thread-Topic: [ippm] Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- [was: Re: Wrapping up] X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: [ippm] Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- [was: Re: Wrapping up] Thread-Index: AQHM0/lH2sOzcWfgw0O78tcmKuMQy5YPKqAw Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:10:45 +0000 Message-ID: <26FBD265CD8D234EAF41115A180F92BB38B9E80A@SJC-MBX-01.symmetricom.com> References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> <4F0BE6CA.3090608@gmail.com> <201201160247.q0G2lZs0023538@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201201160247.q0G2lZs0023538@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.3.9] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: UNKNOWN[192.168.10.171] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1326730247 X-Barracuda-URL: http://192.168.10.96:80/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at symmetricom.com Subject: Re: [ippm] Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- [was: Re: Wrapping up] X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:12:16 -0000 One nit is that RFC1305 for the timestamp format is obsoleted by RFC5905. Greg Dowd gdowd at symmetricom dot com (antispam format) Symmetricom, Inc. www.symmetricom.com "A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it." Albert Einste= in -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al = Morton Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 6:48 PM To: henk@uijterwaal.nl; ippm@ietf.org; mchiba Subject: [ippm] Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- [was: Re: Wrapping up= ] At 02:20 AM 1/10/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >Murtaza, > > > Happy new year to all. We (the authors) would love to hear=20 > comments on the > > Cisco SLA Protocol draft. The related IPR statement has been sent=20 > to the list > > just before the new year. The IPR statement, in brief, is a defensive > > non-discriminatory clause. > >Happy new year to you too. I suggest to follow the same approach for this= as >for the other open items. If people in the IPPM WG are interested in this >topic and have cycles to work on it, speak up in the next 2 weeks, if not,= we >should discuss where this draft fits best. We is defined as you plus fell= ow >authors, the AD and IPPM chairs. > >Henk > > > > > Draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00.txt > > > > IPR Statement: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1659/ > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > -murtaza > > Now that the IPR situation is clarified, I reviewed the draft. I encourage others to read this, it is a low-complexity alternative to TWAMP with the security features that TWAMP-Light lacks. My comments are below, I'm willing to work this further. Al In a couple of places, I saw configuration specifications in the protocol spec. These need to formalized if they are to be included, or removed (or identified more clearly as examples?) where they don't seem appropriate. Section 2: The Measurement Phase forms the second phase and is comprised of a sequence of Request/Response messages. These messages may be exchanged as often as required. The number and frequency with which messages are sent is controlled by configuration on the Sender element. I suggest: ... The number and frequency with which messages are sent SHOULD be controlled by configuration on the Sender element, along with the waiting time for a Control Response. 2.2. Measurement Phase Upon receiving the Control Response message with the Status set to Success, the second phase of the protocol, the Measurement Phase, is initiated. In all other cases when the Status is not success no measurement traffic is initiated. In the Measurement Phase the Sender sends a stream of measurement messages. The measurement message stream consists of packets/frames that are spaced a configured number of milliseconds apart. I suggest that the description of the measurement stream become an example: The measurement stream typically consists of packets/frames with a periodic inter-packet distribution [RFC3432] or pseudo-random distribution. Also, I suggest to make the following statement clear with words to this effect: The Sender need not wait for a Measurement Response packet to arrive before sending another Measurement Request packet, and in many cases it will not be possible in order to maintain the desired inter-packet distribution. 2.1.1.1. Command Header The Command Header fields hold the following meaning: ... | --------- | --------- | -------------------------- | | Send | 64 | This field is set to the time the command | | Timestamp | | was sent and is updated for a response. | | | | This field MAY be used for secure | | | | environment. SHOULD be updated for a | | | | response. When not being used it MUST be | | | | set to all 0's. The format is as given | | | | in RFC1305 | +-----------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+ There's some ambiguity in when a packet "was sent" when the timestamp must be inserted before sending takes place, of course. I suggest s/was sent/submitted to stack for transmission/ or similar sentiment. That's what I have so far. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From acmorton@att.com Mon Jan 16 08:19:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1094221F8441 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:19:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.365, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eLRKIUejRK-A for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:19:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F4321F844C for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:19:32 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1326730769!45852155!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 26056 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2012 16:19:30 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jan 2012 16:19:30 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0GGJwW0012364 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:19:59 -0500 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0GGJqOV012282 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:19:52 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:19:12 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GGJBrM017283 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:19:11 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GGJ88l017134 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:19:09 -0500 Message-Id: <201201161619.q0GGJ88l017134@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (dn135-16-251-71.dhcpn.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120116161719gw100e4lgfe>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:17:20 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:20:08 -0500 To: Greg Dowd , "henk@uijterwaal.nl" , "ippm@ietf.org" , mchiba From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <26FBD265CD8D234EAF41115A180F92BB38B9E80A@SJC-MBX-01.symmet ricom.com> References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> <4F0BE6CA.3090608@gmail.com> <201201160247.q0G2lZs0023538@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <26FBD265CD8D234EAF41115A180F92BB38B9E80A@SJC-MBX-01.symmetricom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: Re: [ippm] Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- [was: Re: Wrapping up] X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:19:33 -0000 At 11:10 AM 1/16/2012, Greg Dowd wrote: >One nit is that RFC1305 for the timestamp format is obsoleted by RFC5905. > >Greg Dowd Good catch, Greg. Al From yaakov_s@rad.com Mon Jan 16 10:04:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718DD21F86A2 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:04:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.597, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zUsspXauYpHM for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:04:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay02.rad.co.il [62.0.23.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B92721F86A0 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:04:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay02 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jan 2012 19:58:29 +0200 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:04:28 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Thread-Topic: [ippm] Wrapping up Thread-Index: AQHMzrGq9vN7bzwjrESJPxPv/zNMBJYPVDxw Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:04:28 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB16E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.115.243.62] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ippm] Wrapping up X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:04:35 -0000 Henk I am still interested in working on the packet trains issue=20 (insofar as it related to measuring available bandwidth) and the TWAMP issues I raised in the past. I haven't had free cycles to get down to writing anything, but was planning doing so before the next meeting. Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hen= k Uijterwaal Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:32 To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] Wrapping up IPPM, One of my new year's resolutions was to wrap up the work of this group. Be= sides the 2 drafts that were recently updated, there are these little items left = on our plate: 1. Draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt: There were some comments raised on WGLC. Authors: please take a look at= the archives and respond to them. 2. RFC5136 update RFC In Quebec, there was a proposal for an update draft from, IIRC, some of = the Ericsson folks. Nothing has happened since then, if people still feel t= hat this document is needed, speak up. 3. TWAMP. a. Packet trains. There has been some discussion on this with the concl= usion that we need a document to specify what problem we want to solve . N= obody took any action so-far. b. Yakov raised some issues with TWAMP in Prague but there was no follow= -up, I suggest to table this. c. There is a suggestion to rewrite the entire spec, but as there is lit= tle momentum to work on (a) and (b), I suggest to table this as well. d. An Interop event has been mentioned, has there ever been one and did anything come out of it that is of interest to the group. 4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'll keep going. If you are interested in working on any of these topics in the near future, speak up now. If nobody speaks up by January 23, 2012, I'm going to declar= e them dead. The near future is defined here as "the Paris IETF meeting", that is, if you are interested in any of these topics, you don't have to do anything by January 23, but I do expect significant progress on a topic by Paris. Henk --=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project= ) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From acmorton@att.com Mon Jan 16 12:42:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8E221F86C6 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:42:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4lok2N-PqkjO for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:42:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C2521F86B3 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:42:24 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1326746542!58853287!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 6859 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2012 20:42:23 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jan 2012 20:42:23 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0GKgpPm016525 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:42:52 -0500 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0GKgj5m016386 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:42:46 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:41:59 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GKfxpi001614 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:41:59 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GKftAn001535 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:41:55 -0500 Message-Id: <201201162041.q0GKftAn001535@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (dn135-16-251-71.dhcpn.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120116204006gw100e4mjje>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:40:06 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:42:54 -0500 To: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: [ippm] Standards Track Advancement [was Re: Wrapping up] X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:42:26 -0000 At 04:32 AM 1/9/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 > This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'll keep going. As I mentioned during presentation of this work last July, we were able to expand our test scope while all the equipment was running and complete some additional tests for RFC 2680. An early draft of the -rfc2680-00 test plan was available in Taipei, and we added additional material describing the categories of testing shortly after that. Although the results have yet to be added, sub-sections of section 6 indicate the different areas that were examined. Al A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track Author(s) : Len Ciavattone Ruediger Geib Al Morton Matthias Wieser Filename : draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-01.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2012-01-16 This memo proposes to advance a performance metric RFC along the standards track, specifically RFC 2680 on One-way Loss Metrics. Observing that the metric definitions themselves should be the primary focus rather than the implementations of metrics, this memo describes the test procedures to evaluate specific metric requirement clauses to determine if the requirement has been interpreted and implemented as intended. Two completely independent implementations have been tested against the key specifications of RFC 2680. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-01.txt From tiziano.ionta@telecomitalia.it Tue Jan 17 00:05:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3655D21F8510 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:05:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.719 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G04M6f6qDdSS for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg701ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493FE21F84FE for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:05:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from GRFHUB701BA020.griffon.local (10.188.101.111) by GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:05:33 +0100 Received: from GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.12]) by grfhub701ba020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.111]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:05:33 +0100 From: Ionta Tiziano To: "'henk@uijterwaal.nl'" , "'ippm@ietf.org'" Importance: high X-Priority: 1 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:05:32 +0100 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Wrapping up Thread-Index: AczPaGgcKO+CwZ2YStK+TF39pqKGnAFgnnYA Message-ID: <885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB5048D251@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> <4F0BE6CA.3090608@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F0BE6CA.3090608@gmail.com> Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: it-IT X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: it-IT, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ippm] R: Wrapping up X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:05:43 -0000 IPPM, I'm strongly interested in draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00, since I've been har= dly working (as Service Provider) on Cisco IPSLA for 6 years, collecting ma= ny feedbacks and enhancement proposals about it. Therefore I believe this draft (to be maintained inside the IPPM WG) would = be the right place to gather my work mentioned above and share it with the = IPPM WG. In order to actively participate in the draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00 review = I just need some more time to deeply analyze it and to wrap up my last 6 ye= ars notes about it. Tiziano -----Messaggio originale----- Da: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di Henk = Uijterwaal Inviato: marted=EC 10 gennaio 2012 8.21 A: ippm@ietf.org Oggetto: Re: [ippm] Wrapping up Murtaza, > Happy new year to all. We (the authors) would love to hear comments = on the > Cisco SLA Protocol draft. The related IPR statement has been sent to the = list > just before the new year. The IPR statement, in brief, is a defensive > non-discriminatory clause. Happy new year to you too. I suggest to follow the same approach for this = as for the other open items. If people in the IPPM WG are interested in this topic and have cycles to work on it, speak up in the next 2 weeks, if not, = we should discuss where this draft fits best. We is defined as you plus fello= w authors, the AD and IPPM chairs. Henk > > Draft: > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00.txt > > IPR Statement: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1659/ > > Thanks and Regards, > -murtaza > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Henk Uijterwaal > wrote: > > IPPM, > > One of my new year's resolutions was to wrap up the work of this grou= p. Besides > the 2 drafts that were recently updated, there are these little items= left on > our plate: > > 1. Draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt: > There were some comments raised on WGLC. Authors: please take a lo= ok at the > archives and respond to them. > > 2. RFC5136 update RFC > In Quebec, there was a proposal for an update draft from, IIRC, som= e of the > Ericsson folks. Nothing has happened since then, if people still f= eel that > this document is needed, speak up. > > 3. TWAMP. > a. Packet trains. There has been some discussion on this with the = conclusion > that we need a document to specify what problem we want to solve= . Nobody > took any action so-far. > b. Yakov raised some issues with TWAMP in Prague but there was no f= ollow-up, > I suggest to table this. > c. There is a suggestion to rewrite the entire spec, but as there i= s little > momentum to work on (a) and (b), I suggest to table this as well= . > d. An Interop event has been mentioned, has there ever been one and= did > anything come out of it that is of interest to the group. > > 4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 > This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'll keep goin= g. > > If you are interested in working on any of these topics in the near f= uture, > speak up now. If nobody speaks up by January 23, 2012, I'm going to = declare > them dead. The near future is defined here as "the Paris IETF meetin= g", > that is, if you are interested in any of these topics, you don't have= to > do anything by January 23, but I do expect significant progress on a = topic > by Paris. > > Henk > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From acmorton@att.com Tue Jan 17 08:17:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F198C21F8688 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:17:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.857 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.857 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.518, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JSZMlKSqGOBL for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:17:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3392821F867B for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:17:20 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1326817038!11011171!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 29864 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2012 16:17:18 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-5.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 17 Jan 2012 16:17:18 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0HGHlQp026198 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:17:47 -0500 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0HGHdWg025975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:17:39 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:17:02 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0HGH1Eh025451 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:17:01 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0HGGujS025284 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:16:57 -0500 Message-Id: <201201171616.q0HGGujS025284@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-143-235.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.143.235](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120117161505gw100e4lm1e>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:15:06 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.143.235] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:17:54 -0500 To: Ionta Tiziano , ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: [ippm] draft-ionta-new-multiparty-metrics-framework-00 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:17:21 -0000 Hi Tiziano,

I've just now made time to type-up my comments on your draft.

Some of this is what we discussed in Taipei following the mboned session,
but I've repeated it here for everyone's benefit.

I'm pleased to see an effort that would help to complete the
memos envisioned under RFC 5835 framework, and will review this
draft further in the future. I hope others will consider this too.

regards,
Al

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

General

Although the current text and title indicates the concepts here are new,
this draft actually describes one of the three types of metrics
envisioned in [RFC5835] (Morton, A., Van den Berghe, S.,
"Framework for metric composition", RFC5835, April 2010).
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5835#section-5.2 defines Spatial Aggregation:

   Aggregation in space is defined as the combination of metrics of the
   same type and different scope, in order to estimate the overall
   performance of a larger network.  This combination may involve
   weighing the contributions of the input metrics.

This definition matches the metrics you've defined in the current draft.
Thus, I think you should consider how to align this draft with the
existing framework for composition, and concentrate on defining the
metrics with weighting factors (section 5).  It should not be very difficult
to do this, since you have already used definitions from the framework
RFC 5835 in your terminology section (this makes it a normative reference,
incidentally). The new title might be:

 Spatial Aggregation Metrics for Multiparty Services

Also, I think this memo lends itself to passive measurement as well as
active measurement (with dedicated test traffic). In reality, if the
service provider is in control of the Source traffic on the tree, and
knows and/or can arrange the traffic headers to be suitable for measurement,
then it blurs the lines quite a bit between passive and active.
The Source's inter-packet sending time distribution comes into focus as
the main difference - it will not be Poisson and may not be Periodic,
but it certainly has a "Bias of Interest" as described in RFC 3432.
This is a key area to address further.

The Introduction first mentions the weights for metrics:
...In particular two needs raise:
- widening the aggregation concepts in RFC 5835 [RFC5835], assign a
sort of weight, specific, and different for each link, to the PLR
measured over it, in order to take into account the impact of the PLR
on the service.
s/raise/arise/

There's more Discussion of weights in Section 5.3, including the
"Overlapping Factor".

Bandwidth is one source of weights, but are there others with objective
derivation (deterministically related to a property of the link)?

Sec 2.4
...The numbering of the links composing the multiparty tree is free,
provided that:
- the link numbering remains univocal with respect to the multicast
tree.                        ^^^^^^^^
Do you mean unique here, as in not repeated?


<that's all for now>


  From mchiba@cisco.com Tue Jan 17 08:55:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722EC11E8085 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:55:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M3gJunzkZUVk for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:55:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A98411E8086 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:55:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; l=11606; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326819310; x=1328028910; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=DpcfNCcgPCVpIGpcBYiY8spAq9NjyOR5xrJ2Inb9Y3c=; b=anD2/d96IDE7DgKvq9Mbnu75B/fwVwm+o51wILSEqZXRI2yN7SaIec2r 77CCTKVDDAP6VDWEnQzJNFNRfeRRTlQotENYspKrprAqsvmQzQ4Mj/qiR aAdlYK8yYasdc4/UHAPAKXhu7+yBeaG7qnSr1F9wZlGeWIMV+hf5+BjdN w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EANimFU+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABErD+BBoEFgXIBAQEDARIBGkwFCwsOCi5XBgEbGYdYCJhGAZ5DiV0CAQENBQQRBQEGAQEGAQUUBQcBCwECAQEIAQEBChAFDiYMRBAFCwkEFQIDBwg0AwUICwMZAwsHDxoJAQECEAECAwEGAwIDBAEEgmRjBIg7jFaSYg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,524,1320624000"; d="scan'208,217";a="24086805" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2012 16:55:06 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0HGt6Se030221; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:55:06 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:55:05 -0800 Received: from sjc-vpn7-1942.cisco.com ([10.21.151.150]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:55:06 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E69EABA7-6EA0-40B5-84A0-C4C7FA1197B7" From: Murtaza Chiba In-Reply-To: <201201160247.q0G2lZ25023539@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:55:12 -0800 Message-Id: References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> <4F0BE6CA.3090608@gmail.com> <201201160247.q0G2lZ25023539@alpd052.aldc.att.com> To: Al Morton , gdowd@symmetricom.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2012 16:55:06.0093 (UTC) FILETIME=[C373C1D0:01CCD538] Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- [was: Re: Wrapping up] X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:55:11 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E69EABA7-6EA0-40B5-84A0-C4C7FA1197B7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Thanks Al and Greg, The suggestions are great. I will make the changes accordingly. Regards, -murtaza On Jan 15, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Al Morton wrote: > At 02:20 AM 1/10/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > >Murtaza, > > > > > Happy new year to all. We (the authors) would love to hear > > comments on the > > > Cisco SLA Protocol draft. The related IPR statement has been sent > > to the list > > > just before the new year. The IPR statement, in brief, is a = defensive > > > non-discriminatory clause. > > > >Happy new year to you too. I suggest to follow the same approach for = this as > >for the other open items. If people in the IPPM WG are interested in = this > >topic and have cycles to work on it, speak up in the next 2 weeks, if = not, we > >should discuss where this draft fits best. We is defined as you plus = fellow > >authors, the AD and IPPM chairs. > > > >Henk > > > > > > > > Draft: > > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00.txt > > > > > > IPR Statement: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1659/ > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > -murtaza > > > >=20 > Now that the IPR situation is clarified, I reviewed the draft. > I encourage others to read this, it is a low-complexity alternative > to TWAMP with the security features that TWAMP-Light lacks. >=20 > My comments are below, I'm willing to work this further. > Al >=20 > In a couple of places, I saw configuration specifications > in the protocol spec. These need to formalized if they > are to be included, or removed (or identified more clearly as = examples?) > where they don't seem appropriate. >=20 > Section 2: > The Measurement Phase forms the second phase and is comprised of a > sequence of Request/Response messages. These messages may be > exchanged as often as required. The number and frequency with = which > messages are sent is controlled by configuration on the Sender > element. > I suggest: > ... The number and frequency with which > messages are sent SHOULD be controlled by configuration on the = Sender > element, along with the waiting time for a Control Response. >=20 >=20 > 2.2. Measurement Phase >=20 > Upon receiving the Control Response message with the Status set to > Success, the second phase of the protocol, the Measurement Phase, = is > initiated. In all other cases when the Status is not success no > measurement traffic is initiated. In the Measurement Phase the > Sender sends a stream of measurement messages. The measurement > message stream consists of packets/frames that are spaced a > configured number of milliseconds apart. >=20 > I suggest that the description of the measurement stream become an = example: >=20 > The measurement stream typically consists of packets/frames with a > periodic inter-packet distribution [RFC3432] or pseudo-random > distribution. >=20 > Also, I suggest to make the following statement clear with words to > this effect: >=20 > The Sender need not wait for a Measurement Response packet to arrive > before sending another Measurement Request packet, and in many cases = it > will not be possible in order to maintain the desired inter-packet > distribution. >=20 > 2.1.1.1. Command Header >=20 > The Command Header fields hold the following meaning: > ... > | --------- | --------- | -------------------------- = | > | Send | 64 | This field is set to the time the = command | > | Timestamp | | was sent and is updated for a response. = | > | | | This field MAY be used for secure = | > | | | environment. SHOULD be updated for a = | > | | | response. When not being used it MUST = be | > | | | set to all 0's. The format is as given = | > | | | in RFC1305 = | > = +-----------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+ >=20 > There's some ambiguity in when a packet "was sent" when the timestamp > must be inserted before sending takes place, of course. I suggest >=20 > s/was sent/submitted to stack for transmission/ >=20 > or similar sentiment. >=20 > That's what I have so far. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_E69EABA7-6EA0-40B5-84A0-C4C7FA1197B7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

Thanks Al and Greg,
     The suggestions are great. I will make the changes accordingly.

Regards,
-murtaza


On Jan 15, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Al Morton wrote:

Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- [was: Re: [ippm] Wrapping up]

At 02:20 AM 1/10/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>Murtaza,
>
> >      Happy new year to all. We (the authors) would love to hear
> comments on the
> > Cisco SLA Protocol draft. The related IPR statement has been sent
> to the list
> > just before the new year. The IPR statement, in brief, is a defensive
> > non-discriminatory clause.
>
>Happy new year to you too.  I suggest to follow the same approach for this as
>for the other open items.  If people in the IPPM WG are interested in this
>topic and have cycles to work on it, speak up in the next 2 weeks, if not, we
>should discuss where this draft fits best.  We is defined as you plus fellow
>authors, the AD and IPPM chairs.
>
>Henk
>
> >
> > Draft:
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00.txt
> >
> > IPR Statement:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1659/
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > -murtaza
> >

Now that the IPR situation is clarified, I reviewed the draft.
I encourage others to read this, it is a low-complexity alternative
to TWAMP with the security features that TWAMP-Light lacks.

My comments are below, I'm willing to work this further.
Al

In a couple of places, I saw configuration specifications
in the protocol spec. These need to formalized if they
are to be included, or removed (or identified more clearly as examples?)
where they don't seem appropriate.

Section 2:
    The Measurement Phase forms the second phase and is comprised of a
    sequence of Request/Response messages.  These messages may be
    exchanged as often as required.  The number and frequency with which
    messages are sent is controlled by configuration on the Sender
    element.
I suggest:
    ... The number and frequency with which
    messages are sent SHOULD be controlled by configuration on the Sender
    element, along with the waiting time for a Control Response.


2.2.  Measurement Phase

    Upon receiving the Control Response message with the Status set to
    Success, the second phase of the protocol, the Measurement Phase, is
    initiated.  In all other cases when the Status is not success no
    measurement traffic is initiated.  In the Measurement Phase the
    Sender sends a stream of measurement messages.  The measurement
    message stream consists of packets/frames that are spaced a
    configured number of milliseconds apart.

I suggest that the description of the measurement stream become an example:

The measurement stream typically consists of packets/frames with a
periodic inter-packet distribution [RFC3432] or pseudo-random
distribution.

Also, I suggest to make the following statement clear with words to
this effect:

The Sender need not wait for a Measurement Response packet to arrive
before sending another Measurement Request packet, and in many cases it
will not be possible in order to maintain the desired inter-packet
distribution.

2.1.1.1.  Command Header

    The Command Header fields hold the following meaning:
...
    | --------- | --------- | --------------------------                |
    | Send      | 64        | This field is set to the time the command |
    | Timestamp |           | was sent and is updated for a response.   |
    |           |           | This field MAY be used for secure         |
    |           |           | environment.  SHOULD be updated for a     |
    |           |           | response.  When not being used it MUST be |
    |           |           | set to all 0's.  The format is as given   |
    |           |           | in RFC1305                                |
    +-----------+-----------+-------------------------------------------+

There's some ambiguity in when a packet "was sent" when the timestamp
must be inserted before sending takes place, of course. I suggest

s/was sent/submitted to stack for transmission/

or similar sentiment.

That's what I have so far.


--Apple-Mail=_E69EABA7-6EA0-40B5-84A0-C4C7FA1197B7-- From mchiba@gmail.com Tue Jan 17 08:56:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0950F21F84B5 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:56:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.980, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pvo6QMJNURxd for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:56:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F0721F8469 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:56:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by obbwc12 with SMTP id wc12so3387309obb.31 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:56:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=e9IonfocWLWYIFFcQk3IlvY2bSrC32wQrZ/7EiOA3Wk=; b=vcm7XcZ7vLvQ1nNjGplbeJqY3G8eKN3gxN3KVGgDjmL877RapZwcEHUdjCxt83qvDp wkGXrLZR8EJ3TChpUN0p5MC7fjGmyd1+SC7KoEycUMyAMqpQ9rxQaYt/EIVadWRiCR9t 07wkQ/OHGIgwLfcYRMCHoDSlktgPzrduUGAeY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.225.98 with SMTP id rj2mr15852637obc.16.1326819376698; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:56:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.192.35 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:56:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB5048D251@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> <4F0BE6CA.3090608@gmail.com> <885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB5048D251@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:56:16 -0800 Message-ID: From: Murtaza Chiba To: Ionta Tiziano Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9399a3fa1169604b6bc35aa Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] R: Wrapping up X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:56:18 -0000 --14dae9399a3fa1169604b6bc35aa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Tiziano, We would love to hear from you. Please do send us your comments. Regards, -murtaza On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Ionta Tiziano < tiziano.ionta@telecomitalia.it> wrote: > IPPM, > I'm strongly interested in draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00, since I've been > hardly working (as Service Provider) on Cisco IPSLA for 6 years, collecti= ng > many feedbacks and enhancement proposals about it. > Therefore I believe this draft (to be maintained inside the IPPM WG) woul= d > be the right place to gather my work mentioned above and share it with th= e > IPPM WG. > In order to actively participate in the draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00 revie= w > I just need some more time to deeply analyze it and to wrap up my last 6 > years notes about it. > Tiziano > > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di > Henk Uijterwaal > Inviato: marted=EC 10 gennaio 2012 8.21 > A: ippm@ietf.org > Oggetto: Re: [ippm] Wrapping up > > Murtaza, > > > Happy new year to all. We (the authors) would love to hear comment= s > on the > > Cisco SLA Protocol draft. The related IPR statement has been sent to th= e > list > > just before the new year. The IPR statement, in brief, is a defensive > > non-discriminatory clause. > > Happy new year to you too. I suggest to follow the same approach for thi= s > as > for the other open items. If people in the IPPM WG are interested in thi= s > topic and have cycles to work on it, speak up in the next 2 weeks, if not= , > we > should discuss where this draft fits best. We is defined as you plus > fellow > authors, the AD and IPPM chairs. > > Henk > > > > > > Draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00.txt > > > > IPR Statement: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1659/ > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > -murtaza > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Henk Uijterwaal > > wrote: > > > > IPPM, > > > > One of my new year's resolutions was to wrap up the work of this > group. Besides > > the 2 drafts that were recently updated, there are these little > items left on > > our plate: > > > > 1. Draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt: > > There were some comments raised on WGLC. Authors: please take a > look at the > > archives and respond to them. > > > > 2. RFC5136 update RFC > > In Quebec, there was a proposal for an update draft from, IIRC, > some of the > > Ericsson folks. Nothing has happened since then, if people still > feel that > > this document is needed, speak up. > > > > 3. TWAMP. > > a. Packet trains. There has been some discussion on this with th= e > conclusion > > that we need a document to specify what problem we want to > solve . Nobody > > took any action so-far. > > b. Yakov raised some issues with TWAMP in Prague but there was no > follow-up, > > I suggest to table this. > > c. There is a suggestion to rewrite the entire spec, but as there > is little > > momentum to work on (a) and (b), I suggest to table this as > well. > > d. An Interop event has been mentioned, has there ever been one > and did > > anything come out of it that is of interest to the group. > > > > 4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 > > This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'll keep > going. > > > > If you are interested in working on any of these topics in the near > future, > > speak up now. If nobody speaks up by January 23, 2012, I'm going t= o > declare > > them dead. The near future is defined here as "the Paris IETF > meeting", > > that is, if you are interested in any of these topics, you don't > have to > > do anything by January 23, but I do expect significant progress on = a > topic > > by Paris. > > > > Henk > > > > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle > persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante > dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualo= ra > abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati d= i > darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua > distruzione, Grazie. > > This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privilege= d > information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, > printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the > intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and > advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > --14dae9399a3fa1169604b6bc35aa Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Tiziano,
=A0 =A0 We would love to hear from you. Pleas= e do send us your comments.

Regards,
-mu= rtaza


On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:05= AM, Ionta Tiziano <tiziano.ionta@telecomitalia.it> wrote:
IPPM,
I'm strongly interested in draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00, since I've = been hardly working (as Service Provider) on Cisco IPSLA for 6 years, colle= cting many feedbacks and enhancement proposals about it.
Therefore I believe this draft (to be maintained inside the IPPM WG) would = be the right place to gather my work mentioned above and share it with the = IPPM WG.
In order to actively participate in the draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00 review = I just need some more time to deeply analyze it and to wrap up my last 6 ye= ars notes about it.
Tiziano


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mai= lto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] Per= conto di Henk Uijterwaal
Inviato: marted=EC 10 gennaio 2012 8.21
A: ippm@ietf.org
Oggetto: Re: [ippm] Wrapping up

Murtaza,

> =A0 =A0 =A0Happy new year to all. We (the authors) would love to hear = comments on the
> Cisco SLA Protocol draft. The related IPR statement has been sent to t= he list
> just before the new year. The IPR statement, in brief, is a defensive<= br> > non-discriminatory clause.

Happy new year to you too. =A0I suggest to follow the same approach for thi= s as
for the other open items. =A0If people in the IPPM WG are interested in thi= s
topic and have cycles to work on it, speak up in the next 2 weeks, if not, = we
should discuss where this draft fits best. =A0We is defined as you plus fel= low
authors, the AD and IPPM chairs.

Henk


>
> Draft:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00.txt >
> IPR Statement:
> h= ttps://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1659/
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> -murtaza
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Henk Uijterwaal <henk@uijterwaal.nl
> <mailto:henk@uijterwaal.nl>> wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0 IPPM,
>
> =A0 =A0 One of my new year's resolutions was to wrap up the work o= f this group. =A0Besides
> =A0 =A0 the 2 drafts that were recently updated, there are these littl= e items left on
> =A0 =A0 our plate:
>
> =A0 =A0 1. Draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 There were some comments raised on WGLC. =A0Authors: pleas= e take a look at the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 archives and respond to them.
>
> =A0 =A0 2. RFC5136 update RFC
> =A0 =A0 =A0 In Quebec, there was a proposal for an update draft from, = IIRC, some of the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Ericsson folks. =A0Nothing has happened since then, if peo= ple still feel that
> =A0 =A0 =A0 this document is needed, speak up.
>
> =A0 =A0 3. TWAMP.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 a. Packet trains. =A0There has been some discussion on thi= s with the conclusion
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0that we need a document to specify what problem we = want to solve . =A0Nobody
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0took any action so-far.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 b. Yakov raised some issues with TWAMP in Prague but there= was no follow-up,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I suggest to table this.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 c. There is a suggestion to rewrite the entire spec, but a= s there is little
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0momentum to work on (a) and (b), I suggest to table= this as well.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 d. An Interop event has been mentioned, has there ever bee= n one and did
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0anything come out of it that is of interest to the = group.
>
> =A0 =A0 4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01
> =A0 =A0 =A0 This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'= ;ll keep going.
>
> =A0 =A0 If you are interested in working on any of these topics in the= near future,
> =A0 =A0 speak up now. =A0If nobody speaks up by January 23, 2012, I= 9;m going to declare
> =A0 =A0 them dead. =A0The near future is defined here as "the Par= is IETF meeting",
> =A0 =A0 that is, if you are interested in any of these topics, you don= 't have to
> =A0 =A0 do anything by January 23, but I do expect significant progres= s on a topic
> =A0 =A0 by Paris.
>
> =A0 =A0 Henk
>

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivame= nte alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione de= rivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate.= Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pr= egati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua= distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks.

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

--14dae9399a3fa1169604b6bc35aa-- From dgenin@nist.gov Tue Jan 17 15:03:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C135221F8535 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:03:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Cy+IfE3NhL6 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:03:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.nist.gov (rimp2.nist.gov [129.6.16.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1738521F8533 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:03:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (114-140.antd.nist.gov [129.6.140.114]) by smtp.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q0HN366x013399; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:03:08 -0500 Message-ID: <4F15FE2A.1080004@nist.gov> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:03:06 -0500 From: Daniel Genin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <20120102124204.27668.58844.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F01B330.4080806@uijterwaal.nl> <201201071525.q07FPng0003596@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201201071525.q07FPng0003596@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: dgenin@nist.gov Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:03:22 -0000 A very lucid and well written exposition on the relevance of metric's consumer to the way that it should be defined. It is surprising this important point has not been addressed earlier. Just a couple of comments: I. In Section 5.1.2 the bulleted list item 2 appears to suggest that orthogonality of metrics is a desirable property, however, no explanation for this is given. Moreover, metrics appearing in Section 6 do not appear to be orthogonal suggesting that orthogonality is not a necessary property. If orthogonality is a desirable property in the case of delay and loss metrics but not in the case of raw capacity metrics this probably needs to be clarified. II. Minor grammatical corrections: 1. Section 5.2, Paragraph 1, line 5 "...is based a conditional distribution..." should probably be "...is based on a conditional distribution...". 2. Section 6.2, the first letter of the title needs to be capitalized. 3. Section 6.6, Paragraph 1, line 2 "...gives a the user..." should probably be "...gives the user..." 4. Section 6.6, Paragraph 2, line 1 "What ways can Utilization be measured..." should probably be "In what ways can Utilization be measured..." or "How can Utilization be measured..." 5. Section 7.5, Paragraph 1, line 2 "...gives a the user..." should probably be "...gives the user..." Hope this is useful. Best regards, Daniel On 1/7/2012 10:26 AM, Al Morton wrote: > At 08:37 AM 1/2/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> Authors: Please update this draft. >> All others: please read and comment on this document so we can finish it. >> >> Henk > As promised, here's the update of reporting metrics where we've > finished section 6 based on recent measurement and reporting > experience. Also checked nits and the list (discussion of this > draft has been rather long-term, dating back many years). > > regards, > Al > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View > Author(s) : Al Morton > Gomathi Ramachandran > Ganga Maguluri > Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt > Pages : 26 > Date : 2012-01-07 > > Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses > in mind. The memo provides "long-term" reporting considerations > (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds), based on > analysis of the two key audience points-of-view. It describes how > the audience categories affect the selection of metric parameters and > options when seeking info that serves their needs. > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt > > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > From acmorton@att.com Tue Jan 17 19:52:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF4911E8080 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:52:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.275, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kDwCyWCdNBwN for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BB111E8076 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:52:20 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1326858738!8446001!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 29219 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2012 03:52:19 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-12.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Jan 2012 03:52:19 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0I3qmgM009304 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:52:48 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0I3qhU8009282 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:52:44 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:52:02 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0I3q0XL011375 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:52:01 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0I3ptl8011307 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:51:56 -0500 Message-Id: <201201180351.q0I3ptl8011307@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-161-148.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.161.148](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120118035003gw100e4lpbe>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 03:50:04 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.161.148] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:52:54 -0500 To: Daniel Genin From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4F15FE2A.1080004@nist.gov> References: <20120102124204.27668.58844.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F01B330.4080806@uijterwaal.nl> <201201071525.q07FPng0003596@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <4F15FE2A.1080004@nist.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 03:52:22 -0000 Thanks for your comments, Daniel. At 06:03 PM 1/17/2012, Daniel Genin wrote: >I. In Section 5.1.2 the bulleted list item 2 appears to suggest that >orthogonality of metrics is a desirable property, however, no >explanation for this is given. Moreover, metrics appearing in >Section 6 do not appear to be orthogonal suggesting that >orthogonality is not a necessary property. If orthogonality is a >desirable property in the case of delay and loss metrics but not in >the case of raw capacity metrics this probably needs to be clarified. This is an interesting point, and certainly deserves clarification as you suggest. regards, Al From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 06:06:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301F921F8713; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:06:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gXMGlNaSZs9; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C8B21F8503; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:06:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120118140639.27832.61764.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:06:39 -0800 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:06:40 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Loss Episode Metrics for IPPM Author(s) : Nick Duffield Al Morton Joel Sommers Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2012-01-18 The IETF has developed a one way packet loss metric that measures the loss rate on a Poisson probe stream between two hosts. However, the impact of packet loss on applications is in general sensitive not just to the average loss rate, but also to the way in which packet losses are distributed in loss episodes (i.e., maximal sets of consecutively lost probe packets). This document defines one-way packet loss episode metrics, specifically the frequency and average duration of loss episodes, and a probing methodology under which the loss episode metrics are to be measured. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04= .txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04.= txt From acmorton@att.com Wed Jan 18 06:26:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE3B21F8820 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:26:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fPmKH9lRljUa for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79FB021F881C for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:26:11 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1326896769!11185887!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 21303 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2012 14:26:09 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-5.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Jan 2012 14:26:09 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0IEQcs4010073 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:26:38 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0IEQXTi010033 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:26:33 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:25:54 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0IEPsdp018568 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:25:54 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0IEPpWt018468 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:25:51 -0500 Message-Id: <201201181425.q0IEPpWt018468@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (dn135-16-251-71.dhcpn.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120118142356gw100e4lqte>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:24:00 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:26:47 -0500 To: ippm@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, wes@mti-systems.com From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <20120118140639.27832.15677.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120118140639.27832.15677.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Cc: duffield@research.att.com Subject: Re: [ippm] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:26:12 -0000 This version addresses IESG Comments raised during their review late last year. At 09:06 AM 1/18/2012, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >New version (-04) has been submitted for >draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04.txt. >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04.txt > > >Diff from previous version: >http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04 From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 08:46:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5821021F8535; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:46:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.473 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k7ehG6sEDWkj; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:46:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9311721F853B; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:46:33 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120120164633.31181.80084.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:46:33 -0800 Cc: ippm mailing list , ippm chair , RFC Editor Subject: [ippm] Protocol Action: 'IPPM standard advancement testing' to BCP (draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05.txt) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:46:34 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IPPM standard advancement testing' (draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05.txt) as a BCP This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and David Harrington. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest/ Technical Summary This document specifies tests to determine if multiple independent instantiations of a performance metric RFC have implemented the specifications in the same way. This is the performance metric equivalent of interoperability, required to advance RFCs along the standards track. Results from different implementations of metric RFCs will be collected under the same underlying network conditions and compared using state of the art statistical methods. The goal is an evaluation of the metric RFC itself, whether its definitions are clear and unambiguous to implementors and therefore a candidate for advancement on the IETF standards track. Personnel Henk Uijterwaal is the document shepherd, and Wesley Eddy is the responsible AD. From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 08:48:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3522821F8681; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:48:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id evEzgOQnLd02; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:48:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8556421F86A8; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:48:35 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120120164835.32203.80453.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:48:35 -0800 Cc: ippm mailing list , ippm chair , RFC Editor Subject: [ippm] Protocol Action: 'Loss Episode Metrics for IPPM' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04.txt) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:48:36 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Loss Episode Metrics for IPPM' (draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and David Harrington. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics/ Technical Summary The IETF has developed a one way packet loss metric that measures the loss rate on a Poisson probe stream between two hosts. However, the impact of packet loss on applications is in general sensitive not just to the average loss rate, but also to the way in which packet losses are distributed in loss episodes (i.e., maximal sets of consecutively lost probe packets). This draft defines one-way packet loss episode metrics, specifically the frequency and average duration of loss episodes, and a probing methodology under which the loss episode metrics are to be measured. Personnel The document shepherd is Henk Uijterwaal, and the responsible AD is Wes Eddy. From henk@uijterwaal.nl Tue Jan 24 02:29:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BDB21F8589 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:29:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AeNO+n+-89O1 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:29:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0347F21F8570 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:29:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0OAT0UG034734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:29:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F1E87EC.4000205@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:29:00 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <4EF485B6.3000701@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4EF485B6.3000701@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [ippm] Meeting in Paris X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:29:33 -0000 IPPM Group, > The chairs are currently discussing if we have to have a face-2-face > meeting at the next IETF in Paris. If you have topics that need > discussion, please drop us a note before January 25. I have not seen any requests... if you forgot about this, please speak up now! Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Tue Jan 24 02:39:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A8B21F85A1 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:39:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zgjbe5icqWVb for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:39:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF77421F85A0 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:39:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0OAcfwY063171 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:38:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F1E8A30.1000606@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:38:40 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <4E2EB964.8060109@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4E2EB964.8060109@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4E2EB964.8060109@uijterwaal.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:39:14 -0000 IPPM group, As no issues were brought up, this starts a WGLC for the draft: Round-trip Loss Metrics draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-02 Please review the draft and raise any issues by Monday, February 6, 8:00 UTC. Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl RIPE NCC http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Tue Jan 24 02:40:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9F421F85AF for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:40:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxg3qsbZGLgC for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A0921F8597 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:40:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0OAdjnm093010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:39:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F1E8A71.3060409@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:39:45 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:40:18 -0000 IPPM group, As no issues were brought up, this starts a WGLC for the draft: Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06 Please review the draft and raise any issues by Monday, February 6, 8:00 UTC. An URL for the draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics/ Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Tue Jan 24 02:55:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01AEE21F85BB for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:55:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6dMSwzX0y0mg for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC7121F85B6 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0OAsgFg009751 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:54:43 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F1E8DF2.2050401@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:54:42 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Request to publish draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-02.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:55:15 -0000 IPPM group, The authors of draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-02.txt have asked for this document to be published as an informational RFC, by the WG, with the goal of documenting the work done by them. This draft tries to solve a problem that is close to what we think the generic problem is and the work documented in this draft shows that the problem can be solved. By publishing this document, all the work done will be documented in a permanent way. We will ask for a review of the document by the group to make sure that the content is clear but not to discuss what exactly the problem is. That is the topic of another draft. If you have serious issues with this approach, please speak up before Monday, February 6. Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk.uijterwaal@gmail.com Tue Jan 24 03:01:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5DC021F8532 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:01:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QewNFxXDQ96T for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F78821F851D for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by wibhn9 with SMTP id hn9so3714390wib.31 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:01:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=x/h1NLDYrwsGdge5guaWlqbySxedF5WuD7vRcI+7NJ0=; b=ebvwYBTKc4DVTbVFv6Xy2xCDVDgQG0RXQi9nXSiZLIrLxWtKsPQWSb6zAQZfqSDehy t2OIzhL3/Xbms5MtVx0SNOhFjvmJpf5RcPotfxhxn1PrKknbY5tmrqZ0Il+7r3HW6pL6 QBeqfP+s1wwCBOj73PlLEuUnnezerhQLedqTs= Received: by 10.180.101.164 with SMTP id fh4mr3326196wib.0.1327402895739; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local ([2001:980:1203:1:e6ce:8fff:fe11:e7a8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n5sm32289285wiw.7.2012.01.24.03.01.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:01:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F1E8F8C.3050904@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:01:32 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F0AB41C.9040605@uijterwaal.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ippm] Wrapping up X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: henk@uijterwaal.nl List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:01:44 -0000 IPPM Group, On 09/01/2012 10:32, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > 1. Draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt: > There were some comments raised on WGLC. Authors: please take a look at the > archives and respond to them. I have not seen any action so this topic is dead. > 2. RFC5136 update RFC > In Quebec, there was a proposal for an update draft from, IIRC, some of the > Ericsson folks. Nothing has happened since then, if people still feel that > this document is needed, speak up. I have not seen any action so this topic is dead. > 3. TWAMP. > a. Packet trains. There has been some discussion on this with the conclusion > that we need a document to specify what problem we want to solve . Nobody > took any action so-far. Two things happened here: * A request to publish draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-02.txt * Draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-01.txt was published. Please comment on this document. > b. Yakov raised some issues with TWAMP in Prague but there was no follow-up, > I suggest to table this. This will remain on the active list for now, as Yakov has indicated that he will do work on this before Paris. > c. There is a suggestion to rewrite the entire spec, but as there is little > momentum to work on (a) and (b), I suggest to table this as well. > d. An Interop event has been mentioned, has there ever been one and did > anything come out of it that is of interest to the group. Apparently not, so no follow up needed. > > 4. Draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 > This is ongoing work (and meanwhile a WG doc) which we'll keep going. 5. Other work: * draft-cisco-sla-protocol-00.txt * draft-ionta-new-multiparty-metrics-framework-00 If you are interested in either draft, please speak up. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com Tue Jan 24 03:03:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00DF21F8565 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:03:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id efZcjYMZAIwc for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:03:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B4121F855F for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:03:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q0OB3TNs018245; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:03:30 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.33]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:03:23 -0500 From: Steve Baillargeon To: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:03:22 -0500 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Request to publish draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-02.txt Thread-Index: AczahqwA872nm6esRYCPMtxRP/NYRwAADu3A Message-ID: <4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF1786BE051E@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4F1E8DF2.2050401@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F1E8DF2.2050401@uijterwaal.nl> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ippm] Request to publish draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-02.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:03:32 -0000 Hi Henk We intend to submit an updated version (draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-= added-octets-03.txt) by the end of this week which will includes a number o= f changes, mostly simplifications. The draft will indicates that it does no= t specify a new recognized TWAMP mode. -Steve -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hen= k Uijterwaal Sent: January-24-12 5:55 AM To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] Request to publish draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added= -octets-02.txt IPPM group, The authors of draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-02.txt have asked for this document to be published as an informational RFC, by th= e WG, with the goal of documenting the work done by them. This draft tries to solve a problem that is close to what we think the gene= ric problem is and the work documented in this draft shows that the problem= can be solved. By publishing this document, all the work done will be doc= umented in a permanent way. We will ask for a review of the document by the group to make sure that the= content is clear but not to discuss what exactly the problem is. That is = the topic of another draft. If you have serious issues with this approach, please speak up before Monda= y, February 6. Matt & Henk -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project= ) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From andreas.a.johnsson@ericsson.com Tue Jan 24 05:18:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C8F21F854C for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:18:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AQAUBEZgnLLR for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:18:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F381121F84D6 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:18:24 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b26ae000000a35-34-4f1eaf9f4fa8 Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8D.0B.02613.F9FAE1F4; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:18:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0363.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.162]) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.96]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:18:23 +0100 From: Andreas Johnsson A To: IETF IPPM WG Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:18:22 +0100 Thread-Topic: [IPPM] New version of draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets Thread-Index: AczamqXcBF2oDBolSSC6cXBDPCwAhQ== Message-ID: <3B05069A569E6F4AB6397B968734EBEA36B29D88BF@ESESSCMS0363.eemea.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3B05069A569E6F4AB6397B968734EBEA36B29D88BFESESSCMS0363e_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [ippm] [IPPM] New version of draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:18:26 -0000 --_000_3B05069A569E6F4AB6397B968734EBEA36B29D88BFESESSCMS0363e_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please see the new version of draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octe= ts. We have modified the draft in order to reflect the functionality of our pro= totype. Short list of changes: 1. We have removed the "Sender Discriminator" functionality 2. We have added functionality for setting packet sizes in the revers= e direction 3. We have simplified the text and structure in order to make the dra= ft more readable Best regards, Andreas, Steve and Christofer --_000_3B05069A569E6F4AB6397B968734EBEA36B29D88BFESESSCMS0363e_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Please see the new version of draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-oct= ets.

&nbs= p;

We have modified= the draft in order to reflect the functionality of our prototype.

 

Short list of changes:

1. &= nbsp;     We have removed the “Sender Discriminator” functionality

2.&nbs= p;      We have added functionality for setting packet sizes in the revers= e direction

3.       We have simplified the text and structure in order to = make the draft more readable

 

Best regards,

Andreas, Steve and Christofer

= --_000_3B05069A569E6F4AB6397B968734EBEA36B29D88BFESESSCMS0363e_-- From henk@uijterwaal.nl Fri Jan 27 04:20:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5398C21F853B for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:20:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pzWw5rFsLL8G for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5A921F8533 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0RCJVx5005068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:19:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F229652.40705@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:19:30 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <4EF485B6.3000701@uijterwaal.nl> <4F1E87EC.4000205@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F1E87EC.4000205@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [ippm] Meeting in Paris X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:20:04 -0000 IPPM Group, >> The chairs are currently discussing if we have to have a face-2-face >> meeting at the next IETF in Paris. If you have topics that need >> discussion, please drop us a note before January 25. > > I have not seen any requests... if you forgot about this, please speak up > now! A few people indeed forgot :-) so I have requested a slot. If you have agenda topics please drop me a note. If there are more requests than time available, priority will be given to topics that meet these criteria: a) There is a (current) draft that people can read. b) There has been some discussion on the content of the draft in the last 6 months. That is, drafts that have not been published or topics that appear to be dead (or very sound asleep) won't get agenda time. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From yaakov_s@rad.com Mon Jan 30 23:47:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B42921F8745 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:47:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.442, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zoBVyIvUcyp4 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:47:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay02-q.rad.co.il [94.188.133.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6852621F851C for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:47:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay02 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Jan 2012 09:38:02 +0200 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:47:38 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: Al Morton Thread-Topic: draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem Thread-Index: Aczf7JdrmEROZ9yLRc+4divatpBplg== Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:47:37 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042D1B8E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-cr-puzzleid: {E0629B7B-2923-441E-89F0-BD4A6A1A8B92} x-cr-hashedpuzzle: BCEW C1VX DPSn DvgD EQ26 FLWV F8X6 IuJC JP0X M0Fx NYMF ODDj OkwE O+Om Ul5s VAb3; 2; YQBjAG0AbwByAHQAbwBuAEAAYQB0AHQALgBjAG8AbQA7AGkAcABwAG0AQABpAGUAdABmAC4AbwByAGcA; Sosha1_v1; 7; {E0629B7B-2923-441E-89F0-BD4A6A1A8B92}; eQBhAGEAawBvAHYAXwBzAEAAcgBhAGQALgBjAG8AbQA=; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:47:33 GMT; ZAByAGEAZgB0AC0AbQBvAHIAdABvAG4ALQBpAHAAcABtAC0AcgBhAHQAZQAtAHAAcgBvAGIAbABlAG0A x-originating-ip: [172.17.170.143] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042D1B8EEXRAD5adradcoil_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:47:45 -0000 --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042D1B8EEXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Al I read the draft and have a few comments. My main comment is that I think you should discuss the difference between c= ommissioning tests and live network tests. In that regard, I think that in section 3 you mean that minimizing test tra= ffic is a key tenet, not a key tenant. I agree for live testing, but not for commissioning testing where 2544 meth= ods are applicable. On the other hand, I would like to see some text on the implications of thi= s principle for live testing, for example pointing out how this can be accomplished and what modification= s, if any, are needed to the current protocols. In addition, in live testing, to understand the true datarate one needs to = add the measurement datarate to the background datarate. Moreover, in order to minimize the eff= ect on the user, one needs to know the background datarate and inject active traffic accordi= ngly. At very least this should be mentioned, and perhaps a discussion on if this= limits these measurements to point to point cases. Also, live tests are different from commissioning tests in that they are ei= ther performed over time or performed in diagnostic mode. I would appreciate some wording about cont= inuous, periodic, and on-demand use. One of the two scenarios you highlight is the access network environment, o= r at least cases where the bottleneck is there. You then say that in this environment rates are often asymmetric, but you do not rule out two-way measurements, even saying that it may be fa= vored. Can you explain why ? If it is because of the OOF case, perhaps you should insert some guidance. Also, there can be 2-way measurements that contain enough information to de= termine the two one-way parameters (even for delay if clocks are sync'ed up). Are you ruling this out ? If not, can we have some mention of it ? Regarding the security section, SLAs are business agreements between the pr= ovider and its customer, and as such can indeed be sensitive. Consider the case where a business is = ramping up its operations in advance of a major (but still secret) launch, and thus commissioning man= y new services. Leaking this to a competitor could be disastrous. Y(J)S --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042D1B8EEXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Al

 

I read the draft and have a few comments.=

 

My main comment is that I think you should discuss t= he difference between commissioning tests and live network tests.

In that regard, I think that in section 3 you mean t= hat minimizing test traffic is a key tenet, not a key tenant.

I agree for live testing, but not for commissioning = testing where 2544 methods are applicable.

On the other hand, I would like to see some text on = the implications of this principle for live testing,

for example pointing out how this can be accomplishe= d and what modifications, if any,

are needed to the current protocols.

 

In addition, in live testing, to understand the true= datarate one needs to add the measurement

datarate to the background datarate. Moreover, in or= der to minimize the effect on the user,

one needs to know the background datarate and inject= active traffic accordingly.

At very least this should be mentioned, and perhaps = a discussion on if this limits these measurements

to point to point cases.

 

Also, live tests are different from commissioning te= sts in that they are either performed over time

or performed in diagnostic mode. I would appreciate = some wording about continuous, periodic, and on-demand use.

 

One of the two scenarios you highlight is the access= network environment, or at least cases where the bottleneck is there.=

You then say that in this environment rates are ofte= n asymmetric,

but you do not rule out two-way measurements, even s= aying that it may be favored.

Can you explain why ?

If it is because of the OOF case, perhaps you should= insert some guidance.

 

Also, there can be 2-way measurements that contain e= nough information to determine

the two one-way parameters (even for delay if clocks= are sync'ed up).

Are you ruling this out ? If not, can we have some m= ention of it ?

 

Regarding the security section, SLAs are business ag= reements between the provider and its customer,

and as such can indeed be sensitive. Consider the ca= se where a business is ramping up its operations

in advance of a major (but still secret) launch, and= thus commissioning many new services.

Leaking this to a competitor could be disastrous.

 

Y(J)S

 

--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042D1B8EEXRAD5adradcoil_-- From acmorton@att.com Tue Jan 31 06:04:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A974421F84EF for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:04:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.389 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.651, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JLAWeeYZmtXZ for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:04:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067D521F8438 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:04:47 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1328018686!61257062!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 9465 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2012 14:04:47 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Jan 2012 14:04:47 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0VE5GsM024038 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:05:16 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0VE59Om023919 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:05:09 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:04:31 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0VE4ViI031218 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:04:31 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0VE4PrE030817 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:04:25 -0500 Message-Id: <201201311404.q0VE4PrE030817@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-107-8.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.107.8](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120131140223gw100e4l5ve>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:02:24 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.107.8] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:05:23 -0500 To: Yaakov Stein From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042D1B8E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co. il> References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042D1B8E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:04:48 -0000 Hi Yaakov,

Regarding your main comment, I certainly agree,
it's worthwhile to sort-out the difference between
the testing scenarios of:
 
* Service Activation (commissioning) tests,
which are usually conducted prior to releasing the
communications service to the subscriber for use.

* In-Service (live network) tests, where subscriber traffic
may be present on the service entity.

There's a third category, where the communications service
is temporarily removed from service for testing or maintenance,
but this can be combined with Service Activation if we
refer to it as:

* Out-of-Service Testing, where no subscriber traffic is present
on the service entity. This covers commissioning and maintenance.

Also, while it is always useful to minimize test traffic and the
time needed to conduct tests, I agree that In-Service tests tighten
the constraints. I'll deal with your other comments in the next
version.

Regarding RFC 2544's role in production testing, I refer you to
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-01
This draft will be in WGLC shortly, and should be discussed on
bmwg's list.

regards,
Al

At 02:47 AM 1/31/2012, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
         boundary="_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042D1B8EEXRAD5adradcoil_"

Al
 
I read the draft and have a few comments.
 
My main comment is that I think you should discuss the difference between commissioning tests and live network tests.
In that regard, I think that in section 3 you mean that minimizing test traffic is a key tenet, not a key tenant.
I agree for live testing, but not for commissioning testing where 2544 methods are applicable.
On the other hand, I would like to see some text on the implications of this principle for live testing,
for example pointing out how this can be accomplished and what modifications, if any,
are needed to the current protocols.
 
In addition, in live testing, to understand the true datarate one needs to add the measurement
datarate to the background datarate. Moreover, in order to minimize the effect on the user,
one needs to know the background datarate and inject active traffic accordingly.
At very least this should be mentioned, and perhaps a discussion on if this limits these measurements
to point to point cases.
 
Also, live tests are different from commissioning tests in that they are either performed over time
or performed in diagnostic mode. I would appreciate some wording about continuous, periodic, and on-demand use.
 
One of the two scenarios you highlight is the access network environment, or at least cases where the bottleneck is there.
You then say that in this environment rates are often asymmetric,
but you do not rule out two-way measurements, even saying that it may be favored.
Can you explain why ?
If it is because of the OOF case, perhaps you should insert some guidance.
 
Also, there can be 2-way measurements that contain enough information to determine
the two one-way parameters (even for delay if clocks are sync'ed up).
Are you ruling this out ? If not, can we have some mention of it ?
 
Regarding the security section, SLAs are business agreements between the provider and its customer,
and as such can indeed be sensitive. Consider the case where a business is ramping up its operations
in advance of a major (but still secret) launch, and thus commissioning many new services.
Leaking this to a competitor could be disastrous.
 
Y(J)S
 
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm