From henk.uijterwaal@gmail.com Thu Feb 9 00:50:42 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 8DC0921F861D for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:50:42 -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 BgA96crkiRKj for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:50:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE27921F861C for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:50:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by bkuw12 with SMTP id w12so1478487bku.31 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:50:40 -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=xJ/POGbKyPEBAd/+mtTKftY6BtlX+SddUvVbIX4ZR4s=; b=ncovtrzHTdHLaq2FuBKxoT2tcUvixDlH+IdER4N944pWmnwYfgFp/dyyhmzFDoTAGC ZSVpcWAf2mMfRQJqvtI90rGK2w+9jGK4Xae4xF+s/SnJjHX+HeixOlKlbd8yTngSts19 UGS/8FRx5lBpewEYG0Qh08KatFM4IxgxrIhCk= Received: by 10.204.10.86 with SMTP id o22mr345973bko.111.1328777440029; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:50:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local ([2001:980:1203:1:e6ce:8fff:fe11:e7a8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o26sm5407731bko.14.2012.02.09.00.50.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:50:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3388DB.7040608@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:50:35 +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: <4E2EB964.8060109@uijterwaal.nl> <4F1E8A30.1000606@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F1E8A30.1000606@uijterwaal.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss 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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:50:42 -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. No issues were raised so we'll move this draft forward. Matt & Henk > > 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 Thu Feb 9 00:53:45 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 A35AB21F858D for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:53:45 -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 NKWiodBhv819 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CA021F8589 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:53:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q198rBjX045477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:53:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F338977.5060000@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:53:11 +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: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG References: <4F1E8A71.3060409@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F1E8A71.3060409@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:53:45 -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/ No comments were raised so we'll move this draft forward. 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 Thu Feb 9 00:57:52 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 7793E21F865C for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:57:52 -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 iQZc5sZCfwGM for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:57:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4090221F8645 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:57:51 -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 q198vJkt057079 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:57:19 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F338A6F.4070706@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:57:19 +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: <4F1E8DF2.2050401@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F1E8DF2.2050401@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner 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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:57:52 -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. No comments were made against the approach. The next steps for this draft will be: * It will re-appear as draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets * If you haven't read the draft, please review and send comments to the list. Goal of the review is to ensure that the document is clear. 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 internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Feb 9 00:59:45 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 CB92121F869F; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:59:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.533 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, 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 BFYHXASTqSO7; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC4321F8693; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:59:45 -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: <20120209085945.16135.17133.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:59:45 -0800 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-00.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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:59:46 -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 : TWAMP Value-Added Octets Author(s) : Steve Baillargeon Christofer Flinta Andreas Johnsson Svante Ekelin Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-00.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2012-02-08 This memo describes optional extensions to the TWAMP test protocol for identifying and managing packet trains, which enables measuring capacity metrics like the available path capacity, tight section capacity and UDP delivery rate in the forward and reverse path directions. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octet= s-00.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-twamp-value-added-octets= -00.txt From acmorton@att.com Thu Feb 9 05:20:16 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 3C93121F86D6 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:20:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.267, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, 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 3H0zHdXV1j9C for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C327821F8567 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:20:13 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1328793612!44017307!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 6588 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2012 13:20:13 -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; 9 Feb 2012 13:20:13 -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 q19DKgNN011962 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:20:42 -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 q19DKdwn011942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:20:40 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:19:57 -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 q19DJukq018154 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:19:56 -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 q19DJrnF018090 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:19:53 -0500 Message-Id: <201202091319.q19DJrnF018090@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (martym.mt.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120209131743gw100e4lr3e>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:17:44 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:20:52 -0500 To: "Henk Uijterwaal" , Matt Zekauskas From: Al Morton 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: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Re: 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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:20:16 -0000 Henk, Matt, Just Prior to the WGLC, Daniel Genin sent the message below to me and the list, and I just located it in the archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg02769.html In any case, the authors plan to address Daniel's comments and issue a revised draft, hopefully this weekend. regards, Al >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 >To: Al Morton >CC: IETF IPPM WG >Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: >draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics >X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean >X-NIST-MailScanner-From: dgenin@nist.gov > >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 henk@uijterwaal.nl Thu Feb 9 06:06:01 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 87C1321F8751 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:06:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, 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 mNYlysCdHnA9 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr5.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6323221F8750 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:06:00 -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 q19E5Hci029592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:05:18 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F33D29B.8000002@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:05:15 +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: Al Morton References: <201202091319.q19DJrgV018087@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201202091319.q19DJrgV018087@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: Matt Zekauskas , ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Re: 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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:06:01 -0000 Al, > Just Prior to the WGLC, Daniel Genin sent the message below > to me and the list, and I just located it in the archive: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg02769.html > > In any case, the authors plan to address Daniel's comments > and issue a revised draft, hopefully this weekend. Sorry, I seemed to have missed this mail. Looking at it, section II are all typo's, section I is a useful comment but addressing it is unlikely to undo the rough consensus on this coument that we have. So, I suggest that you update the document and we submit the next version to the IESG. Henk > > regards, > Al > > > >> 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 >> To: Al Morton >> CC: IETF IPPM WG >> Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics >> X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean >> X-NIST-MailScanner-From: dgenin@nist.gov >> >> 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 >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 lc9892@att.com Mon Feb 13 08:45:34 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 6701421F8740 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:45:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_RMML_Stock1=0.21, URI_HEX=0.368, 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 uzuC+KodJEIB for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:45:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B991721F873E for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:45:32 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: lc9892@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1329151530!15407626!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 16837 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2012 16:45:30 -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; 13 Feb 2012 16:45:30 -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 q1DGjxeK014077 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:46:00 -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 q1DGjtGX013909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:45:56 -0500 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com (misout7msghub9e.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.61]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:45:07 -0500 Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.1.140]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.61]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:45:07 -0500 From: "CIAVATTONE, LEN" To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- Thread-Index: AQHM6bysC7fltv21NUCvG8OjQlc0l5Y6/q2A Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:45:06 +0000 Message-ID: <9D7950E639BD2648A44DBE18D15FF705AA877D@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <201202121929.q1CJTcFC021768@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201202121929.q1CJTcFC021768@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.91.120.244] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:43:56 -0800 Cc: "MORTON JR., AL" Subject: Re: [ippm] Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- 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, 13 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0000 I just wanted to comment that I am very interested in this draft. A number = of years ago I worked with Cisco development to create an AT&T IPSLA-compat= ible software client which is still in large-scale use today. However, beca= use that work was covered by NDA with Cisco we have always wanted to create= a non-private version of the tool (and the switch to TWAMP is a big effort= that can't always be utilized). Leonard Ciavattone (Len) AT&T Labs - IP Services 200 S. Laurel Avenue Middletown, NJ 07748 Room: A2-4G06 Phone: (732) 420-1239 >X-Originating-IP: [144.151.223.11] >X-Env-Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org >X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1326682084!45741215!1 >X-Originating-IP: [12.22.58.30] >X-SpamReason: No, hits=3D0.0 required=3D7.0 tests=3Dsa_preprocessor: > VHJ1c3RlZCBJUDogMTIuMjIuNTguMzAgPT4gMTI4MTUz\n >X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=3D-,-,- >X-VirusChecked: Checked >DKIM-Signature: v=3D1; a=3Drsa-sha256; c=3Drelaxed/simple; d=3Dietf.org; s= =3Dietf1; > t=3D1326682083; bh=3DnAu7iyzayO87R2QSXYXcMyXUDq2Gi78EQO4HOxehZsU= =3D; > h=3DMessage-Id:Date:To:From:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version: > Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help= : > List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; > b=3DUvG0tCrn9lhtlAKe2bRqLpbpLwGZal9H5/4WO8W4K72jSn09wP/rtbD417/Cm= Tkqa > QcL+DhC74V2h53s5UyQNOOT91/pHgx+SeMIYFUU/uMeoHL1GBxbQZgEbFDSwKo4JQ= e > CteeWOrI3g/JUxGhpbJFldRkmcLYU1IWgmm4v28s=3D >X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com >Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com >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=3D-105.052 tagged_above=3D-999 required=3D5 > tests=3D[AWL=3D-0.744, BAYES_05=3D-1.11, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=3D= 0.803, > RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=3D-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=3D-100] >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=3D-,-,- >X-VirusChecked: Checked >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 >X-RSA-Inspected: yes >X-RSA-Classifications: public >X-RSA-Action: allow >Subject: [ippm] Comments on draft-cisco-sla-protocol- [was: Re: Wrapping u= p] >X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org >X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 >List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org > ... > >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 internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Feb 13 11:57:21 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 51FC321F86D9; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:57:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, 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 8NZiaQ+jSVwg; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:57:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E305721F869A; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:57:20 -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: <20120213195720.20196.26079.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:57:20 -0800 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-07.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: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:57:21 -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-07.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2012-02-13 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-07.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-07.txt From henk@uijterwaal.nl Thu Feb 16 23:55:02 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 2AD9221F8803 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:55:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.525 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.021, 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 wh-IO7G1JFXL for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:54:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr6.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr6.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A20021F8807 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:54:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr6.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1H7sMqi023480 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:54:22 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F3E07AE.50301@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:54:22 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG , David Harrington References: <4EF485B6.3000701@uijterwaal.nl> <4F1E87EC.4000205@uijterwaal.nl> <4F229652.40705@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F229652.40705@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 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, 17 Feb 2012 07:55:02 -0000 IPPM group, The schedule for Paris is extremely tight and we are being asked to see if our slot can be shortened. Before answering, please read the mail below. If you want time on the agenda but didn't ask for it yet, please do so now. Henk On 27/01/2012 13:19, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > 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 wes@mti-systems.com Mon Feb 27 10:15:31 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 214CC21F87A9 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:15:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 R8LJIFhZiJv0 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:15:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from omr3.networksolutionsemail.com (omr3.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C4721F87A7 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:15:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-omr2 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr3.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q1RIFRbh000613 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:15:27 -0500 Authentication-Results: cm-omr2 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com Received: from [107.47.230.34] ([107.47.230.34:7710] helo=[68.245.171.115]) by cm-omr2 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id 98/83-23169-E38CB4F4; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:15:27 -0500 Message-ID: <4F4BC840.4060003@mti-systems.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:15:28 -0500 From: Wesley Eddy Organization: MTI Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton , "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , ippm@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [ippm] AD review for draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-02 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, 27 Feb 2012 18:15:31 -0000 Hi, I've done an AD review of the rt-loss document and think it's ready to go to IETF LC and IESG Review, except for one question that I have on what may be simply a typo: In Section 5, the last paragraph prior to 5.1 says: In the metric name, the variable SHALL be replaced with the process used to define the sample, using one of the above processes (or other process, the details of which MUST be specified if used). I believe, "" should be ""? For instance, section 5.1 is Name: Type-P-Round-trip-Loss--Stream and section 6.1 is Type-P-Round-trip-Loss--Ratio. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems From acmorton@att.com Mon Feb 27 19:25:28 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 D9A9521F8594 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:25:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.426, 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 e74m9NZMcmop for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:25:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3528C21F8593 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:25:27 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1330399521!65463365!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 27523 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2012 03:25:22 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 28 Feb 2012 03:25:22 -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 q1S3PqCk007161 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -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 q1S3PkI0007106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:25:47 -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, 27 Feb 2012 22:25:09 -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 q1S3P9IC003994 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:25:09 -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 q1S3P5Ko003816 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:25:05 -0500 Message-Id: <201202280325.q1S3P5Ko003816@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-188-87.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.188.87](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120228032238gw100e4lsme>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:22:40 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.188.87] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:26:07 -0500 To: Wesley Eddy , "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4F4BC840.4060003@mti-systems.com> References: <4F4BC840.4060003@mti-systems.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] AD review for draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-02 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, 28 Feb 2012 03:25:29 -0000 Yes, I used in a previous memo, but that term would be redundant with the "Stream" in the metric name here. I'll make the changes, Al At 01:15 PM 2/27/2012, Wesley Eddy wrote: >Hi, I've done an AD review of the rt-loss document and think >it's ready to go to IETF LC and IESG Review, except for one >question that I have on what may be simply a typo: > >In Section 5, the last paragraph prior to 5.1 says: > > In the metric name, the variable SHALL be replaced with the > process used to define the sample, using one of the above processes > (or other process, the details of which MUST be specified if used). > >I believe, "" should be ""? For instance, >section 5.1 is Name: Type-P-Round-trip-Loss--Stream and >section 6.1 is Type-P-Round-trip-Loss--Ratio. > >-- >Wes Eddy >MTI Systems >_______________________________________________ >ippm mailing list >ippm@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From henk@uijterwaal.nl Tue Feb 28 01:19:58 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 28B2B21F8647 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:19:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.020, 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 j688XEUNEVds for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:19:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C1A21F85DB for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:19:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1S9JM0b042456 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:19:22 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F4C9C19.6060609@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:19:21 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <4F1E8DF2.2050401@uijterwaal.nl> <4F338A6F.4070706@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F338A6F.4070706@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Please review draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-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, 28 Feb 2012 09:19:58 -0000 IPPM group, Please see below. This document has meanwhile been submitted as draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets and the authors have asked for comments. If you are interested in this draft, please comment before March 19 (which will give us some time to organize a face-2-face discussion on the draft in Paris, if necessary). If you want to review the draft but don't have time before Paris, please let me know as well. Henk On 09/02/2012 09:57, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > 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. > > No comments were made against the approach. The next steps for this > draft will be: > > * It will re-appear as draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets > > * If you haven't read the draft, please review and send comments to > the list. Goal of the review is to ensure that the document is > clear. > > 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)