From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Mon May 7 12:04:14 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 AB5C821F8684; Mon, 7 May 2012 12:04:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.456, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, 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 DXqvi+z0ut7A; Mon, 7 May 2012 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfcpa.amsl.com [12.22.58.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FA621F8688; Mon, 7 May 2012 12:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id D0C57B1E008; Mon, 7 May 2012 12:01:58 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20120507190158.D0C57B1E008@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [ippm] RFC 6534 on Loss Episode Metrics for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) 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, 07 May 2012 19:04:14 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6534 Title: Loss Episode Metrics for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Author: N. Duffield, A. Morton, J. Sommers Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: May 2012 Mailbox: duffield@research.att.com, acmorton@att.com, jsommers@colgate.edu Pages: 21 Characters: 45147 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-04.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6534.txt The IETF has developed a one-way packet loss metric that measures the loss rate on a Poisson and Periodic probe streams 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. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue May 8 06:28:00 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 16F8821F8582; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:28:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 yMSOFL4CXsju; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB35321F848F; Tue, 8 May 2012 06:27:59 -0700 (PDT) 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: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120508132759.13015.73463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 06:27:59 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-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: Tue, 08 May 2012 13:28:00 -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 Packet Loss Metrics Author(s) : Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-05.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2012-05-08 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-05.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-05.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu May 10 10:48:11 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 393C921F86DF; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:48:10 -0700 (PDT) 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 sMjm7rpIhVyT; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7B721F86AB; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:48:08 -0700 (PDT) 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: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120510174808.21452.37743.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:48:08 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-09.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, 10 May 2012 17:48:11 -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 IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Poin= ts of View Author(s) : Al Morton Gomathi Ramachandran Ganga Maguluri Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-09.txt Pages : 27 Date : 2012-05-10 Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses in mind. The memo provides "long-term" reporting considerations (e.g., hours, 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-09.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-09.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics/ From henk@uijterwaal.nl Fri May 11 02:53:16 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 52A0521F85EF for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:53:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.452 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, 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 P6FwRUXvn-nH for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7681021F85EE for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4B9qh2N069924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 11:52:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4FACE16B.9030401@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 11:52:43 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] IETF84 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, 11 May 2012 09:53:16 -0000 IPPM Group, I know that the event is still more than 2 months away. However, we have to decide if there is a need for a face-2-face meeting at the Vancouver IETF this summer. If you have any agenda topics, please contact the chairs, Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon May 14 15:46:12 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 27A0F21F88F5; Mon, 14 May 2012 15:46:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, 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 kfl8lVpNJV+V; Mon, 14 May 2012 15:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BA521F890B; Mon, 14 May 2012 15:46:09 -0700 (PDT) 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: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120514224609.6244.78047.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:46:09 -0700 Cc: ippm mailing list , ippm chair , RFC Editor Subject: [ippm] Protocol Action: 'Round-trip Packet Loss Metrics' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-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: Mon, 14 May 2012 22:46:12 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Round-trip Packet Loss Metrics' (draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-05.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin Stiemerling. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss/ Technical Summary 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). Working Group Summary The normal IPPM WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing special worth noting. Document Quality All implementations of TWAMP (which is fairly wide-spread) and Cisco IP-SLA v1 (which is VERY wide-spread) perform a RT-loss measurement consistent with the metric in this draft. This metric is measured more that 100K times each day (and that's a conservative estimate). AT&T has 1000 TWAMP end points and 1000 IP-SLA end points making this measurement every 15 minutes, 96 times per day. Personnel The document shepherd is Henk Uijterwaal, and the responsible AD is Wesley Eddy. From wes@mti-systems.com Tue May 15 19:40:11 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 9D1EF11E8096 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:40:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, 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 wjUBV5kG-C5P for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr12.networksolutionsemail.com (omr12.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A7821F869A for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:40:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cm-omr11 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr12.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4G2e8jZ017933 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:40:08 -0400 Authentication-Results: cm-omr11 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com Received: from [69.81.143.202] ([69.81.143.202:50062] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by cm-omr11 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id 0E/3F-31453-88313BF4; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:40:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4FB3137C.8010105@mti-systems.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:39:56 -0400 From: Wesley Eddy Organization: MTI Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG , draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [ippm] AD review for the 2679 test plan/results document 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, 16 May 2012 02:40:11 -0000 Hi, even though this looks like a lot of comments, I found the draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679 document to overall be a very good and useful document. I think most of my AD review comments are actually easy to address, but due to the volume of them, a revised I-D is really needed before taking this to IETF Last Call and the IESG: - suggest changing: "The IETF (IP Performance Metrics working group, IPPM)" to: "The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group" - the reference to draft-bradner in the first sentence of the introduction is odd; I would expect it to just show up as "[draft-bradner-metricstest]" and not have the part that says "ref to work in progress" or the trailing dash on it - in the last paragraph of section 1, a space is missing prior to the reference to RFC 5657 - in the last paragraph of section 1: "procedures, results" should be: "procedures, and results" - in section 2, references to RFC 6576 should replace the ones to the earlier I-D, and this section should either be cut-down in content or eliminated as it attmpts to include too much verbatim from the other document that can simply be cited instead - in section 3, "WIPM" is not expanded and doesn't have a citation; I don't expect all other readers to necessarily know what this is - in paragraph 2 of section 3, "periodic" is uncapitalized, even though it was capitalized in the prior paragraph - the URLs for Fedora in section 3 should probably be real informative references rather than URLs embedded in square brackets - in section 3, ""mii-tool"when" should be: ""mii-tool" when" if there's really even a need to mention the command by name; I think it's sufficient to say that the links were found to be in half-duplex without mentioning mii-tool specifically - section 3 mentions 3 packet sizes that were used (64, 340, and 500 bytes); was there any reason these specific numbers were picked? Was there any reason to avoid larger packets that might have been interesting (e.g. ones that would be fragmented?) - in section 4.1, "Best Effort DCSP" should be: "Best Effort DSCP"? - Section 4.2 has some use of "Perfas" mixed with "Perfas+" in other places; one should be used consistently - Section 5 seems to include a paraphrase of what's in RFC 6576 Section 3.1, without citing it? - reference to the metrictest document can be updated to point to RFC 6576 - in Section 6.1.4, "out lier" should be "outlier" - Section 6.1.5 has this note: >>>> To be provided: >>>> Overall statement about Correction Factors w.r.t. section 5 limits. >>>> Appendix with more details ??? -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems From tiziano.ionta@telecomitalia.it Wed May 16 01:50:26 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 8D25921F87CD for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:50:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.418 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, 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 p39Rmqq9-BgF for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg701ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A617D21F87CB for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_e25f460b-6191-46eb-8f32-0de9a26099be_" Received: from GRFHUB701BA020.griffon.local (10.188.101.111) by GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.245.1; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:20 +0200 Received: from GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.12]) by grfhub701ba020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.111]) with mapi; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:20 +0200 From: Ionta Tiziano To: "'ippm@ietf.org'" Importance: high X-Priority: 1 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:19 +0200 Thread-Topic: Proposal for IETF84 Thread-Index: Ac0zQO9aGCNTW7gJSdOT1WyhoCaPkg== Message-ID: <885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB52C9A70E@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: it-IT X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: it-IT, en-US x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ippm] Proposal for IETF84 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, 16 May 2012 08:50:26 -0000 --_e25f460b-6191-46eb-8f32-0de9a26099be_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB52C9A70EGRFMBX702BA02_" --_000_885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB52C9A70EGRFMBX702BA02_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, during the last months many mails have been submitted about pros and cons o= f TWAMP and IPSLA. In my opinion it would be very helpful for everybody in IPPM WG to have a s= ummarization 'at a glance' of these pros and cons of TWAMP vs IPSLA. This summarization could be presented and discussed during the IETF84 IPPM = meeting. Here a proposal for the summarization layout [to be filled by both the TWAM= P people (who?) and the IPSLA people (who?)]: TWAMP IPSLA PROS CONS PROS CONS Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 where each item represents a relevant aspect to be taken into account for a= deep comparison between TWAMP and IPSLA. What do you think about? Bye Tiziano 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. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000003@TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. No= n stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. --_000_885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB52C9A70EGRFMBX702BA02_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

during the last months many mails have been sub= mitted about pros and cons of TWAMP and IPSLA.

In my opinion it would be very helpful for ever= ybody in IPPM WG to have a summarization ‘at a glance’ of these= pros and cons of TWAMP vs IPSLA.

This summarization could be presented and discu= ssed during the IETF84 IPPM meeting.

 

Here a proposal for the summarization layout [t= o be filled by both the TWAMP people (who?) and the IPSLA people (who?)]:

 

        = ;             &= nbsp;        TWAMP   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;            IPS= LA

        = ;            PROS&nb= sp;           CONS &= nbsp;         PROS   = ;         CONS

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

 

where each item represents a relevant aspect to= be taken into account for a deep comparison between TWAMP and IPSLA.<= /o:p>

 

What do you think about?

 

Bye

Tiziano

= Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigoro= samente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete= cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di pro= vvedere 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, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. I= f you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any at= tachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

3D"rispettaRispetta= l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.

--_000_885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB52C9A70EGRFMBX702BA02_-- --_e25f460b-6191-46eb-8f32-0de9a26099be_ Content-Description: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: 00000000000000000000000000000003@TI.Disclaimer R0lGODlhGgAoANU5AEiFNnikNyRvNcvYOafCOEOEW3DO3jB2NqjGs9ny9o+zOIOrN+L1+G+ggbzo 8GCUN1SNNv///zx+NrPJOL/ROYPV44zY5YuzmrfQwCZxQlKNaMXZzOfy8NTi2TV6TuLs5vX8/ez5 +4yzmtTj2cXr8mCXdKni62ycN5/f6aDf6X2qjrPl7rLl7Zu6OJbb53nS4PH188bs8sXZzfH18pq9 p0SDWxhnNWbL3NfgOf///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEAADkALAAAAAAaACgAAAb/wJxw SBQ6WMWkMmm6kZbQ5OvmjFoT1JuBYYWmsrcXqJvEgm8WctFypnI66pyjfXMhCmqGgR4r2S5dIBV0 FjI2h3BRX20VHAUCEjZ4UHNtFo42BA+HCEskbQYOIwU2CjgBNgAZM0kMbSYcIjYCBDg4LTYLf0V6 YCghNBk2DwO2OASZqkS9VBYMCB6pE8bGucidOYJUoaOptdQTFDg2ATgHGkIs2wyyAqbUtgICCwfl uh8ge1sNNhDF8LYiHYKAg4INBJUS8FsAEF6AA6lsHWjg4gYKDDZONGwIAIAtCAX2hPAgYSNHj6ds 3KiA8V3DAQGm2epoS4HKFQ0EmMRhc97Mwge2kN1IoIGgyQECD5wQUO6YygTkdtpCdSgqDl0VoDaV OmDBpm+oTCQoABQgBZfGbIrDAUBDAgcNDnDs98/WA504Buxa0RKgzVkB/h0oi+pDjgQhHtU1RgDi oY6l8gpAJyTBCBsSFtuC6XjWTBuJhIRAgFkmwAmoAkM4mCQCBmEB1sIDIKAFRGytYfDrt4CAuAkn qnrYYCXCBxGkqlYtgbtLhOcbMNSw0SBOEmg2VFj/sGHDhRLCNBC3fqFqARWhowQBADs= --_e25f460b-6191-46eb-8f32-0de9a26099be_-- From ietf-ipr@ietf.org Wed May 16 10:50:09 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 420CE21F86D4; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.394 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.205, 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 jtRpBBXGiUV0; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7635421F854C; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: andreas.a.johnsson@ericsson.com, christofer.flinta@ericsson.com, steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com, svante.ekelin@ericsson.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120516175001.3835.67608.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:01 -0700 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2012 08:10:31 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org, matt@internet2.edu, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] IPR Disclosure: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-03 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, 16 May 2012 17:50:09 -0000 Dear Andreas Johnsson, Christofer Flinta, Steve Baillargeon, Svante Ekelin: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Ericsson = TWAMP Value-Added Octets" (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets) was submitte= d to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-05-16 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1782/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to dr= aft- ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-03.""); The IETF Secretariat From acmorton@att.com Thu May 24 06:27:52 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 35CAA21F8649 for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 06:27:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.736 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.061, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 KVb+bNhRX0yb for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 06:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C0521F854A for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 06:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 6573ebf4.0.90384.00-475.235779.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 24 May 2012 13:27:51 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fbe3757698636a3-f5eb8fb292cb94fa5256df4bfc2ad2657581ceff 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 q4ODRo4N009599 for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:27:50 -0400 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 q4ODRh9m009532 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:27:46 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:27:28 -0400 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 q4ODRQKC018702 for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:27:28 -0400 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 q4ODRLcZ018275 for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:27:22 -0400 Message-Id: <201205241327.q4ODRLcZ018275@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (njpds01mw5453.ugd.att.com[135.16.251.233](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120524132345gw10060lkge>; Thu, 24 May 2012 13:23:45 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.233] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:28:35 -0400 To: Ionta Tiziano , "'ippm@ietf.org'" From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB52C9A70E@GRFMBX702BA020. griffon.local> References: <885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB52C9A70E@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=qo1AAkonb1gA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHo] X-AnalysisOut: [wA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48] X-AnalysisOut: [vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=6Nzf4hJIoP7b8ZvzMDsA:9 a=SIQkaqIWHQpl6MgO7o] X-AnalysisOut: [EA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10] Subject: Re: [ippm] Proposal for IETF84 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, 24 May 2012 13:27:52 -0000 Hi Tiziano,

I think it's a good idea to make a comparison and have
the info available.  But, there isn't a competition between
these two protocols, so the comparison is just for
information.

Perhaps you can suggest some specific comparison criteria
(to replace Item #'s below).

Al


At 04:50 AM 5/16/2012, Ionta Tiziano wrote:
Dear all,
during the last months many mails have been submitted about pros and cons of TWAMP and IPSLA.
In my opinion it would be very helpful for everybody in IPPM WG to have a summarization =91at a glance=92 of these pros and cons of TWAMP vs IPSLA.
This summarization could be presented and discussed during the IETF84 IPPM meeting.
 
Here a proposal for the summarization layout [to be filled by both the TWAMP people (who?) and the IPSLA people (who?)]:
 
            &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;    TWAMP            = ;            &nb= sp;    IPSLA
            &nbs= p;       PROS            CONS           PROS            CONS
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
 
where each item represents a relevant aspect to be taken into account for a deep comparison between TWAMP and IPSLA.
 
What do you think about?
 
Bye
Tiziano
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. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati 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, 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.
3D"rispetta Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non =E8 necessario.


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
From henk@uijterwaal.nl Thu May 24 08:21:24 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 BFDDD21F855B for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT) 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 eilZZL8FXgLH for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B374A21F855A for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:21:23 -0700 (PDT) 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 q4OFKpYa040672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 17:20:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4FBE51D2.7040801@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 17:20:50 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <885CC0380486234DBF486FA72FE9BE3BAB52C9A70E@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> <201205241327.q4ODRLcZ018275@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201205241327.q4ODRLcZ018275@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [ippm] Proposal for IETF84 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, 24 May 2012 15:21:24 -0000 Hi Tiziano, > I think it's a good idea to make a comparison and have > the info available. But, there isn't a competition between > these two protocols, so the comparison is just for > information. I agree with Al here, we are not selecting a protocol from 2 candidates, we have a situation where there is one protocol that is a standard (TWAMP) and another protocol for which there is some interest but not a standard. If you want to start on this comparison, feel free to do so and post what you have to the list. Henk > > Perhaps you can suggest some specific comparison criteria > (to replace Item #'s below). > > Al > > > At 04:50 AM 5/16/2012, Ionta Tiziano wrote: >> Dear all, >> during the last months many mails have been submitted about pros and cons of >> TWAMP and IPSLA. >> In my opinion it would be very helpful for everybody in IPPM WG to have a >> summarization ‘at a glance’ of these pros and cons of TWAMP vs IPSLA. >> This summarization could be presented and discussed during the IETF84 IPPM >> meeting. >> >> Here a proposal for the summarization layout [to be filled by both the TWAMP >> people (who?) and the IPSLA people (who?)]: >> >> TWAMP IPSLA >> PROS CONS PROS CONS >> Item 1 >> Item 2 >> Item 3 >> >> where each item represents a relevant aspect to be taken into account for a >> deep comparison between TWAMP and IPSLA. >> >> What do you think about? >> >> Bye >> Tiziano >> 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. Qualora >> abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati 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, >> 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./ >> rispetta l'ambiente *Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non č >> necessario.* >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From a.botta@unina.it Fri May 25 09:41:50 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 919AC21F875A for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:41:50 -0700 (PDT) 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 FSLQJrInKLGI for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.unina.it (smtp1.unina.it [192.132.34.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C4F21F8758 for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [143.225.229.125] ([143.225.229.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp1.unina.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4PGfmAe009765 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 18:41:48 +0200 Message-ID: <4FBFB639.5050003@unina.it> Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 18:41:29 +0200 From: Alessio Botta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.4) Gecko/20120510 Icedove/10.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [ippm] Communication QoS and System Modeling Symposium at ICNC 2013: CFP 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, 25 May 2012 16:41:50 -0000 [Our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] ------------------------------------------------------------- Communication QoS and System Modeling Symposium at ICNC 2013: CALL FOR PAPER - First Announcement ------------------------------------------------------------- Communication QoS and System Modeling Symposium at the International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) 2013, San Diego, California, January 28-31, 2013 http://www.conf-icnc.org/ Communication networks are designed to offer services to end-users with suitable Quality of Service (QoS) level. To such an end, network traffic should be analyzed and appropriately controlled so that the desired QoS requirements are achieved. The development of today’s applications, network technologies and standards greatly leverages modeling and design tools. Furthermore, different methodologies including analytical modeling, simulation, experimentation, and monitoring are needed to support designs of communication networks and services. The aim of the “Communication QoS and System Modeling” Symposium is to provide an international forum for the discussion of communications service provisioning, the quality and mechanisms to support such services as well as the techniques to model and assess the efficiency of communication networks. Authors are invited to submit original technical papers covering but not limited to the topics of interest listed below. * Topics * Quality, scalability, reliability, and performance in network and their services, including - Internet - Optical networks - Autonomic systems - Wireless and mobile networks - Wireless and mobile networks - Grid and distributed computing - Wireless and mobile networks - Multimedia networks in voice over IP and IPTV Performance of large-scale experimental platforms Standardization aspects of QoS and reliability Network Performance evaluation methodologies - Network simulation - Network modeling - Network measurement and monitoring Design of networks and their services Cross-layer design, modeling and optimization Traffic economics Application/ service oriented networking Traffic workload modeling and characterization Traffic and workload control Traffic engineering and traffic theory Metrics and models for QoE * Important Dates * Paper submission: July 5, 2012 Paper Acceptance: Sept. 20, 2012 Camera-ready paper: Oct. 20, 2012 * Symposium Chairs * Lydia Y. Chen IBM Zurich Research Laboratory (Switzerland) Antonio Pescapé University of Napoli ''Federico II'' (Italy) -- Alessio Botta, PhD Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica Universitŕ degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II" Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napoli (Italy) [Room 3.09] Phone: +390817683865 - Fax: +390817683816 Skypeid: alessiobotta Email: a.botta@unina.it alessio.botta@consorzio-cini.it WWW: http://wpage.unina.it/a.botta From henk@uijterwaal.nl Thu May 31 07:21:31 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 DE3BE21F85C5 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:21:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.24 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, 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 sKgRdKMdOWZS for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F46A21F8468 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:21:29 -0700 (PDT) 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 q4VEKvJc089896 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 16:20:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4FC77E48.1060003@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:20:56 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] (No) Meeting in Vancouver 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, 31 May 2012 14:21:31 -0000 IPPM group, There have been no request for agenda time to discuss WG items in Vancouver, and one request for a slot for a yet-to-be-published individual submission ID. Unless this changes dramatically in the next 2 days, I will not ask for a slot for IPPM. There will be a TSV area meeting where individual submission ID's can be presented. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From mchiba@gmail.com Thu May 31 12:08:36 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 4966B21F8787 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:08:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 8Lv9bWfParxL for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8759221F8782 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so1262806yen.31 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=2GTwxBteqtemTnsAdA3GewTzdGR6zrVf7gu1NStfiYk=; b=VwFoW3571Dw1uuj7Q+Ku0TJXJM2+2t0RNVk+RsVnazwjXnofvkWsaGhivvCBqdj0r2 jwGvg9QDtZtZ0p+Kwtqove5grq2N9fZEQcuTGmVpD+Q+4vsNW3dN0BRmVd4XXDJLp1MG n89DAi3urwoWThWPyKMx1oUio1DbfQtkQKwomlh/e98/vSeRK829gmNFwSIT/VtJ02DW WTkNx+LOADMWiaonzaR18Jy4KdvT6WBiLA//ZeWB9sAgPp9CGQrrch1+zOZ61BELCxd5 ijppPfpLuc8vtryvRGfHdF86wbcE/4MrLuymIA7G8Uz6aKOJGqtmvM24iKFFLNFD/As0 eVfw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.3.39 with SMTP id 7mr20339883oez.4.1338491315082; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.174.98 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 12:08:35 -0700 Message-ID: From: Murtaza Chiba To: ippm@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f83ad2f5ed76504c159cbe8 Subject: [ippm] Cisco SLA draft version 1 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, 31 May 2012 19:08:36 -0000 --e89a8f83ad2f5ed76504c159cbe8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello All, We (the authors) would like to announce the availability of an updated version of our draft. We would like to thank everyone for providing comments. The authors would also like to request that this be moved back to the independent stream to make progress. Thanks and Regards, On behalf of the authors -murtaza --e89a8f83ad2f5ed76504c159cbe8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello All,
=A0 =A0 =A0We (the authors) would like to announce the avail= ability of an updated version of our draft. We would like to thank everyone= for providing comments. The authors would also like to request that this b= e moved back to the independent stream to make progress.

Thanks and Regards,
On behalf of the authors<= /div>
-murtaza
--e89a8f83ad2f5ed76504c159cbe8--