From nobody Wed Feb 1 04:54:20 2017 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 0B84B129DA6 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 04:54:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mbl9NWTM1RDU for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 04:54:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from trammell.ch (unknown [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7339A129DA2 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 04:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:2a49:8000::10d6] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:2a49:8000::10d6]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D9971A0213 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:54:15 +0100 (CET) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_62B8CD95-2793-4B3D-A4B8-64A4DD8E2EFC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:54:14 +0100 References: To: IETF IPPM WG Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Fwd: [Maprg] Call for Contributions (IETF-98, Chicago) - deadline March 3 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 01 Feb 2017 12:54:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_62B8CD95-2793-4B3D-A4B8-64A4DD8E2EFC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 FYI Cheers, Brian > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > From: Mirja K=C3=BChlewind > Subject: [Maprg] Call for Contributions (IETF-98, Chicago) - deadline = March 3 > Date: 16 January 2017 at 17:47:52 GMT+1 > To: maprg@irtf.org > Cc: Dave Plonka >=20 > Call for Contributions > for maprg IETF-98, Chigaco >=20 > The IRTF Measurement and Analysis for Protocols Research Group > (maprg) will have its next meeting at the IETF-98, March 26-31, 2017, > in Chigaco. >=20 > We would like to invite you to send a short abstract (200-300 words) = to > the maprg chairs (maprg-chairs@ietf.org) describing a contribution > you are willing to present at the next meeting. The contribution can > be published or new (measurement) work in the scope of the research > group. Please see the charter for questions on scope: >=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/maprg/charter/ >=20 > The deadline for this call for contributions is: >=20 > March 3, 2017. >=20 > The chairs will work to assemble an agenda for the meeting based on > received submissions taking into consideration the group's scope, > common themes, and/or relevance to currently existing IETF work. >=20 > Similar as in the last meeting, we will prioritize presentation on > actual measurement results and new measurement techniques, compared > to introduction of planned measurement campaigns and systems. Further, > we would like to especially invite people to provide short = presentations > on updated measurements that have been presented at previous meetings. >=20 > Since meeting time will be reserved for questions, comments, and > discussion, contributions may also be invited as presentations in > subsequent meetings. >=20 > Please share this call with other interested people or groups! >=20 > Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions! >=20 > Mirja and Dave - maprg chairs >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Maprg mailing list > Maprg@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/maprg --Apple-Mail=_62B8CD95-2793-4B3D-A4B8-64A4DD8E2EFC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYkdp3AAoJEIoSt78L6kajNbkP/35VIo6d8FJsJGig5Yro1f9M v9EjMC9FYJWIutyf+OTxN5UPBG2+C671h+xmBRuzKHJAGfZUKFm6ccboi5TFs43p y6k6NH3pl40QT0H4iXQjmvnWxOG+0nd+JyFHe2UvjxvdajsH7ynTScP3szaiKL4k QmZnXqTFSgmNZLivA+JCvfJBVbrCrVFgZT54YeA7mI7jeDQ0sWen+nU9WRfyIr2y 0+LDsc5VBxPU8ZdvvdS/07MCBWbSs080mnf5EKlEZId1XzsVeTkZ4cbl9t+KbiwM 2/CZUj8brTkd3leBegku4CLyCHpkHW1hw4OA4FiJnM9DA4UlKuPfnXlasTa103N4 XeU2djMtcBxr9s9nrHuf8G+yLW62QMerWyd2w8QNg29uZxXH3PO0eFe2W4KdHJnA OQjQXuKAl7Ms+QwgwXEnLbLiyoSPuAZRSRdeo4moW/rSHH1xZzC0xRf5JmEjhcFc eC7HjNNfxRuDpdpkgzXJR7ZlYszQDa5Fqh1IYoChbaOX5Fg9Xch/FgV5Uhe2RYaj TNeLiicN8H+Cc1gSYhxvr/Ey0mrBuDL3ujJbjmu4ms1WaTvrS7SlzaAYWE97PL0T JldXDL1RRyRD+cb0FFW/Map7mO8AA8GVzEG1XUF6PrWPBcBPF8HdwdvumLkzfA7R mHXzENJYXuLadxbXFa74 =YKS0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_62B8CD95-2793-4B3D-A4B8-64A4DD8E2EFC-- From nobody Mon Feb 6 08:02:40 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04408129E94; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:02:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.42.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148639695801.18926.7944905742791671849.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 08:02:38 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-07.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 16:02:38 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option Authors : Nalini Elkins Robert M. Hamilton Michael S. Ackermann Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-07.txt Pages : 30 Date : 2017-02-06 Abstract: To assess performance problems, measurements based on optional sequence numbers and timing may be embedded in each packet. Such measurements may be interpreted in real-time or after the fact. An implementation of the existing IPv6 Destination Options extension header, the Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Options extension header as well as the field limits, calculations, and usage of the PDM in measurement are included in this document. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-07 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Feb 8 03:59:36 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78036128E18; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 03:59:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.42.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148655517048.3738.15848190486293374910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 03:59:30 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:59:30 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. Title : Alternate Marking method for passive performance monitoring Authors : Giuseppe Fioccola Alessandro Capello Mauro Cociglio Luca Castaldelli Mach(Guoyi) Chen Lianshu Zheng Greg Mirsky Tal Mizrahi Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03.txt Pages : 30 Date : 2017-02-08 Abstract: This document describes a passive method to perform packet loss, delay and jitter measurements on live traffic. This method is based on Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique. A report on the operational experiment done at Telecom Italia is explained in order to give an example and show the method applicability. This technique can be applied in various situations as detailed in this document. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Feb 8 04:30:27 2017 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 13D31128E18; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 04:30:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6l4zUbjbw-rJ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 04:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from TELEDG002RM001.telecomitalia.it (teledg002rm001.telecomitalia.it [217.169.121.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D521294FA; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 04:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from TELMBXA02RM001.telecomitalia.local (10.14.252.26) by TELEDG002RM001.telecomitalia.it (10.19.3.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:30:18 +0100 Received: from TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local (10.14.252.27) by TELMBXA02RM001.telecomitalia.local (10.14.252.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:30:17 +0100 Received: from TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local ([fe80::2845:411e:c732:e844]) by TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local ([fe80::2845:411e:c732:e844%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:30:18 +0100 From: Fioccola Giuseppe To: "ippm@ietf.org" , "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03.txt Thread-Index: AQHSggLtGtVU7sRwR0iSfPymuHPkWaFfBIbQ Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:30:17 +0000 Message-ID: <82d4e678a92f425dba65da6c9f3a60af@TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local> References: <148655517048.3738.15848190486293374910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <148655517048.3738.15848190486293374910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: it-IT X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.14.252.239] x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark@ietf.org" Subject: [ippm] I: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 08 Feb 2017 12:30:27 -0000 Hi All, This new version of draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark includes the action items agre= ed in Seoul, after which we can start WGLC. In particular we have added details about the need for more delay extent an= d, consequently, "mean delay" has been relegated as a subsection of the "si= ngle marking method". In addition we have also underlined that the "double = marking method" is the right choice to perform a better delay analysis. Reviews and comments are always welcome. Best Regards, Giuseppe -----Messaggio originale----- Da: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di internet-drafts@ietf.o= rg Inviato: mercoled=EC 8 febbraio 2017 13:00 A: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ippm@ietf.org Oggetto: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03.txt 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 of the IETF. Title : Alternate Marking method for passive performance = monitoring Authors : Giuseppe Fioccola Alessandro Capello Mauro Cociglio Luca Castaldelli Mach(Guoyi) Chen Lianshu Zheng Greg Mirsky Tal Mizrahi Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03.txt Pages : 30 Date : 2017-02-08 Abstract: This document describes a passive method to perform packet loss, delay and jitter measurements on live traffic. This method is based on Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique. A report on the operational experiment done at Telecom Italia is explained in order to give an example and show the method applicability. This technique can be applied in various situations as detailed in this document. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From nobody Wed Feb 15 23:01:33 2017 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 58B13129549 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:01:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.789 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.887, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wC64kNNnHIxq for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0123.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6789A129431 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:01:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=uSadFiFNJB5XvIMVk/ZpKB7bUeO8KTYXktsjALjD5SA=; b=jYxBbcVgSz7ma45NwDgD1ozh8vWu96Lo8EmXbErG/US8WktDIqbBEX786OAHQAoEvTRus/VGuFeAw+rX4PRpiRB7pTJNtMhjb5IJIRBzJEUu6r5YaQJ3OgW4oNNSd2pC9UEl0iaS7cLga4TZOf3uBQATy7RXvH0Jorw5r+JhtZg= Received: from CY1PR0501MB2075.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.3.25) by DM5PR05MB2859.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.176.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.919.10; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:01:29 +0000 Received: from CY1PR0501MB2075.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.3.25]) by CY1PR0501MB2075.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.3.25]) with mapi id 15.01.0919.013; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:01:28 +0000 From: Sudhin Jacob To: Vinayak Hegde Thread-Topic: REG:draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-01.txt Thread-Index: AdKAlcdTsOQne81vT6KCsArByP8c3gHN3zqAABU3gwA= Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:01:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=sjacob@juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.12] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM5PR05MB2859; 7:uStY0QrwPliZPmGFwyH9bl8zecAbZRZeI6d7gAJGS5GToEjydAdzP3Y8wedpOS/vIc4FqPBM+DmeIdczK8mZ6mAtVaUryAYeqh3wxNhIz+8NbbxcZxcBWp6PqMnb763aJ8XlZNJRQ8hSjaJJAxh4PcPAemM31Oq40xmuy6IeHQWxWG2tVfp8VA89AoyrT0ffc93ttTPV1TcN1HW2MnYgp2Dz598Ry7HvX7XWQztS7dZLo+/0O7kEKwTlBaNoc1z+c21ADlHLV4BjOrGPyfUIYtEwCEFzJYHOVLFPX7Yn4hKYMGDQx/gPy6HyxxbYJxiQa+ypRl5XpNSk6ilJJmmMbg== x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39850400002)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39410400002)(39450400003)(199003)(189002)(377454003)(13464003)(15374003)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999)(53936002)(8676002)(230783001)(81166006)(6436002)(66066001)(305945005)(4326007)(345774005)(77096006)(105586002)(3846002)(2906002)(6506006)(389900002)(6116002)(39060400002)(106356001)(102836003)(1411001)(25786008)(5660300001)(122556002)(101416001)(81156014)(229853002)(6306002)(2950100002)(6916009)(7696004)(99286003)(92566002)(9686003)(55016002)(33656002)(74316002)(110136004)(38730400002)(7736002)(8936002)(3660700001)(3280700002)(97736004)(6246003)(2900100001)(189998001)(54906002)(68736007)(86362001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR05MB2859; H:CY1PR0501MB2075.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 36b75dd0-6d1a-47ae-9b6d-08d45639a115 x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081); SRVR:DM5PR05MB2859; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(138986009662008); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(20161123558025)(20161123555025)(6072148); SRVR:DM5PR05MB2859; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM5PR05MB2859; x-forefront-prvs: 0220D4B98D received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Feb 2017 07:01:27.9533 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR05MB2859 Archived-At: Cc: Praveen A , Bharat M Gaonkar , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] REG:draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-01.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 16 Feb 2017 07:01:32 -0000 SGkgVmluYXlhaywNCg0KTGV0IG1lIHRoYW5rIHlvdSBmb3IgdGhlIGNvbW1lbnRzLiBJdCBpcyBt dWNoIGFwcHJlY2lhdGVkLiBLaW5kbHkgc2VlIG15IGFuc3dlcnMgaW5saW5lLg0KDQpSZWdhcmRz LA0KU3VkaGluDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBWaW5heWFrIEhl Z2RlIFttYWlsdG86dmluYXlha2hAZ21haWwuY29tXSANClNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBGZWJydWFy eSAxNiwgMjAxNyAyOjIxIEFNDQpUbzogU3VkaGluIEphY29iIDxzamFjb2JAanVuaXBlci5uZXQ+ DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogUkVHOmRyYWZ0LWJoYXByYXN1ZC1pcHBtLXBtLTAxLnR4dA0KDQpIaSBT dWRoaW4sDQoNCkNvbW1lbnRzIGZvbGxvdzoNCg0KMS4gVGhlcmUgc2VlbXMgdG8gcHJvYmxlbSB3 aXRoIHRoZSBmb3JtYXR0aW5nIG9mIFRhYmxlIG9mIENvbnRlbnRzIGluIHRoZSB0ZXh0IHZlcnNp b24uIChsb29raW5nIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2lkL2RyYWZ0LWJoYXByYXN1ZC1p cHBtLXBtLTAxLnR4dCkuIGFsc28gaXQgc2VlbXMgdGhhdCB0ZWhlcmUgd2VyZSBzb21lIGRpYWdy YW1zIGJ1dCB0aGV5IGFyZSBtaXNzaW5nLiBOb3Qgc3VyZSBidCB0aGUgZm9ybWF0dGluZyBsb29r cyBhIGxpdHRsZSBvZmYuDQoNClN1ZGhpbj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gVGhpcyB3aWxsIGJlIHRha2Vu IGNhcmUgaW4gbmV4dCB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4NCg0KMi4gT3ZlcmFsbCB0aGUgZHJh ZnQgbG9va3MgZ29vZCBidXQgeW91IHNob3VsZCBhZGQgYSBzbWFsbCBnbG9vYXJ5IC8gdGVybWlu b2xvZ3kgc2VjdGlvbiB0aGF0IG1ldG5pb25zIHdoYXQgeW91IG1lYW4gZXhhY3RseSBieSAiQ29y ZSBuZXR3b3JrIiBvciAiQmFja2JvbmUgdHJhZmZpYyIuIFdoaWxlIHRoZSBkZWZpbml0aW9ucyBh cmUgY29tbW9ubHkgdW5kZXJzdG9vZCwgd2hlbiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBhIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24geW91 IHNob3VsZCBleHBsaWNpdGx5IGRlZmluZSB0ZXJtcyBvciByZWZlciB0byBhIGRyYWZ0IHRoYXQg ZG9lcy4gVGhpcyBoZWxwcyB3aGVuIHNvbWVvbmUgd2hvIGlzIG5vdCBmYW1pbGlhciB3aXRoIHRo ZSBkcmFmdCAvIGFyZWEgY2FuIHJlYWQgYW5kIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgZWFzaWx5Lg0KDQpTdWRoaW4+ Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj5XZSB3aWxsIGFkZCB0aG9zZSB0ZXJtcyBpbiBUZXJtaW5vbG9neSBzZWN0aW9u LiANCg0KQWxzbyB3aGVuIHlvdSBwb3N0IG9uIHRoZSBsaXN0IG1ha2Ugc3VyZSB5b3UgYWRkIGEg bGluayB0byB0aGUgZHJhZnQuDQpUaGF0cyBpcyBhIGZhc3Qgd2F5IHRvIGdldCBwZW9wbGUgdG8g cmVhZCAoYSBjbGljayBhd2F5KS4NCg0KU3VkaGluPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj5zdXJlIA0KDQpS ZWdhcmRzDQpWaW5heWFrDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMNClZpbmF5YWsNCg0K From nobody Thu Feb 16 06:50:44 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57BF129617; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 06:50:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.43.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148725664073.15925.10865355565524367043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 06:50:40 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] ippm - Update to a Meeting Session Request for IETF 98 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:50:40 -0000 An update to a meeting session request has just been submitted by Spencer Dawkins, a TSV Area Director. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: IP Performance Metrics Area Name: Transport Area Session Requester: Spencer Dawkins Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 50 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: tsvarea tsvwg tcpm taps bmwg lmap xrblock quic Second Priority: v6ops 6man 6lo sunset4 opsec tcpinc Third Priority: cdni alto People who must be present: Al Morton Spencer Dawkins Brian Trammell Bill Cerveny Kostas Pentikousis Giuseppe Fioccola Resources Requested: Special Requests: Please try to schedule Monday/Tuesday, as neither chair will be present after Tuesday. Please try not to schedule opposite irtfopen, iccrg, maprg --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Thu Feb 16 09:06:59 2017 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 2E962129660; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:06:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gACSJt0YiB1q; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:06:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3574129646; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:06:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5578; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1487264801; x=1488474401; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=OHixyAlnVnYxUG8TL67XnCP/q3s5X4PfQgPQ1j9biCA=; b=k3xRWeNnIxr167RZwgbMwDKf25a6iGzpkVyCI1F2gcZkTJuKGSVsGXWO dKYq9QxMzcd9bdLp8TCSg070i0YUnXatzslO6RCiTw/06KFM26uUgfE0N UZJGJoSIMBOpQ6A2CuNnxd2Aa7I4tZJD2dficyzMk6sc+iMAB9pdg/F8C Y=; X-Files: signature.asc : 859 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AVAQCk26VY/4gNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1FhgQkHjVqSEJMkgg+CDCyFdgKCDD8YAQIBAQEBAQEBYh0LhHA?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMCbgsMBAIBGQQBASgHAjAUCQgCBA4FCAaJXg6zDos5AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBDgoFhkyJFREBhgEFlVyGIwGDc4IHdYJaiESCBIUXiXSTFwEfOHg?= =?us-ascii?q?IURU9hkR1AYgIgSGBDQEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,169,1484006400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="181333133" Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Feb 2017 17:06:40 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1GH6eNN020459 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:06:40 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:06:40 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:06:39 -0600 From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IOAM in IPPM Thread-Index: AQHSiGc9cXzuyNyh40uXrix8UqmsmqFryByA Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:06:39 +0000 Message-ID: References: <202517D0-A6CE-40D3-98BE-A2AFA8F83A19@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <202517D0-A6CE-40D3-98BE-A2AFA8F83A19@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.55.190.229] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_c50156b882bb4df0aab600d4b23f0ab1XCHRCD008ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ioam@ietf.org" Subject: [ippm] IOAM in IPPM X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 16 Feb 2017 17:06:45 -0000 --_002_c50156b882bb4df0aab600d4b23f0ab1XCHRCD008ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear IPPM WG, following the recommendation from the IPPM chairs (see also Brian's email b= elow) as well as ADs involved (see also Alvaro's email below) the discussio= ns on in-situ OAM (IOAM), we'd like the IPPM WG to consider adopting the IO= AM work, especially the definition of formats and associated procedures for= in-situ OAM, including mechanisms for capturing path and path-traversal re= lated information as well as procedures to employ, configure, trigger, and = export the embedded telemetry information. For this we'd suggest to adopt h= ttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 as a starting= point for the work of IPPM on IOAM. Like Brian noted, IPPM WG already focu= sses on hybrid measurements (e.g. those enabled by the similar draft-ietf-i= ppm-6man-pdm-option), hence IOAM would be a natural complement and addition= to that work and would benefit from all earlier work on metrics etc.=20 Background on In-situ OAM: In-situ OAM provides real-time telemetry of indi= vidual data packets and flows. It is based on telemetry information which i= s embedded within live user traffic, where "live user traffic" means packet= s originated and terminated at the application layer. For more information = on in-situ OAM, you could refer to the requirements draft we posted (draft-= brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02), or check out the presentations we ga= ve at IETF 96 and 97: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-= opsawg-8.pdf and https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-opsaw= g-in-situ-oam-00.PDF=20 Appreciate your thoughts and support :-). Thanks, Frank -----Original Message----- From: Brian Trammell (IETF) [mailto:ietf@trammell.ch]=20 Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 16:13 To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) Subject: IOAM in IPPM Hi, Frank, As we discussed today, please do introduce your draft (draft-brockners-inba= nd-oam-data-00) to the IPPM mailing list. Given our recent focus on hybrid = measurements (e.g. those enabled by the similar draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-op= tion), I'd like to start a discussion there about considering the draft for= adoption within IPPM. Thanks, cheers, Brian -----Original Message----- From: Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (areta= na) Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 17:58 To: ioam@ietf.org Subject: [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward Hi! First of all, thank you all for the interest expressed in this topic and th= e discussions about the charter. As you know, one of the discussions resulting from the Internal Review of t= he proposed IOAM charter was whether the work was already within the ippm W= G scope or not. Over the last couple of days, I have dug deeper into that = question with the Transport ADs and the ippm WG Chairs, and our conclusion = is that there is significant overlap between the current ippm Charter and t= he proposed IOAM work. Enough to justify moving the work forward in the ip= pm WG and not splintering a related effort into a new WG. I have then stopped the chartering effort for a new WG. The proponents wil= l start discussions on the ippm list soon - please join if you're not there= already. I will keep this list open for a couple more days. Clearly there is interest in developing this cross-area work in the IETF. = I hope that you will continue to participate as the topic progresses on the= ippm WG. It is important that this type of cross-area efforts be properly= discussed and that we don't create more silos. I realize it took us a cou= ple of tries to find what I think is a stable home for the IOAM work - I kn= ow that the open discussion has only helped the overall process. Thanks! Alvaro. --_002_c50156b882bb4df0aab600d4b23f0ab1XCHRCD008ciscocom_ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"; size=859; creation-date="Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:06:39 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:06:39 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0NCkNvbW1lbnQ6IEdQR1Rvb2xzIC0gaHR0cHM6 Ly9ncGd0b29scy5vcmcNCg0KaVFJY0JBRUJDZ0FHQlFKWXBjR1VBQW9KRUlvU3Q3OEw2a2FqKzQ4 UC8yTVovaWI0Y2lYWkc4Vm5xTERkM3QyVA0KRWpEbUQ3cDhEdmFpdVZrcitIVTdiK2kxVGhrTnBt WkdsdVF0Y25nTlE2ZjRITUVlUkxGQUYyTTJQR1d1UVYyYw0KZFFQemlpaFIzQ3ZJSEFvS25JS2tL Y2d6NFJZSXRiRGEwRnVSM0I5amhhZVl0cUZLMFVCV2Vjb21jdTlJZkFpYw0KWHVUSWhsVmlNYVI3 UzEvNmdCdmVXODdxYm1TVVhOQVhrYVhSQ1ZmVll2dUc4d00rNzI3UUNGZVlhQUR1dmRNTg0KTnNu Q3YxakRCQzdFVVJxbFhUWVVwYXZrb0o0d3NpdU80S2l2VXNDWWpaSHU4OEZKMVZQL1hSa3ZlVDRl U0M3MQ0KT2R4aWpQOERNcVRJZzUxM0l1QkZJZmpBWHFUODV0YW5lUGxUN1JKNHRaVEpjNitMVTNj Zk5QLy9maWVxTjNKcg0KeldQOFZHSE1rbm10QTBBVjVQTU96Zk5lT0YvQkJLbkJjN21ZZmIydTRU RjJ5VnF3Wk5XY2ZiRy81MlNlMXNyWQ0KUGxlVWVFakNidzNYNUcyVDNEL1dWVXFacnJLU0s2Vzky bzRkRFNpZWdsVUhwYUwvMDdmQ2QzdERnWGpjRXZ3SQ0KN0ZGRkVCcmp2ZkRueWV6TFdYc005T3kw elY4aFVQM0svMlVHQlhHK2FzR29qby9xUkV6eldYbXRjQ1J1blVQcQ0KTk40SEdMZHdwQXNrcmVY Sm9DTVY2N1I3Z2VDd05kSUY3MGY4dDl2emdjeG40WUhhMmpTanQ4Y0ExKzNSL01TYQ0KaEw2R29a cC9YOXRoTGVCcEtlZHRNSllvbVBSU09zeFFUVGNBcE44T1ZKdUxYNTNZR3FQa2t6M3lQSDBWb3dH Vw0KNUQ4U3YvenQ0OEY2eGtIZlNlL1INCj1wNmpQDQotLS0tLUVORCBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0t LS0NCg== --_002_c50156b882bb4df0aab600d4b23f0ab1XCHRCD008ciscocom_-- From nobody Thu Feb 16 09:24:44 2017 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 2CBA1129588; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:24:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.619 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98BKse0BXjQS; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:24:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2737129663; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:24:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1GHOTvt010500; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:24:29 GMT Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.250.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1GHOPxL010474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:24:27 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:24:24 -0000 Message-ID: <098c01d28879$870afbb0$9520f310$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_098D_01D28879.870F6880" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQLgtEfHVWzDuGgd2q3ULzjJHuxh559PiMzQ Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22890.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--28.242-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--28.242-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: DuKherWvI/vRhEyb9f1sjqrxFQMz0ixcQa2sDHLkQ07M7zpEspqG/9CI Gp1nxfbc2YJ36PQpkbz/DoPobY5pZ/a4UzvE+ZLR7/U7JmMpiiFdymZBcuGGRKj5v7I4/SgYr5q ahUVerFxnGkA/6YPrAKIuDCRldjhADsC2Khf6fZcX2N9OpwN26NMGD8JuBXZPuu0N7j6PSiNDcs 8837hAGKir8/odPOUzT5h6mHJlcbuVvrCauBpuuth3b7/zBhN1Pllq4+7Psp90PA/ki2kI7BxJE X0k/k7OLiNvWfV40DdEdqKGnxMcYDGgk0AvH9/hndu3heVAxaMP4vBWNr0zgSA6eO+NDmAxJZ3D 0zKPh7H10yQNuo1OJZfucML7iAp6c1BeS/J6aN9dMrg609R9BKO4XjVpMlFdn+lpJmYuEaN7ltq yJvHgp/JOjUaxKXKqGSKDIgjU9nky499dCbQy8IoLoibgjVEX1WPYxCHVrqdgHzfrfdHEt4c0B5 OUL/u1M5qWMflCo4dwtismKfx+71mKiy1F9pgLQesjq8XPMbt3Bf9JIqsoeEbaqUVvLFsi++vNJ KekcWR9xQFIjQfO0oYCheGFuxsgL3m5ejCdaFGdCtkMrsOtOpkShYcLpGH9ZM25ZAWwDYZgEEZ9 y/pY4Y0id0pIhqxT15LlVZSTLD2SjpyB+ma+j3uTVkeYosXtOS0bT53qXdVT+oAjVn9e0ORqQAx bWD9+4vM1YF6AJbbVZ0g740lL+SIQ5mZ5SqHPtS2OXM0RlsoyC3xaB/bDLI89MZSRvKHkPljq92 cjkHWkqd/AzNL85A== Archived-At: Cc: ioam@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:24:38 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_098D_01D28879.870F6880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [...scurries to subscribe to another mailing list] =20 Can the TSV ADs comment on whether there is a plan to re-charter IPPM: - To be applicable to network layer and lower - To be scoped beyond "metrics" (such as path trace) - To attend to more detail than "characterize the network paths under = test and/or the performance of transport and application layer protocols on=20 these paths" =20 Thanks, Adrian =20 From: Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana = (aretana) Sent: 16 February 2017 16:58 To: ioam@ietf.org Subject: [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward =20 Hi! =20 First of all, thank you all for the interest expressed in this topic and = the discussions about the charter. =20 As you know, one of the discussions resulting from the Internal Review = of the proposed IOAM charter was whether the work was already within the = ippm WG scope or not. Over the last couple of days, I have dug deeper = into that question with the Transport ADs and the ippm WG Chairs, and = our conclusion is that there is significant overlap between the current = ippm Charter and the proposed IOAM work. Enough to justify moving the = work forward in the ippm WG and not splintering a related effort into a = new WG. =20 I have then stopped the chartering effort for a new WG. The proponents = will start discussions on the ippm list soon =E2=80=93 please join if = you=E2=80=99re not there already. I will keep this list open for a = couple more days. =20 Clearly there is interest in developing this cross-area work in the = IETF. I hope that you will continue to participate as the topic = progresses on the ippm WG. It is important that this type of cross-area = efforts be properly discussed and that we don=E2=80=99t create more = silos. I realize it took us a couple of tries to find what I think is a = stable home for the IOAM work =E2=80=93 I know that the open discussion = has only helped the overall process. =20 Thanks! =20 Alvaro. ------=_NextPart_000_098D_01D28879.870F6880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[...scurries to subscribe to another mailing = list]

 

Can = the TSV ADs comment on whether there is a plan to re-charter = IPPM:

- To = be applicable to network layer and lower

- To = be scoped beyond "metrics" (such as path = trace)

- To = attend to more detail than "characterize the network paths under = test

= =C2=A0and/or the performance of = transport and application layer protocols on

=C2=A0=C2=A0these = paths"

 

Thanks,

Adrian

 

From: Ioam = [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana = (aretana)
Sent: 16 February 2017 16:58
To: = ioam@ietf.org
Subject: [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving = Forward

 

Hi!<= /p>

 

First of all, thank = you all for the interest expressed in this topic and the discussions = about the charter.

 

As you know, one of = the discussions resulting from the Internal Review of the proposed IOAM = charter was whether the work was already within the ippm WG scope or = not.  Over the last couple of days, I have dug deeper into that = question with the Transport ADs and the ippm WG Chairs, and our = conclusion is that there is significant overlap between the current ippm = Charter and the proposed IOAM work.  Enough to justify moving the = work forward in the ippm WG and not splintering a related effort into a = new WG.

 

I have then stopped = the chartering effort for a new WG.  The proponents will start = discussions on the ippm list soon =E2=80=93 please join if = you=E2=80=99re not there already.  I will keep this list open for a = couple more days.

 

Clearly there is = interest in developing this cross-area work in the IETF.  I hope = that you will continue to participate as the topic progresses on the = ippm WG.  It is important that this type of cross-area efforts be = properly discussed and that we don=E2=80=99t create more silos.  I = realize it took us a couple of tries to find what I think is a stable = home for the IOAM work =E2=80=93 I know that the open discussion has = only helped the overall process.

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

------=_NextPart_000_098D_01D28879.870F6880-- From nobody Thu Feb 16 09:50:54 2017 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 D727D1295A6; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MCCLGIShkmiP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 083C7129406; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id u68so11914858ywg.0; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DFKjOB7aPGW381SXt7moGn30n9PKS8761kKd7mqIbaU=; b=WLARhtvsqcC1fx5Ri3NREX0uck6kLXxtRG9DtPvyHTeEYfri5eCBXwQHJZ9QPN0HC+ 1kc6jSfGwO0VkrjXur8d4WhtbipoTLnvCh7Iq8hJIQshykS3i4qfq6aLfBI/zWUUvXCa FW9Z46hB9bvoER+imlc6wi2Votta2/eKMVRhfeG0XbH0fELF5V1yYUAwLeXQuX9u2IlK CqrRSgvvbudMqswQg5Cb3afojN+bu83kVtzBiss2Bm6kZTHucAuGkoGa35U2+Z/V3EvR XU6B2F2MiuUO/dSuGA3gqLXajbGPNAQ93KClIBwiK7JWuIbc3h5dJXeTaTaWyqb0ADoN x4CQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DFKjOB7aPGW381SXt7moGn30n9PKS8761kKd7mqIbaU=; b=cpPu2MVdeTf83Lr3suixphGyvNISzT0XezoOYgALa2k2POW/dF7kxdsCRCq0u3RsVV BbcimUKLUjOfoltLmZ3EZYF0AxTRKMXOP+WAdTa/qnooOBxq+ajWOvRh4On4fjYRCIu4 YdC2rRZz2P/sKHJ3/SrMQx3MBygR7Q6+ssmOKPDvzfeVF9izTg2pIQZQraHVvDrr5cIC BTb5RHSNpYZTKkuSmyxEAbRRDvnoGNOENHMXS6yY07rpbOlQJSVTJ0IhiGJkdSkkxRkt UgArdXFhUKL+jmJ5osBtsYgnjIxY4s2chRe0Uls0OjayyER0GU7lB264QfLJpk854+gw cQDA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l8GDYjAQ8S5ldOcm+9TNIOj81QXJe6fiYVd/XZt/0S4z728DnxMof9n1xNJtGEz+3ESyBlDAn47yamwA== X-Received: by 10.13.243.197 with SMTP id c188mr2559768ywf.248.1487267447203; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.234.9 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <098c01d28879$870afbb0$9520f310$@olddog.co.uk> References: <098c01d28879$870afbb0$9520f310$@olddog.co.uk> From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:50:46 -0600 Message-ID: To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c035690e0a6d50548a96f2f Archived-At: Cc: ioam@ietf.org, "tsv-ads@ietf.org" , ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 16 Feb 2017 17:50:50 -0000 --94eb2c035690e0a6d50548a96f2f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Adrian, On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote= : > [...scurries to subscribe to another mailing list] > :-) > Can the TSV ADs comment on whether there is a plan to re-charter IPPM: > > - To be applicable to network layer and lower > > - To be scoped beyond "metrics" (such as path trace) > > - To attend to more detail than "characterize the network paths under tes= t > > and/or the performance of transport and application layer protocols on > > these paths" > Sure, I can comment (responsible AD for IPPM). We spoke with Brian and Bill (co-chairs for IPPM this morning), and Brian thinks IPPM would need to change about 15 percent of its charter to have IOPM in scope. If IPPM is willing to take this work on, I would, of course, want IPPM's charter to reflect this work. The discussions I've been involved with have been about the network layer, but not about anything lower. I could imagine path trace as a very basic metric, of course, but for the kind of details you're asking about, we've been talking about the relationship between IOAM and IPPM for less than 36 hours which overlapped a formal telechat, so I'd expect us to have a better-thought-out plan in the near future than we have today ... Spencer > Thanks, > > Adrian > > > > *From:* Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alvaro Retana > (aretana) > *Sent:* 16 February 2017 16:58 > *To:* ioam@ietf.org > *Subject:* [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward > > > > Hi! > > > > First of all, thank you all for the interest expressed in this topic and > the discussions about the charter. > > > > As you know, one of the discussions resulting from the Internal Review of > the proposed IOAM charter was whether the work was already within the ipp= m > WG scope or not. Over the last couple of days, I have dug deeper into th= at > question with the Transport ADs and the ippm WG Chairs, and our conclusio= n > is that there is significant overlap between the current ippm Charter and > the proposed IOAM work. Enough to justify moving the work forward in the > ippm WG and not splintering a related effort into a new WG. > > > > I have then stopped the chartering effort for a new WG. The proponents > will start discussions on the ippm list soon =E2=80=93 please join if you= =E2=80=99re not > there already. I will keep this list open for a couple more days. > > > > Clearly there is interest in developing this cross-area work in the IETF. > I hope that you will continue to participate as the topic progresses on t= he > ippm WG. It is important that this type of cross-area efforts be properl= y > discussed and that we don=E2=80=99t create more silos. I realize it took= us a > couple of tries to find what I think is a stable home for the IOAM work = =E2=80=93 I > know that the open discussion has only helped the overall process. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Alvaro. > --94eb2c035690e0a6d50548a96f2f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Adrian,

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddo= g.co.uk> wrote:

[...scurries to subscribe to another mailing= list]


:-)
=C2=A0

Can the TSV ADs comment on whether there is a plan to re-ch= arter IPPM:

- To be applicable to network layer and lower

- To be scoped beyond "metrics" (such as path trace)

- To attend to more detail than "characterize the networ= k paths under test

=C2=A0and/or the perfor= mance of transport and application layer protocols on =

<= span>=C2=A0=C2=A0these paths"


Sure, I can comment (responsible AD for IPPM).=C2=A0<= /div>

We spoke with Brian and Bill (co-chairs for IPPM t= his morning), and Brian thinks IPPM would need to change about 15 percent o= f its charter to have IOPM in scope.=C2=A0

If IPPM= is willing to take this work on, I would, of course, want IPPM's chart= er to reflect this work.

The discussions I've = been involved with have been about the network layer, but not about anythin= g lower.

I could imagine path trace as a very basi= c metric, of course, but for the kind of details you're asking about, w= e've been talking about the relationship between IOAM and IPPM for less= than 36 hours which overlapped a formal telechat, so I'd expect us to = have a better-thought-out plan in the near future than we have today ...

Spencer
=C2=A0

Thanks,

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">Adrian=

=C2=A0

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">From: Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Ret= ana (aretana)
Sent: 16 February 2017 16:58
To: ioam@ietf.org
Subject= : [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward

<= div>

=C2=A0

Hi!=

=C2=A0

First of all, thank you all for th= e interest expressed in this topic and the discussions about the charter.

=C2=A0

As you know, one of the discu= ssions resulting from the Internal Review of the proposed IOAM charter was = whether the work was already within the ippm WG scope or not.=C2=A0 Over th= e last couple of days, I have dug deeper into that question with the Transp= ort ADs and the ippm WG Chairs, and our conclusion is that there is signifi= cant overlap between the current ippm Charter and the proposed IOAM work.= =C2=A0 Enough to justify moving the work forward in the ippm WG and not spl= intering a related effort into a new WG.

=C2= =A0

I have then stopped the chartering effort for a new WG.=C2= =A0 The proponents will start discussions on the ippm list soon =E2=80=93 p= lease join if you=E2=80=99re not there already.=C2=A0 I will keep this list= open for a couple more days.

=C2=A0

Clearly there is interest in developing this cross-area work in the IETF.= =C2=A0 I hope that you will continue to participate as the topic progresses= on the ippm WG.=C2=A0 It is important that this type of cross-area efforts= be properly discussed and that we don=E2=80=99t create more silos.=C2=A0 I= realize it took us a couple of tries to find what I think is a stable home= for the IOAM work =E2=80=93 I know that the open discussion has only helpe= d the overall process.

=C2=A0

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thank= s!

=C2=A0

Alvaro.


--94eb2c035690e0a6d50548a96f2f-- From nobody Thu Feb 16 11:15:21 2017 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 E5BF21295A5 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:15:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.887, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lWdI2DMZnMpK for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:15:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm8-vm1.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm8-vm1.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [98.136.218.224]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DA54129483 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:15:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1487272512; bh=y9jfA9riuuziSaMfkHm4gHSJeWb9Ugo6E74JkdkfsyA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=bBtyhsEEBgBnp1cgui9mwHmRNvvPx6nyuANoicggkUef9sjG9HwV/qAy6UaTK6mpLFZu71x+ICVJ4SsRT9aQ/T6fQGmO+unlM/8Pk2gendRxxVG6OymadM3HgUqVeRgp1nnU1ITeCwHWjgB17xkeKJAHOtCYm30HEyfKf953Wu+SuWez+i5pVR9Gn2JaVsTkJx9yJ/2TBrr+A5wa3NE3t6Faa4DM/m0eaWgoLg3ykc51AzgVQAxGK4sU1Lz53lF4Eh5nNEukmPEpITNG2JFlpM4r4zyGDAEuNLxWdPnKTwjFnk8UKjI5i+dLn1pr9zACtFjaEF5MqGpREaFbm4bR0Q== Received: from [216.39.60.184] by nm8.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Feb 2017 19:15:12 -0000 Received: from [98.137.12.202] by tm20.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Feb 2017 19:15:12 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1010.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Feb 2017 19:15:12 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 584108.17433.bm@omp1010.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: l6NqxnUVM1lqeqXfiML8ti9zsfkI.pZVRrYPUJnaF_YDIB.oOnV7EZDaZ8qUW83 ZuUidFa9crdW6IJVJtDW18lVKYHNyTjXvJfMJBvkxJUO8I6WVuud3KZp9KC.W0M5Xp6_slALRLxU Ne7fclnJBYdTFi1RYKJKsO7pPnvSyWP4.Q5hwcaNOFVfULicr.KYEXVNTsrwR02nB.HDBrcKkg8K BikFmDsBbv7YT7mrCr.BGX6YPgElxpTqLfKWYddFIbg_HOZB7isdb_Pk3IqGqABifoxa_XyXRy9W 34J0cpyQ.plEEMerougge8kcbW8lFaBTSQSzudBTnZl66eTdjMaj5mgxzNfuJjUiCTNfid26Y.Xe gMugPpNtX0D4fQm4g.B.nALt263p9jO2EmolhZRYGTdaXXK4ooI1scPQFP6yoGQXF.WR.5IAsaQM Gh9vcmCz_KWNNBijBrXJm1rsKyD2f._u8lO8MlM2Pi4dOc.aYRx7rtC07KZbaKUsYjxdJ8tBE6Pv 2Q7KR7Lm3NWW1f20eILNSkS9oxTYrjYyjW5X9WwiLJO.7s6jT3UTcxlemjJ5j_kw- Received: from jws300069.mail.gq1.yahoo.com by sendmailws101b.mail.gq1.yahoo.com; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:15:12 +0000; 1487272512.206 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:15:11 +0000 (UTC) From: To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" , "ippm@ietf.org" Message-ID: <91884089.975471.1487272511971@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: References: <202517D0-A6CE-40D3-98BE-A2AFA8F83A19@trammell.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_975470_640265054.1487272511971" Archived-At: Cc: "ioam@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] IOAM in IPPM X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:15:16 -0000 ------=_Part_975470_640265054.1487272511971 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frank, As one of the authors of the PDM draft (draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option) that you discussed below. I find your work extremely interesting, as you know! I hope to see your work in IPPM. I can see that we may be able to collaborate and do quite interesting work in the future. Thanks, Nalini Elkins Inside Products, Inc. www.insidethestack.com (831) 659-8360 ----- Original Message ----- From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) To: "ippm@ietf.org" Cc: "ioam@ietf.org" Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:06 AM Subject: [ippm] IOAM in IPPM Dear IPPM WG, following the recommendation from the IPPM chairs (see also Brian's email below) as well as ADs involved (see also Alvaro's email below) the discussions on in-situ OAM (IOAM), we'd like the IPPM WG to consider adopting the IOAM work, especially the definition of formats and associated procedures for in-situ OAM, including mechanisms for capturing path and path-traversal related information as well as procedures to employ, configure, trigger, and export the embedded telemetry information. For this we'd suggest to adopt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 as a starting point for the work of IPPM on IOAM. Like Brian noted, IPPM WG already focusses on hybrid measurements (e.g. those enabled by the similar draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option), hence IOAM would be a natural complement and addition to that work and would benefit from all earlier work on metrics etc. Background on In-situ OAM: In-situ OAM provides real-time telemetry of individual data packets and flows. It is based on telemetry information which is embedded within live user traffic, where "live user traffic" means packets originated and terminated at the application layer. For more information on in-situ OAM, you could refer to the requirements draft we posted (draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02), or check out the presentations we gave at IETF 96 and 97: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-opsawg-8.pdf and https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-opsawg-in-situ-oam-00.PDF Appreciate your thoughts and support :-). Thanks, Frank -----Original Message----- From: Brian Trammell (IETF) [mailto:ietf@trammell.ch] Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 16:13 To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) Subject: IOAM in IPPM Hi, Frank, As we discussed today, please do introduce your draft (draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-00) to the IPPM mailing list. Given our recent focus on hybrid measurements (e.g. those enabled by the similar draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option), I'd like to start a discussion there about considering the draft for adoption within IPPM. Thanks, cheers, Brian -----Original Message----- From: Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana) Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 17:58 To: ioam@ietf.org Subject: [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward Hi! First of all, thank you all for the interest expressed in this topic and the discussions about the charter. As you know, one of the discussions resulting from the Internal Review of the proposed IOAM charter was whether the work was already within the ippm WG scope or not. Over the last couple of days, I have dug deeper into that question with the Transport ADs and the ippm WG Chairs, and our conclusion is that there is significant overlap between the current ippm Charter and the proposed IOAM work. Enough to justify moving the work forward in the ippm WG and not splintering a related effort into a new WG. I have then stopped the chartering effort for a new WG. The proponents will start discussions on the ippm list soon - please join if you're not there already. I will keep this list open for a couple more days. Clearly there is interest in developing this cross-area work in the IETF. I hope that you will continue to participate as the topic progresses on the ippm WG. It is important that this type of cross-area efforts be properly discussed and that we don't create more silos. I realize it took us a couple of tries to find what I think is a stable home for the IOAM work - I know that the open discussion has only helped the overall process. Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm ------=_Part_975470_640265054.1487272511971 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-ID: <58d54cf4-f2d3-ba45-c214-7aca513f195c@yahoo.com> LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0NCkNvbW1lbnQ6IEdQR1Rvb2xzIC0gaHR0cHM6 Ly9ncGd0b29scy5vcmcNCg0KaVFJY0JBRUJDZ0FHQlFKWXBjR1VBQW9KRUlvU3Q3OEw2a2FqKzQ4 UC8yTVovaWI0Y2lYWkc4Vm5xTERkM3QyVA0KRWpEbUQ3cDhEdmFpdVZrcitIVTdiK2kxVGhrTnBt WkdsdVF0Y25nTlE2ZjRITUVlUkxGQUYyTTJQR1d1UVYyYw0KZFFQemlpaFIzQ3ZJSEFvS25JS2tL Y2d6NFJZSXRiRGEwRnVSM0I5amhhZVl0cUZLMFVCV2Vjb21jdTlJZkFpYw0KWHVUSWhsVmlNYVI3 UzEvNmdCdmVXODdxYm1TVVhOQVhrYVhSQ1ZmVll2dUc4d00rNzI3UUNGZVlhQUR1dmRNTg0KTnNu Q3YxakRCQzdFVVJxbFhUWVVwYXZrb0o0d3NpdU80S2l2VXNDWWpaSHU4OEZKMVZQL1hSa3ZlVDRl U0M3MQ0KT2R4aWpQOERNcVRJZzUxM0l1QkZJZmpBWHFUODV0YW5lUGxUN1JKNHRaVEpjNitMVTNj Zk5QLy9maWVxTjNKcg0KeldQOFZHSE1rbm10QTBBVjVQTU96Zk5lT0YvQkJLbkJjN21ZZmIydTRU RjJ5VnF3Wk5XY2ZiRy81MlNlMXNyWQ0KUGxlVWVFakNidzNYNUcyVDNEL1dWVXFacnJLU0s2Vzky bzRkRFNpZWdsVUhwYUwvMDdmQ2QzdERnWGpjRXZ3SQ0KN0ZGRkVCcmp2ZkRueWV6TFdYc005T3kw elY4aFVQM0svMlVHQlhHK2FzR29qby9xUkV6eldYbXRjQ1J1blVQcQ0KTk40SEdMZHdwQXNrcmVY Sm9DTVY2N1I3Z2VDd05kSUY3MGY4dDl2emdjeG40WUhhMmpTanQ4Y0ExKzNSL01TYQ0KaEw2R29a cC9YOXRoTGVCcEtlZHRNSllvbVBSU09zeFFUVGNBcE44T1ZKdUxYNTNZR3FQa2t6M3lQSDBWb3dH Vw0KNUQ4U3YvenQ0OEY2eGtIZlNlL1INCj1wNmpQDQotLS0tLUVORCBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0t LS0NCg== ------=_Part_975470_640265054.1487272511971-- From nobody Thu Feb 16 12:44:26 2017 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 B60BB12969A; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:44:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OwG8v-RN2cpf; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:44:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6BC3129698; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:44:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049295.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v1GItfmX018321; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:58:00 -0500 Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 28ng5fk1ev-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:57:59 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1GIvvjl014272; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:57:58 -0500 Received: from mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.241]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1GIvn7O014109 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:57:55 -0500 Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (clpi183.sldc.sbc.com [135.41.1.46]) by mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:57:32 GMT Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1GIvWgd026159; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:57:32 -0600 Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.178.11]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1GIvQEO025872; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:57:26 -0600 Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas2.research.att.com [135.207.255.47]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10CCEF831; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:57:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njmtcas2.research.att.com ([fe80::d550:ec84:f872:cad9%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:57:25 -0500 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IOAM in IPPM Thread-Index: AQHSiGc9cXzuyNyh40uXrix8UqmsmqFryByAgAAl5HA= Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:57:25 +0000 Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF68C28D@njmtexg5.research.att.com> References: <202517D0-A6CE-40D3-98BE-A2AFA8F83A19@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.10.246.211] 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-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-02-16_14:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1702160178 Archived-At: Cc: "ioam@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] IOAM in IPPM X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 16 Feb 2017 20:44:25 -0000 Hi Frank and numerous IOAM co-authors,=20 (with due respect to the charter discussion thread) When I saw the IOAM mailing list announced a few weeks back I looked-in and saw that there were several terms used to categorize this type of measurement method (in-situ, in-band, etc.). I planned to send a pointer to the definitions of categories=20 IPPM (and IETF) agreed when new methods began to appear, so I'll do it now: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7799 >From the slides and the early sections of the draft, it appears what you propose here is a Hybrid Type I method (Augmentation or modification of the stream of interest). This proposal has much in common with the PDM Destination Option Header: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-= 07 which we knew about and classified in the RFC: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7799#section-4.2 This method processes a user traffic stream and adds "fields which are dedicated to measurement" (the measurement intent is made clear in the title of this option). It may be useful to look at the points about MTU made in=20 section 4.2. It seems that the user traffic entering the=20 in-situ domain will need to leave significant space for=20 the various data format fields that would be added. If this topic has already been discussed, I hope you'll summarize it here for the IPPM crowd and/or provide good pointers. Another goal of Hybrid measurement is that modified traffic and unmodified traffic would be treated as the *same* class of traffic by the network. Otherwise, one advantage over=20 active measurement methods would be lost. We described this problem at the end of page 7 in RFC 7799:=20 Hybrid Methods of measurement that augment or modify packets of a "class C" in a host should produce results equivalent to Passive Methods of Measurement when hosts accessing and links transporting these packets along the path (other than those performing augmentation/modification) treat packets from both categories of methods (with and without the augmentation/modification) as the same "class C". The Passive Methods of Measurement represent the Ground Truth when comparing results between Passive and Hybrid Methods, and this comparison should be conducted to confirm the "class C" treatment. I wonder if you have considered this comparison/constraint yet during the IOAM format and measurement development. It would likely be useful to cover this topic on IPPM list. thanks and regards, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Frank Brockners > (fbrockne) > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:07 PM > To: ippm@ietf.org > Cc: ioam@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] IOAM in IPPM >=20 > Dear IPPM WG, >=20 > following the recommendation from the IPPM chairs (see also Brian's > email below) as well as ADs involved (see also Alvaro's email below) the > discussions on in-situ OAM (IOAM), we'd like the IPPM WG to consider > adopting the IOAM work, especially the definition of formats and > associated procedures for in-situ OAM, including mechanisms for > capturing path and path-traversal related information as well as > procedures to employ, configure, trigger, and export the embedded > telemetry information. For this we'd suggest to adopt > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 as a > starting point for the work of IPPM on IOAM. Like Brian noted, IPPM WG > already focusses on hybrid measurements (e.g. those enabled by the > similar draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option), hence IOAM would be a natural > complement and addition to that work and would benefit from all earlier > work on metrics etc. >=20 > Background on In-situ OAM: In-situ OAM provides real-time telemetry of > individual data packets and flows. It is based on telemetry information > which is embedded within live user traffic, where "live user traffic" > means packets originated and terminated at the application layer. For > more information on in-situ OAM, you could refer to the requirements > draft we posted (draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02), or check > out the presentations we gave at IETF 96 and 97: > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-opsawg-8.pdf and > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-opsawg-in-situ-oam- > 00.PDF >=20 > Appreciate your thoughts and support :-). >=20 > Thanks, Frank >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Trammell (IETF) [mailto:ietf@trammell.ch] > Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 16:13 > To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > Subject: IOAM in IPPM >=20 > Hi, Frank, >=20 > As we discussed today, please do introduce your draft (draft-brockners- > inband-oam-data-00) to the IPPM mailing list. Given our recent focus on > hybrid measurements (e.g. those enabled by the similar draft-ietf-ippm- > 6man-pdm-option), I'd like to start a discussion there about considering > the draft for adoption within IPPM. >=20 > Thanks, cheers, >=20 > Brian >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana > (aretana) > Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 17:58 > To: ioam@ietf.org > Subject: [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward >=20 > Hi! >=20 > First of all, thank you all for the interest expressed in this topic and > the discussions about the charter. >=20 > As you know, one of the discussions resulting from the Internal Review > of the proposed IOAM charter was whether the work was already within the > ippm WG scope or not. Over the last couple of days, I have dug deeper > into that question with the Transport ADs and the ippm WG Chairs, and > our conclusion is that there is significant overlap between the current > ippm Charter and the proposed IOAM work. Enough to justify moving the > work forward in the ippm WG and not splintering a related effort into a > new WG. >=20 > I have then stopped the chartering effort for a new WG. The proponents > will start discussions on the ippm list soon - please join if you're not > there already. I will keep this list open for a couple more days. >=20 > Clearly there is interest in developing this cross-area work in the > IETF. I hope that you will continue to participate as the topic > progresses on the ippm WG. It is important that this type of cross-area > efforts be properly discussed and that we don't create more silos. I > realize it took us a couple of tries to find what I think is a stable > home for the IOAM work - I know that the open discussion has only helped > the overall process. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Alvaro. From nobody Thu Feb 16 20:04:07 2017 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 B5C361298C0 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:04:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HtoX-qeYez6P for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:04:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6355F1294E3 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:04:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50AD20A18 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:04:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:04:03 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=s+wG6ArqRX774onTndHPISIKS3 E=; b=XJ2tp29ZTMFF8Wpo/xwng0ADA4U4Tlgdwdr8RgOrSuaXnDGm86Q7KW2CpR E/SIrtezk03oPtE3/IV9sXs7zvIcJG5Jwm5gCy3mfQXH8f0NDMyoCEBrP4wu1dHM qyQ9QL/41vzu8Mu5M5uDhUMEn83K50BQsLRsdae/s2VJ6RLpU= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: i2dk1FMdR7g+XV+dOb9qwEfvmkuQpQrEAxCmJ2Z5sS1O 1487304243 Received: from [192.168.1.116] (71-82-73-90.dhcp.bycy.mi.charter.com [71.82.73.90]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7D3B2241BD for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:04:03 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Cerveny Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A4A2A0E1-E7B8-432F-82A7-CF1ADB6866EF" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:04:02 -0500 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] IETF98 IPPM meeting call for agenda items X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: IPPM Chairs 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 2017 04:04:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A4A2A0E1-E7B8-432F-82A7-CF1ADB6866EF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear IPPMers, I am working on the agenda for the upcoming IPPM meeting at IETF98 in = Chicago and need to have presenters and presentations confirmed and = identified. Unless I=E2=80=99m wrong, we have 4 IPPM WG documents to discuss: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03 draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02=20 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10=20 draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-02=20 We will talk about draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 = (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 = ) =46rom my review of the mailing group list, it would appear that other = than draft-brockners-inband-oam-data, the only other individual draft = discussed was draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-01. This being the case, other = presenters who wish to present their individual drafts for IPPM = consideration will be able to do so during =E2=80=9Clightning talks=E2=80=9D= , which will be five minutes per topic (strict), with available time at = the end of the main agenda. Authors: Please respond to this e-mail with the amount of time that you = are requesting and who will be presenting. Thanks, Bill Cerveny IPPM WG co-chair= --Apple-Mail=_A4A2A0E1-E7B8-432F-82A7-CF1ADB6866EF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Dear IPPMers,

I am working on the agenda for the upcoming IPPM meeting at = IETF98 in Chicago and need to have presenters and presentations = confirmed and identified.

Unless I=E2=80=99m wrong, we have 4 IPPM WG documents to = discuss:

draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03
draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02 
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10 
draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-02 

We will talk about = draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02<= /a>)

=46rom my = review of the mailing group list, it would appear that other than = draft-brockners-inband-oam-data, the only other individual draft = discussed was draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-01. This being the case, other = presenters who wish to present their individual drafts for IPPM = consideration will be able to do so during =E2=80=9Clightning talks=E2=80=9D= , which will be five minutes per topic (strict), with available time at = the end of the main agenda.

Authors: Please respond to this e-mail with the amount of = time that you are requesting and who will be presenting.

Thanks,

Bill Cerveny
IPPM WG co-chair
= --Apple-Mail=_A4A2A0E1-E7B8-432F-82A7-CF1ADB6866EF-- From nobody Fri Feb 17 03:14:18 2017 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 5F6771294F7; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:14:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.022 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jESbDRF5TT86; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:14:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07B68129474; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:14:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9067; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1487330051; x=1488539651; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=qO7E/KwEsTWxwUFWX0uiFlf9vv749kVfSDjuji99UGY=; b=C5jZfDokl1xpkigqPX1P6mFn359MugPKta8p7HI47aINNdwfgwH0QWFT mxlUiFb4bEKZhz0jryaFQy15VXz8j48Dqr3WUr7U9//bo0Zagc1ccNMCA wjTpMag8KGiM6x5iCrt3RFKz8vz/hTa1ZzsUV2v+idM+0KSBwfbzjasIS A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AXAQCQ2qZY/5RdJa1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgygpYYEJB41akhCTJYIPggwshXYCghg/GAECAQEBAQEBAWIohHA?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQECAjo0CwwEAgEIEQQBAR8JBzIUCQgCBAENBQiJZA6yVYtYAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWGTIRvhBwKEQGGAQWcAAGGcIJaiEWCBIUXiXaHAYwaAR8?= =?us-ascii?q?4eAhRFRglhkR1AYg8gSGBDQEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,171,1484006400"; d="scan'208";a="386906843" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Feb 2017 11:14:09 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (xch-rcd-007.cisco.com [173.37.102.17]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1HBE9h4031248 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:14:09 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:14:08 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:14:08 -0600 From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IOAM in IPPM Thread-Index: AQHSiGc9cXzuyNyh40uXrix8UqmsmqFryByAgAAl5HCAARoBAA== Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:14:08 +0000 Message-ID: References: <202517D0-A6CE-40D3-98BE-A2AFA8F83A19@trammell.ch> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF68C28D@njmtexg5.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF68C28D@njmtexg5.research.att.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.55.190.229] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ioam@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] IOAM in IPPM X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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 2017 11:14:13 -0000 Hi Al, thanks for your notes - please see inline (..FB:) -----Original Message----- From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com]=20 Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 19:57 To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; ippm@ietf.org Cc: ioam@ietf.org Subject: RE: IOAM in IPPM Hi Frank and numerous IOAM co-authors,=20 (with due respect to the charter discussion thread) When I saw the IOAM mailing list announced a few weeks back I looked-in and= saw that there were several terms used to categorize this type of measurem= ent method (in-situ, in-band, etc.). I planned to send a pointer to the definitions of categories IPPM (and IETF= ) agreed when new methods began to appear, so I'll do it now: https://tools= .ietf.org/html/rfc7799 >From the slides and the early sections of the draft, it appears what you pr= opose here is a Hybrid Type I method (Augmentation or modification of the s= tream of interest). This proposal has much in common with the PDM Destination Option Header: ht= tps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-07 which we knew about and classified in the RFC: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7799#section-4.2 This method processes a user traffic stream and adds "fields which are dedicated to measurement" (the measurement intent is made clear in the title of this option). ...FB: Yes. In-situ OAM would be "Hybrid OAM, Type 1" - we also mention thi= s explicitly in the requirements draft and refer to RFC7799, see section 1 = in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02#p= age-3 It may be useful to look at the points about MTU made in section 4.2. It se= ems that the user traffic entering the in-situ domain will need to leave si= gnificant space for the various data format fields that would be added. If = this topic has already been discussed, I hope you'll summarize it here for = the IPPM crowd and/or provide good pointers. ...FB: In-situ OAM information requires space in the packet - and the in-si= tu OAM needs to have appropriate MTU support. A discussion on MTU and packe= t-size is found in the requirements draft in section 4.2, see https://tools= .ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02#page-12 Another goal of Hybrid measurement is that modified traffic and unmodified = traffic would be treated as the *same* class of traffic by the network. Oth= erwise, one advantage over active measurement methods would be lost. We de= scribed this problem at the end of page 7 in RFC 7799:=20 Hybrid Methods of measurement that augment or modify packets of a "class C" in a host should produce results equivalent to Passive Methods of Measurement when hosts accessing and links transporting these packets along the path (other than those performing augmentation/modification) treat packets from both categories of methods (with and without the augmentation/modification) as the same "class C". The Passive Methods of Measurement represent the Ground Truth when comparing results between Passive and Hybrid Methods, and this comparison should be conducted to confirm the "class C" treatment. I wonder if you have considered this comparison/constraint yet during the I= OAM format and measurement development. It would likely be useful to cover = this topic on IPPM list. ...FB: This is a very worthwhile comment and has been briefly raised before= during discussions in OPSAWG at the last IETF. There is no easy answer to = the question: "Will a packet which is added in-situ OAM data be treated the= same as if it would not be added in-situ OAM data?", because it'll likely = depend on implementation details as well as the encapsulation used. Example= : There are implementations which forward packets differently in case an IP= v6 extension header is present in the packet - while not the case for all i= mplementations, some have that behavior. Now if IOAM would be added as an e= xtension header and it would be the only extension header present in the pa= cket, some implementations might indeed change their forwarding behavior. H= ence it is important to make sure that for the IOAM domain you indeed have = nodes which conform to the assumption that forwarding behavior will not cha= nge when IOAM data is added to the packet. What this leads to is probably another requirement we need to take into con= sideration - and that we should add to the requirements draft: E.g. somethi= ng like "The addition of IOAM data-records should not change the way packet= s are forwarded *within* the IOAM domain." Thoughts? Thanks, Frank thanks and regards, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Frank Brockners > (fbrockne) > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:07 PM > To: ippm@ietf.org > Cc: ioam@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] IOAM in IPPM >=20 > Dear IPPM WG, >=20 > following the recommendation from the IPPM chairs (see also Brian's=20 > email below) as well as ADs involved (see also Alvaro's email below)=20 > the discussions on in-situ OAM (IOAM), we'd like the IPPM WG to=20 > consider adopting the IOAM work, especially the definition of formats=20 > and associated procedures for in-situ OAM, including mechanisms for=20 > capturing path and path-traversal related information as well as=20 > procedures to employ, configure, trigger, and export the embedded=20 > telemetry information. For this we'd suggest to adopt > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 as a=20 > starting point for the work of IPPM on IOAM. Like Brian noted, IPPM WG=20 > already focusses on hybrid measurements (e.g. those enabled by the=20 > similar draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option), hence IOAM would be a=20 > natural complement and addition to that work and would benefit from=20 > all earlier work on metrics etc. >=20 > Background on In-situ OAM: In-situ OAM provides real-time telemetry of=20 > individual data packets and flows. It is based on telemetry=20 > information which is embedded within live user traffic, where "live user = traffic" > means packets originated and terminated at the application layer. For=20 > more information on in-situ OAM, you could refer to the requirements=20 > draft we posted (draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02), or check=20 > out the presentations we gave at IETF 96 and 97: > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-opsawg-8.pdf and > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-opsawg-in-situ-oa > m- > 00.PDF >=20 > Appreciate your thoughts and support :-). >=20 > Thanks, Frank >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Trammell (IETF) [mailto:ietf@trammell.ch] > Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 16:13 > To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > Subject: IOAM in IPPM >=20 > Hi, Frank, >=20 > As we discussed today, please do introduce your draft=20 > (draft-brockners- > inband-oam-data-00) to the IPPM mailing list. Given our recent focus=20 > on hybrid measurements (e.g. those enabled by the similar=20 > draft-ietf-ippm- 6man-pdm-option), I'd like to start a discussion=20 > there about considering the draft for adoption within IPPM. >=20 > Thanks, cheers, >=20 > Brian >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana > (aretana) > Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 17:58 > To: ioam@ietf.org > Subject: [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward >=20 > Hi! >=20 > First of all, thank you all for the interest expressed in this topic=20 > and the discussions about the charter. >=20 > As you know, one of the discussions resulting from the Internal Review=20 > of the proposed IOAM charter was whether the work was already within=20 > the ippm WG scope or not. Over the last couple of days, I have dug=20 > deeper into that question with the Transport ADs and the ippm WG=20 > Chairs, and our conclusion is that there is significant overlap=20 > between the current ippm Charter and the proposed IOAM work. Enough=20 > to justify moving the work forward in the ippm WG and not splintering=20 > a related effort into a new WG. >=20 > I have then stopped the chartering effort for a new WG. The=20 > proponents will start discussions on the ippm list soon - please join=20 > if you're not there already. I will keep this list open for a couple mor= e days. >=20 > Clearly there is interest in developing this cross-area work in the=20 > IETF. I hope that you will continue to participate as the topic=20 > progresses on the ippm WG. It is important that this type of=20 > cross-area efforts be properly discussed and that we don't create more=20 > silos. I realize it took us a couple of tries to find what I think is=20 > a stable home for the IOAM work - I know that the open discussion has=20 > only helped the overall process. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Alvaro. From nobody Fri Feb 17 03:45:18 2017 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 BA459129418; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:45:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eSjOv7XitFee; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:45:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 991A112998C; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:45:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6672; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1487331915; x=1488541515; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=43kx1g25j/76xVGFqtcvYU+4O4AhyQF0RNfyIK6fdQk=; b=feGXsWzYwC8Rvoof0KpgyfEVUOFRv65rtxug4T3V8JkYdpSZS/99iu1h kGJ0z9/H5DxcTs/Qj80yVR8gzmdPejRml7y7ZFYpwOPteNwdCApviSDcO x7bGo+SW9OggLo9Q1fiZ9JKPLARQ5F2rMev14c3bb/aaXmXRgsYA15Q7b Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CcAQCZ4aZY/4ENJK1bAxkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNRYYEJB4NSigiSEJU0ggwfDYV2AhqBfz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBYii?= =?us-ascii?q?EcAEBAQICAQEhERUlCwwEAgEIEQQBAQMCIwMCAgIlCxQBCAgCBAENBQiJZA6wJ?= =?us-ascii?q?oIli1gBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuFQYRvhCYRATMKJoI/gl8FlV2?= =?us-ascii?q?GIwGGcIJaiEWCBIUXiXaTGwEfOHgIURU9hkR1AYg8gSGBDQEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,171,1484006400"; d="scan'208";a="209736824" Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Feb 2017 11:45:14 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1HBjEdE030017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:45:14 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:45:13 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:45:13 -0600 From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" To: "nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com" , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Ioam] [ippm] IOAM in IPPM Thread-Index: AQHSiGc9cXzuyNyh40uXrix8UqmsmqFryByAgACdp4CAAK/YMA== Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:45:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <202517D0-A6CE-40D3-98BE-A2AFA8F83A19@trammell.ch> <91884089.975471.1487272511971@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <91884089.975471.1487272511971@mail.yahoo.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.55.190.229] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ioam@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] [Ioam] IOAM in IPPM X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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 2017 11:45:18 -0000 VGhhbmtzIE5hbGluaS4gTG9va2luZyBmb3J3YXJkIHRvIHRoZSBJT0FNIHdvcmsgaW4gSVBQTS4g RnJhbmsNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IElvYW0gW21haWx0bzpp b2FtLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBuYWxpbmkuZWxraW5zQGluc2lkZXRo ZXN0YWNrLmNvbQ0KU2VudDogRG9ubmVyc3RhZywgMTYuIEZlYnJ1YXIgMjAxNyAyMDoxNQ0KVG86 IEZyYW5rIEJyb2NrbmVycyAoZmJyb2NrbmUpIDxmYnJvY2tuZUBjaXNjby5jb20+OyBpcHBtQGll dGYub3JnDQpDYzogUm9iZXJ0IEhhbWlsdG9uIDxyaGFtaWx0b25AY2FzLm9yZz47IGlvYW1AaWV0 Zi5vcmc7IE1pY2hhZWwgQWNrZXJtYW5uIDxtYWNrZXJtYW5uQGJjYnNtLmNvbT4NClN1YmplY3Q6 IFJlOiBbSW9hbV0gW2lwcG1dIElPQU0gaW4gSVBQTQ0KDQpGcmFuaywNCg0KQXMgb25lIG9mIHRo ZSBhdXRob3JzIG9mIHRoZSBQRE0gZHJhZnQgKGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtaXBwbS02bWFuLXBkbS1vcHRp b24pIHRoYXQgeW91IGRpc2N1c3NlZCBiZWxvdy4gIEkgZmluZCB5b3VyIHdvcmsgZXh0cmVtZWx5 IGludGVyZXN0aW5nLCBhcyB5b3Uga25vdyENCg0KSSBob3BlIHRvIHNlZSB5b3VyIHdvcmsgaW4g SVBQTS4gIEkgY2FuIHNlZSB0aGF0IHdlIG1heSBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIGNvbGxhYm9yYXRlIGFuZCBk byBxdWl0ZSBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyB3b3JrIGluIHRoZSBmdXR1cmUuDQogVGhhbmtzLA0KDQpOYWxp bmkgRWxraW5zDQpJbnNpZGUgUHJvZHVjdHMsIEluYy4NCnd3dy5pbnNpZGV0aGVzdGFjay5jb20N Cig4MzEpIDY1OS04MzYwDQoNCg0KLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTog RnJhbmsgQnJvY2tuZXJzIChmYnJvY2tuZSkgPGZicm9ja25lQGNpc2NvLmNvbT4NClRvOiAiaXBw bUBpZXRmLm9yZyIgPGlwcG1AaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpDYzogImlvYW1AaWV0Zi5vcmciIDxpb2FtQGll dGYub3JnPg0KU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXksIEZlYnJ1YXJ5IDE2LCAyMDE3IDk6MDYgQU0NClN1Ympl Y3Q6IFtpcHBtXSBJT0FNIGluIElQUE0NCg0KRGVhciBJUFBNIFdHLA0KDQpmb2xsb3dpbmcgdGhl IHJlY29tbWVuZGF0aW9uIGZyb20gdGhlIElQUE0gY2hhaXJzIChzZWUgYWxzbyBCcmlhbidzIGVt YWlsIGJlbG93KSBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIEFEcyBpbnZvbHZlZCAoc2VlIGFsc28gQWx2YXJvJ3MgZW1h aWwgYmVsb3cpIHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9ucyBvbiBpbi1zaXR1IE9BTSAoSU9BTSksIHdlJ2QgbGlr ZSB0aGUgSVBQTSBXRyB0byBjb25zaWRlciBhZG9wdGluZyB0aGUgSU9BTSB3b3JrLCBlc3BlY2lh bGx5IHRoZSBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mIGZvcm1hdHMgYW5kIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgcHJvY2VkdXJlcyBm b3IgaW4tc2l0dSBPQU0sIGluY2x1ZGluZyBtZWNoYW5pc21zIGZvciBjYXB0dXJpbmcgcGF0aCBh bmQgcGF0aC10cmF2ZXJzYWwgcmVsYXRlZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIHByb2NlZHVy ZXMgdG8gZW1wbG95LCBjb25maWd1cmUsIHRyaWdnZXIsIGFuZCBleHBvcnQgdGhlIGVtYmVkZGVk IHRlbGVtZXRyeSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbi4gRm9yIHRoaXMgd2UnZCBzdWdnZXN0IHRvIGFkb3B0IGh0 dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1icm9ja25lcnMtaW5iYW5kLW9hbS1kYXRh LTAyIGFzIGEgc3RhcnRpbmcgcG9pbnQgZm9yIHRoZSB3b3JrIG9mIElQUE0gb24gSU9BTS4gTGlr ZSBCcmlhbiBub3RlZCwgSVBQTSBXRyBhbHJlYWR5IGZvY3Vzc2VzIG9uIGh5YnJpZCBtZWFzdXJl bWVudHMgKGUuZy4gdGhvc2UgZW5hYmxlZCBieSB0aGUgc2ltaWxhciBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0t Nm1hbi1wZG0tb3B0aW9uKSwgaGVuY2UgSU9BTSB3b3VsZCBiZSBhIG5hdHVyYWwgY29tcGxlbWVu dCBhbmQgYWRkaXRpb24gdG8gdGhhdCB3b3JrIGFuZCB3b3VsZCBiZW5lZml0IGZyb20gYWxsIGVh cmxpZXIgd29yayBvbiBtZXRyaWNzIGV0Yy4gDQoNCkJhY2tncm91bmQgb24gSW4tc2l0dSBPQU06 IEluLXNpdHUgT0FNIHByb3ZpZGVzIHJlYWwtdGltZSB0ZWxlbWV0cnkgb2YgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBk YXRhIHBhY2tldHMgYW5kIGZsb3dzLiBJdCBpcyBiYXNlZCBvbiB0ZWxlbWV0cnkgaW5mb3JtYXRp b24gd2hpY2ggaXMgZW1iZWRkZWQgd2l0aGluIGxpdmUgdXNlciB0cmFmZmljLCB3aGVyZSAibGl2 ZSB1c2VyIHRyYWZmaWMiIG1lYW5zIHBhY2tldHMgb3JpZ2luYXRlZCBhbmQgdGVybWluYXRlZCBh dCB0aGUgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gbGF5ZXIuIEZvciBtb3JlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIG9uIGluLXNpdHUg T0FNLCB5b3UgY291bGQgcmVmZXIgdG8gdGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBkcmFmdCB3ZSBwb3N0ZWQg KGRyYWZ0LWJyb2NrbmVycy1pbmJhbmQtb2FtLXJlcXVpcmVtZW50cy0wMiksIG9yIGNoZWNrIG91 dCB0aGUgcHJlc2VudGF0aW9ucyB3ZSBnYXZlIGF0IElFVEYgOTYgYW5kIDk3OiBodHRwczovL3d3 dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9wcm9jZWVkaW5ncy85Ni9zbGlkZXMvc2xpZGVzLTk2LW9wc2F3Zy04LnBkZiBh bmQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcHJvY2VlZGluZ3MvOTcvc2xpZGVzL3NsaWRlcy05Ny1v cHNhd2ctaW4tc2l0dS1vYW0tMDAuUERGIA0KDQpBcHByZWNpYXRlIHlvdXIgdGhvdWdodHMgYW5k IHN1cHBvcnQgOi0pLg0KDQpUaGFua3MsIEZyYW5rDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0t LS0tDQpGcm9tOiBCcmlhbiBUcmFtbWVsbCAoSUVURikgW21haWx0bzppZXRmQHRyYW1tZWxsLmNo XSANClNlbnQ6IERvbm5lcnN0YWcsIDE2LiBGZWJydWFyIDIwMTcgMTY6MTMNClRvOiBGcmFuayBC cm9ja25lcnMgKGZicm9ja25lKSA8ZmJyb2NrbmVAY2lzY28uY29tPg0KU3ViamVjdDogSU9BTSBp biBJUFBNDQoNCkhpLCBGcmFuaywNCg0KQXMgd2UgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIHRvZGF5LCBwbGVhc2UgZG8g aW50cm9kdWNlIHlvdXIgZHJhZnQgKGRyYWZ0LWJyb2NrbmVycy1pbmJhbmQtb2FtLWRhdGEtMDAp IHRvIHRoZSBJUFBNIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4gR2l2ZW4gb3VyIHJlY2VudCBmb2N1cyBvbiBoeWJy aWQgbWVhc3VyZW1lbnRzIChlLmcuIHRob3NlIGVuYWJsZWQgYnkgdGhlIHNpbWlsYXIgZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1pcHBtLTZtYW4tcGRtLW9wdGlvbiksIEknZCBsaWtlIHRvIHN0YXJ0IGEgZGlzY3Vzc2lv biB0aGVyZSBhYm91dCBjb25zaWRlcmluZyB0aGUgZHJhZnQgZm9yIGFkb3B0aW9uIHdpdGhpbiBJ UFBNLg0KDQpUaGFua3MsIGNoZWVycywNCg0KQnJpYW4NCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdl LS0tLS0NCkZyb206IElvYW0gW21haWx0bzppb2FtLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFs ZiBPZiBBbHZhcm8gUmV0YW5hIChhcmV0YW5hKQ0KU2VudDogRG9ubmVyc3RhZywgMTYuIEZlYnJ1 YXIgMjAxNyAxNzo1OA0KVG86IGlvYW1AaWV0Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6IFtJb2FtXSBJT0FNIFdv cmsgTW92aW5nIEZvcndhcmQNCg0KSGkhDQoNCkZpcnN0IG9mIGFsbCwgdGhhbmsgeW91IGFsbCBm b3IgdGhlIGludGVyZXN0IGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIHRvcGljIGFuZCB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lv bnMgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGNoYXJ0ZXIuDQoNCkFzIHlvdSBrbm93LCBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Np b25zIHJlc3VsdGluZyBmcm9tIHRoZSBJbnRlcm5hbCBSZXZpZXcgb2YgdGhlIHByb3Bvc2VkIElP QU0gY2hhcnRlciB3YXMgd2hldGhlciB0aGUgd29yayB3YXMgYWxyZWFkeSB3aXRoaW4gdGhlIGlw cG0gV0cgc2NvcGUgb3Igbm90LiAgT3ZlciB0aGUgbGFzdCBjb3VwbGUgb2YgZGF5cywgSSBoYXZl IGR1ZyBkZWVwZXIgaW50byB0aGF0IHF1ZXN0aW9uIHdpdGggdGhlIFRyYW5zcG9ydCBBRHMgYW5k IHRoZSBpcHBtIFdHIENoYWlycywgYW5kIG91ciBjb25jbHVzaW9uIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgaXMg c2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgb3ZlcmxhcCBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGlwcG0gQ2hhcnRlciBhbmQg dGhlIHByb3Bvc2VkIElPQU0gd29yay4gIEVub3VnaCB0byBqdXN0aWZ5IG1vdmluZyB0aGUgd29y ayBmb3J3YXJkIGluIHRoZSBpcHBtIFdHIGFuZCBub3Qgc3BsaW50ZXJpbmcgYSByZWxhdGVkIGVm Zm9ydCBpbnRvIGEgbmV3IFdHLg0KDQpJIGhhdmUgdGhlbiBzdG9wcGVkIHRoZSBjaGFydGVyaW5n IGVmZm9ydCBmb3IgYSBuZXcgV0cuICBUaGUgcHJvcG9uZW50cyB3aWxsIHN0YXJ0IGRpc2N1c3Np b25zIG9uIHRoZSBpcHBtIGxpc3Qgc29vbiAtIHBsZWFzZSBqb2luIGlmIHlvdSdyZSBub3QgdGhl cmUgYWxyZWFkeS4gIEkgd2lsbCBrZWVwIHRoaXMgbGlzdCBvcGVuIGZvciBhIGNvdXBsZSBtb3Jl IGRheXMuDQoNCkNsZWFybHkgdGhlcmUgaXMgaW50ZXJlc3QgaW4gZGV2ZWxvcGluZyB0aGlzIGNy b3NzLWFyZWEgd29yayBpbiB0aGUgSUVURi4gIEkgaG9wZSB0aGF0IHlvdSB3aWxsIGNvbnRpbnVl IHRvIHBhcnRpY2lwYXRlIGFzIHRoZSB0b3BpYyBwcm9ncmVzc2VzIG9uIHRoZSBpcHBtIFdHLiAg SXQgaXMgaW1wb3J0YW50IHRoYXQgdGhpcyB0eXBlIG9mIGNyb3NzLWFyZWEgZWZmb3J0cyBiZSBw cm9wZXJseSBkaXNjdXNzZWQgYW5kIHRoYXQgd2UgZG9uJ3QgY3JlYXRlIG1vcmUgc2lsb3MuICBJ IHJlYWxpemUgaXQgdG9vayB1cyBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiB0cmllcyB0byBmaW5kIHdoYXQgSSB0aGlu ayBpcyBhIHN0YWJsZSBob21lIGZvciB0aGUgSU9BTSB3b3JrIC0gSSBrbm93IHRoYXQgdGhlIG9w ZW4gZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBoYXMgb25seSBoZWxwZWQgdGhlIG92ZXJhbGwgcHJvY2Vzcy4NCg0KVGhh bmtzIQ0KDQpBbHZhcm8uDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fXw0KaXBwbSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCmlwcG1AaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmll dGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaXBwbQ0K From nobody Fri Feb 17 05:13:55 2017 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 3B5A4129A68 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:13:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fG3OExMCrtrD for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:13:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96130129A60 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:13:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049295.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v1HD544U016026; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:12:51 -0500 Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 28nwmwc08b-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:12:50 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1HDCnlc013722; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:12:50 -0500 Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1HDCdhw013614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:12:44 -0500 Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (clpi183.sldc.sbc.com [135.41.1.46]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:12:35 GMT Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1HDCZRu027828; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:12:35 -0600 Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (mail-green.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1HDCQxR027383; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:12:27 -0600 Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas2.research.att.com [135.207.255.47]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70462E23B1; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njmtcas2.research.att.com ([fe80::d550:ec84:f872:cad9%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:12:25 -0500 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: "ippm@ietf.org" , "Michelle Cotton (michelle.cotton@icann.org)" , "Amanda Baber (amanda.baber@iana.org)" Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt Thread-Index: AQHSS253viVcxTvN/kib48FwW4Pzg6DyRzdwgHtgkgA= Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:12:25 +0000 Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF68C6EF@njmtexg5.research.att.com> References: <148055406593.9654.1959658797607139676.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [73.178.187.36] 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-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-02-17_10:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1702170123 Archived-At: Cc: Benoit Claise , Aamer Akhter Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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 2017 13:13:54 -0000 Hi Michelle and Amanda, reminder on the registry draft review, thanks, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:13 PM > To: ippm@ietf.org; Michelle Cotton > (michelle.cotton@icann.org); Amanda Baber (amanda.baber@iana.org) > Cc: 'Benoit Claise'; 'Marcelo Bagnulo'; 'Aamer Akhter'; 'Philip Eardley' > Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt >=20 > IPPM and IANA Experts, >=20 > I met with IANA folks again in Seoul, and collected > additional comments and suggestions for clarification > from Michelle and Amanda. This version addresses > their comments. >=20 > Michelle and Amanda, > We talked about a mock-up of the Registry. After returning > home, I realized I made a mock-up back in 2014. I'll share > that (an updated version) with you in a separate message. >=20 > comments welcome, > Al >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > internet-drafts@ietf.org > > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:01 PM > > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > > Cc: ippm@ietf.org > > Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. > > > > Title : Registry for Performance Metrics > > Authors : Marcelo Bagnulo > > Benoit Claise > > Philip Eardley > > Al Morton > > Aamer Akhter > > Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt > > Pages : 32 > > Date : 2016-11-30 > > > > Abstract: > > This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics > registry > > and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This > document > > also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric > > requesters and reviewers. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry/ > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10 > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > > submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > I-D-Announce mailing list > > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From nobody Fri Feb 17 05:44:44 2017 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 A0DA3129A64; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:44:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ETE3gZSHqgME; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:44:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AD3C1294A8; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:35:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1HDZ30A020415; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:35:16 GMT Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.250.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1HDXCP5018526 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:33:17 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'IPPM Chairs'" , "'IETF IPPM WG'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:32:30 -0000 Message-ID: <0b4d01d28922$662415e0$326c41a0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0B4E_01D28922.66283490" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQI6zGSZHimUEuPz88Xm8EaOrvuVmqCcq2+A Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22890.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.305-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--15.305-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 0lhM5bBmjENsBO8haRkL6VaA5UKX+E3V+KgiyLtJrSDfKUilxhgF2VVa zIZBiETDBB1ajRbIjaJG+R/+80ybQdUW1/ttV+ezrA6HcPclJMZ+S5m2/8VLmnKelzchdJaGCqg 5Q7nKr0PfhfyWsB46CyCTZSWvAs3Ue/1Q10lwYg8bdAOq4F9PpSOSuAnftGqPX5ol8zUEkXzA4C 9G/+bRm5hxZFM3mN9c0Cwc9pUXIFXaSvM1wIoVPjSZcp4JyEHByGlw1pWXiGy3auNLoz5U2X/20 wqGUabSNtrqBJtuOX5BVgr5vOsPONLF6Y0L7R/QcFEiuPxHjsW0X0Yw27VuouQ45nVtPqmxrsFU 8Uw5BC6ytmB2/5InT/zxIC9LasqudG57tpB6osSzLD5kmcW6ZBOySJ0+MHXaE435Dt6W/lg9JrC IEsrp9x/2e9RyQzWhWnMoQfS9Wq8Sd6sOmnf5YwAYYobwIbwCSHjWEz/Dpkz5N0o2THGRZFJQYf pG4rTPPw1HPwekKZJkRkp1KngjvTkEZfvfb2jJDB+ErBr0bANar2Wff4KSIWecrqZc3vabOe5BY zkyOSWATHNX4n1dGBBO3awsdaE5Id7nfQ8juvASDAzxRL+lMX+vzHfC29pfJ6NLJndRi2QAx/km RQa0aiSDxZqgw5bKklPOPDP4bOhIvMFDGS9L74vptQwz5tsi/3x8h/jAheUVGU3zNNLOPmpHKtk QBynKILrggFV4ue4oYj2veQH+qNRaaFbTgyxyngIgpj8eDcBpkajQR5gb3tZE3xJMmmXcRRgndE tDQrJDCoMSqf0Y1070KFSK6ZuXW2h50d/gVZN8UoZeMhv4xZRMZUCEHkRt Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] IETF98 IPPM meeting call for agenda items X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk 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 2017 13:44:42 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0B4E_01D28922.66283490 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Bill, =20 I wonder whether you want to make time for = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements = before jumping into the solutions work? =20 Adrian =20 From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bill Cerveny Sent: 17 February 2017 04:04 To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] IETF98 IPPM meeting call for agenda items =20 Dear IPPMers, =20 I am working on the agenda for the upcoming IPPM meeting at IETF98 in = Chicago and need to have presenters and presentations confirmed and = identified. =20 Unless I=E2=80=99m wrong, we have 4 IPPM WG documents to discuss: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03 draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02=20 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10=20 draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-02=20 =20 We will talk about draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 = (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02) =20 >From my review of the mailing group list, it would appear that other = than draft-brockners-inband-oam-data, the only other individual draft = discussed was draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-01. This being the case, other = presenters who wish to present their individual drafts for IPPM = consideration will be able to do so during =E2=80=9Clightning = talks=E2=80=9D, which will be five minutes per topic (strict), with = available time at the end of the main agenda. =20 Authors: Please respond to this e-mail with the amount of time that you = are requesting and who will be presenting. =20 Thanks, =20 Bill Cerveny IPPM WG co-chair ------=_NextPart_000_0B4E_01D28922.66283490 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey = Bill,

 

I wonder whether you want to = make time for = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements = before jumping into the solutions work?

 

Adrian

 

From: ippm = [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bill = Cerveny
Sent: 17 February 2017 04:04
To: IETF IPPM = WG
Subject: [ippm] IETF98 IPPM meeting call for agenda = items

 

Dear = IPPMers,

 

I am working on the agenda for the upcoming IPPM meeting at = IETF98 in Chicago and need to have presenters and presentations = confirmed and identified.

 

Unless I=E2=80=99m wrong, we have 4 IPPM WG documents to = discuss:


draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02 

draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10 

draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-02 

 

 

From my review of the mailing group list, it would appear that = other than draft-brockners-inband-oam-data, the only other individual = draft discussed was draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-01. This being the case, = other presenters who wish to present their individual drafts for IPPM = consideration will be able to do so during =E2=80=9Clightning = talks=E2=80=9D, which will be five minutes per topic (strict), with = available time at the end of the main = agenda.

 

Authors: Please respond to this e-mail with the amount of time = that you are requesting and who will be = presenting.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Cerveny

IPPM WG = co-chair

------=_NextPart_000_0B4E_01D28922.66283490-- From nobody Fri Feb 17 18:35:18 2017 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 46391129407; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:35:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U_j8EO-E_vhO; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 249F212941C; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049287.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v1I2ZBWn039845; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:35:11 -0500 Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 28p9gg4sny-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:35:10 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1I2Z9Rt023873; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:35:09 -0500 Received: from mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.241]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1I2Z3O0023850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:35:05 -0500 Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (clpi183.sldc.sbc.com [135.41.1.46]) by mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Sat, 18 Feb 2017 02:34:48 GMT Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1I2Ymke020213; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 20:34:48 -0600 Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (mail-azure.research.att.com [135.207.255.18]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1I2Yfrd019963; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 20:34:41 -0600 Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas2.research.att.com [135.207.255.47]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F6FEE009C; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:34:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njmtcas2.research.att.com ([fe80::d550:ec84:f872:cad9%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:34:40 -0500 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IOAM in IPPM Thread-Index: AQHSiGc9cXzuyNyh40uXrix8UqmsmqFryByAgAAl5HCAARoBAIAA/nhA Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 02:34:39 +0000 Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF68D7A0@njmtexg5.research.att.com> References: <202517D0-A6CE-40D3-98BE-A2AFA8F83A19@trammell.ch> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF68C28D@njmtexg5.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.203.192] 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-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-02-18_01:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1702180023 Archived-At: Cc: "ioam@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] IOAM in IPPM X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 02:35:17 -0000 Hi Frank, one last reply, in-line [ACM] > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) [mailto:fbrockne@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 6:14 AM > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); ippm@ietf.org > Cc: ioam@ietf.org > Subject: RE: IOAM in IPPM >=20 > Hi Al, >=20 > thanks for your notes - please see inline (..FB:) >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com] > Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 19:57 > To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; ippm@ietf.org > Cc: ioam@ietf.org > Subject: RE: IOAM in IPPM >=20 > Hi Frank and numerous IOAM co-authors, >=20 > (with due respect to the charter discussion thread) >=20 > When I saw the IOAM mailing list announced a few weeks back I looked-in > and saw that there were several terms used to categorize this type of > measurement method (in-situ, in-band, etc.). > I planned to send a pointer to the definitions of categories IPPM (and > IETF) agreed when new methods began to appear, so I'll do it now: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7799 >=20 > From the slides and the early sections of the draft, it appears what you > propose here is a Hybrid Type I method (Augmentation or modification of > the stream of interest). > This proposal has much in common with the PDM Destination Option Header: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-07 > which we knew about and classified in the RFC: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7799#section-4.2 >=20 > This method processes a user traffic stream and adds "fields which > are dedicated to measurement" (the measurement intent is made clear > in the title of this option). >=20 > ...FB: Yes. In-situ OAM would be "Hybrid OAM, Type 1" - we also mention > this explicitly in the requirements draft and refer to RFC7799, see > section 1 in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam- > requirements-02#page-3 [ACM]=20 Thanks for the reference to IOAM requirements, I didn't see that one. Glad we're in agreement. >=20 > It may be useful to look at the points about MTU made in section 4.2. It > seems that the user traffic entering the in-situ domain will need to > leave significant space for the various data format fields that would be > added. If this topic has already been discussed, I hope you'll summarize > it here for the IPPM crowd and/or provide good pointers. >=20 > ...FB: In-situ OAM information requires space in the packet - and the > in-situ OAM needs to have appropriate MTU support. A discussion on MTU > and packet-size is found in the requirements draft in section 4.2, see > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements- > 02#page-12 >=20 > Another goal of Hybrid measurement is that modified traffic and > unmodified traffic would be treated as the *same* class of traffic by > the network. Otherwise, one advantage over active measurement methods > would be lost. We described this problem at the end of page 7 in RFC > 7799: >=20 > Hybrid Methods of measurement that augment or modify packets of a > "class C" in a host should produce results equivalent to Passive > Methods of Measurement when hosts accessing and links transporting > these packets along the path (other than those performing > augmentation/modification) treat packets from both categories of > methods (with and without the augmentation/modification) as the > same "class C". The Passive Methods of Measurement represent the > Ground Truth when comparing results between Passive and Hybrid > Methods, and this comparison should be conducted to confirm the > "class C" treatment. >=20 > I wonder if you have considered this comparison/constraint yet during > the IOAM format and measurement development. It would likely be useful > to cover this topic on IPPM list. >=20 > ...FB: This is a very worthwhile comment and has been briefly raised > before during discussions in OPSAWG at the last IETF. There is no easy > answer to the question: "Will a packet which is added in-situ OAM data > be treated the same as if it would not be added in-situ OAM data?", > because it'll likely depend on implementation details as well as the > encapsulation used. Example: There are implementations which forward > packets differently in case an IPv6 extension header is present in the > packet - while not the case for all implementations, some have that > behavior. Now if IOAM would be added as an extension header and it would > be the only extension header present in the packet, some implementations > might indeed change their forwarding behavior. Hence it is important to > make sure that for the IOAM domain you indeed have nodes which conform > to the assumption that forwarding behavior will not change when IOAM > data is added to the packet. > What this leads to is probably another requirement we need to take into > consideration - and that we should add to the requirements draft: E.g. > something like "The addition of IOAM data-records should not change the > way packets are forwarded *within* the IOAM domain." >=20 > Thoughts? [ACM]=20 Yes, the additional requirement on the domain is needed We should also be able to specify one or more ways to=20 check that the requirement is met on a representative sample of paths across the domain. I suggest tests with two packet streams, one unmodified and another with incremental or pre-allocated insertion of the=20 IOAM data records. The set of metrics planned for measurement provide the basis for comparison, for example is the latency of the unmodified stream always less than an IOAM modified stream? We have to find a way to enable passive measurements on the=20 unmodified stream, but that's a detail to work-out later. Some of the other features of IOAM will be more challenging to test in this way, but let's give it some more thought... regards, Al >=20 > Thanks, Frank >=20 >=20 > thanks and regards, > Al >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Frank Brockners > > (fbrockne) > > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:07 PM > > To: ippm@ietf.org > > Cc: ioam@ietf.org > > Subject: [ippm] IOAM in IPPM > > > > Dear IPPM WG, > > > > following the recommendation from the IPPM chairs (see also Brian's > > email below) as well as ADs involved (see also Alvaro's email below) > > the discussions on in-situ OAM (IOAM), we'd like the IPPM WG to > > consider adopting the IOAM work, especially the definition of formats > > and associated procedures for in-situ OAM, including mechanisms for > > capturing path and path-traversal related information as well as > > procedures to employ, configure, trigger, and export the embedded > > telemetry information. For this we'd suggest to adopt > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 as a > > starting point for the work of IPPM on IOAM. Like Brian noted, IPPM WG > > already focusses on hybrid measurements (e.g. those enabled by the > > similar draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option), hence IOAM would be a > > natural complement and addition to that work and would benefit from > > all earlier work on metrics etc. > > > > Background on In-situ OAM: In-situ OAM provides real-time telemetry of > > individual data packets and flows. It is based on telemetry > > information which is embedded within live user traffic, where "live > user traffic" > > means packets originated and terminated at the application layer. For > > more information on in-situ OAM, you could refer to the requirements > > draft we posted (draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02), or check > > out the presentations we gave at IETF 96 and 97: > > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-opsawg-8.pdf and > > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-opsawg-in-situ-oa > > m- > > 00.PDF > > > > Appreciate your thoughts and support :-). > > > > Thanks, Frank > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Trammell (IETF) [mailto:ietf@trammell.ch] > > Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 16:13 > > To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > > Subject: IOAM in IPPM > > > > Hi, Frank, > > > > As we discussed today, please do introduce your draft > > (draft-brockners- > > inband-oam-data-00) to the IPPM mailing list. Given our recent focus > > on hybrid measurements (e.g. those enabled by the similar > > draft-ietf-ippm- 6man-pdm-option), I'd like to start a discussion > > there about considering the draft for adoption within IPPM. > > > > Thanks, cheers, > > > > Brian > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana > > (aretana) > > Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2017 17:58 > > To: ioam@ietf.org > > Subject: [Ioam] IOAM Work Moving Forward > > > > Hi! > > > > First of all, thank you all for the interest expressed in this topic > > and the discussions about the charter. > > > > As you know, one of the discussions resulting from the Internal Review > > of the proposed IOAM charter was whether the work was already within > > the ippm WG scope or not. Over the last couple of days, I have dug > > deeper into that question with the Transport ADs and the ippm WG > > Chairs, and our conclusion is that there is significant overlap > > between the current ippm Charter and the proposed IOAM work. Enough > > to justify moving the work forward in the ippm WG and not splintering > > a related effort into a new WG. > > > > I have then stopped the chartering effort for a new WG. The > > proponents will start discussions on the ippm list soon - please join > > if you're not there already. I will keep this list open for a couple > more days. > > > > Clearly there is interest in developing this cross-area work in the > > IETF. I hope that you will continue to participate as the topic > > progresses on the ippm WG. It is important that this type of > > cross-area efforts be properly discussed and that we don't create more > > silos. I realize it took us a couple of tries to find what I think is > > a stable home for the IOAM work - I know that the open discussion has > > only helped the overall process. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Alvaro. From nobody Tue Feb 21 11:40:48 2017 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 B4E43129502 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:40:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KUPRe8i0AhGQ for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:40:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot0-x229.google.com (mail-ot0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4233129442 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:40:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot0-x229.google.com with SMTP id j38so4465353otb.3 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:40:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nHUg9AyKYngd0MXwG7v2Ulm2EOWw+8TeXWhE0pZBJeg=; b=qKPJmVl34zq0w3JwZxJ/vsG6ahYKtmzDT7Z7+nNlK/qx2F0FlhltZaLREhdo+0sA4V 7GaxA+6/zYFIhkL6r4rR3+5fN65j5eKYkfeLrHB75KaoTgRRihJZVV6qlcZaB8Wx6O3R QUpKQkP9r2tvLfwZAsqWjTbpo5Iyp1OuLYKbQjh9IBif1sMf061qJyIqhXEE8svCmRVB 54nI2TnKTUn2a5KWukB71pMnklNS/CUKePklbfg6LBR1rwW11VLVoZu9renNW81EglW5 WL9zzG1Nmgmbj4w1DUhuORlLd7+T60lmJP7DOSemMoTZZMyUaEqpHDg7R3/131AgJBxl GqVw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=nHUg9AyKYngd0MXwG7v2Ulm2EOWw+8TeXWhE0pZBJeg=; b=MIZmvkgA4E5hotLlZvTqkl8S+NcWK6BPShGZPwc5SHY63c4wu2hJkiyzULWaxRrBsf +gfTXvlR338a4CoqUUsmwYAECACu+SSGsYlY1quinAAgHWud7sheJNDZ6GWQD4bj9R5j HRkeSrADlHRzcf13AwhC1cKBl+pKAQec/o3zcfBmTw8Mi7Xw3BEuzSp/urcPGCDoiZ4F Ldfg9t6cWgmNfyaybj9nJIZlmfrXIRH5+5PnlECEXfPSU2kOF6tuq39mWFQYB+cKAw/D fYP9mR6jsGQVuLLz7Mx+U2iEJRLePimMzAaT7EXv9sKD/Itj+skwG0GypplMeCP6JRHy cwhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k20hn22edZK64gxWP1C4BdlIjMvXscWmcEI5qpCP+ko6s5UTLBqdwcl4CI69Vee/Fawktj/wO1N+K4Qg== X-Received: by 10.157.82.3 with SMTP id e3mr17705942oth.76.1487706043896; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:40:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.38.211 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:40:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <148770579177.19053.7468077457104145743.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <148770579177.19053.7468077457104145743.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Greg Mirsky Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:40:43 -0800 Message-ID: To: "ippm@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f40304353a3446da5905490f8e61 Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-02.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 21 Feb 2017 19:40:47 -0000 --f40304353a3446da5905490f8e61 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear All, couple typos fixed. Please review and share your comments, questions, always greatly appreciated and welcome. Regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:36 AM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-02.txt To: Gregory Mirsky , Steve Baillargeon < steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> A new version of I-D, draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon Revision: 02 Title: Control and Monitoring Differentiated Service Code Point in Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Document date: 2017-02-21 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 10 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bailmir-ippm- twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp- dscp-ctrl-mon/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp- ctrl-mon-02 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp- dscp-ctrl-mon-02 Abstract: This document describes an optional extension for Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) allowing control and monitoring of the Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) field in forward and reverse directions within single test session with the TWAMP-Test protocol. This document, if accepted, will be an update to the TWAMP core protocol specified in RFC 5357 and DSCP Monitoring mode defined in RFC 7750 . Hello, I need your help to manually post this version as I have to change my contact information. Thank you for your help. Regards, Greg Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --f40304353a3446da5905490f8e61 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All,
couple typos fixed.
Please review = and share your comments, questions, always greatly appreciated and welcome.=

Regards,
Greg

=
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:= <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date:= Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:36 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for dra= ft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-02.txt
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Steve Bai= llargeon <steve.bailla= rgeon@ericsson.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp= -ctrl-mon
Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A002
Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Control and Monitoring Differentia= ted Service Code Point in Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
Document date:=C2=A0 2017-02-21
Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Individual Submission
Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 10
URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft= -bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-02.txt
Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp= -dscp-ctrl-mon/
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ct= rl-mon-02
Diff:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-bailm= ir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-02

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This document describes an optional extension for Two-Way Acti= ve
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) allowing control and monitoring o= f the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) field in forward and = reverse
=C2=A0 =C2=A0directions within single test session with the TWAMP-Test prot= ocol.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This document, if accepted, will be an update to the TWAMP cor= e
=C2=A0 =C2=A0protocol specified in RFC 5357 and DSCP Monitoring mode define= d in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0RFC 7750 .


Hello,
I need your help to manually post this version as I have to change my conta= ct information.
Thank you for your help.

Regards,
Greg

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat


--f40304353a3446da5905490f8e61-- From nobody Wed Feb 22 08:16:19 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD89B1298AB; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:16:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.45.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148778017890.12102.7778489593715258880.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:16:18 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-03.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:16:19 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. Title : Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Data Model Authors : Ruth Civil Al Morton Reshad Rahman Mahesh Jethanandani Kostas Pentikousis Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-03.txt Pages : 64 Date : 2017-02-22 Abstract: This document specifies a data model for client and server implementations of the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP). We define the TWAMP data model through Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams and formally specify it using YANG. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Feb 22 08:38:18 2017 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 D84E31294FD for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:38:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wnEh9xNjCl3c for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:38:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.tpip.net (mail.tpip.net [92.43.49.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD511120724 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:38:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.tpip.net (unknown [153.92.65.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 043BD4F403 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:38:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by office.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52A9A2BC7 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:38:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from office.tpip.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (office.tpip.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 1lKuSjZmyUVV for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:38:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by office.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162EEA2BC8 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:38:12 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at tpip.net Received: from office.tpip.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (office.tpip.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 4LrdPhw2vS8A for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:38:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from office.tpip.net (office.tpip.net [153.92.65.89]) by office.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7EAA2BC7 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:38:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:38:11 +0100 (CET) From: Kostas Pentikousis To: ippm@ietf.org Message-ID: <931486593.190549.1487781491832.JavaMail.zimbra@tpip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [153.92.65.89] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.7.0_GA_1659 (ZimbraWebClient - FF51 (Win)/8.7.0_GA_1659) Thread-Index: Gzc88zUkZO/MVn+7aAiqMpBf2VpY6g== Thread-Topic: Updated draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Updated draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: Kostas Pentikousis List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:38:17 -0000 Dear All, We updated draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/) based on the feedback we received from the WG review by Marius as well as the YD review. Besides the editorial revision of the draft, a short summary of the changes in the YANG module based on the reviews is as follows: * significantly enhanced descriptions, consistency, references * updates in the YANG leaf node types (e.g. key-id from string to binary, and so on) * better alignment of e.g. packet-distribution with other IPPM work (namely the registry) * examples updated based on the module changes. Best regards, Kostas From nobody Wed Feb 22 08:48:54 2017 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 4D7CF1299B6 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:48:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8l1wAuEx6DQE for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.tpip.net (mail.tpip.net [92.43.49.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 927DA12998D for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from office.tpip.net (unknown [153.92.65.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46B524F403; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by office.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20793A2BC7; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:48:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from office.tpip.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (office.tpip.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 2jAPERHhM0gQ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:48:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by office.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D52FA2BC8; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:48:49 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at tpip.net Received: from office.tpip.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (office.tpip.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id lMy1L46Hde4b; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:48:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from office.tpip.net (office.tpip.net [153.92.65.89]) by office.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299DAA2BC7; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:48:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:48:48 +0100 (CET) From: Kostas Pentikousis To: Marius Georgescu Message-ID: <1380028137.190725.1487782128965.JavaMail.zimbra@tpip.net> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_db4b9d9f-5118-4c0d-a7d1-d6cbebb0e66a" X-Originating-IP: [153.92.65.89] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.7.0_GA_1659 (ZimbraWebClient - FF51 (Win)/8.7.0_GA_1659) Thread-Topic: Review of the YANG data model in draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-01 Thread-Index: CQXxHwnjK9FyIw1UhHm3i+uKYvJRgQ== Archived-At: Cc: ippm Subject: Re: [ippm] Review of the YANG data model in draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: Kostas Pentikousis List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:48:53 -0000 --=_db4b9d9f-5118-4c0d-a7d1-d6cbebb0e66a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Marius,=20 Many thanks for your review, and my sincere apologies for the delay.=20 We took all comments into consideration as we worked in two steps (-02 and = -03) to update the document. I believe we have addressed all points below. = If you could spare the time, please kindly review the updated version (http= s://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-03.txt) and let us know if w= e can improve the draft further.=20 Best regards,=20 Kostas=20 | From: "Marius Georgescu" | To: "ippm" | Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 5:56:06 AM | Subject: [ippm] Review of the YANG data model in draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-ya= ng-01 | Hello IPPM, | Following the promise I made in IETF96, this is my review of the YANG dat= a model | in [ https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-01 | | https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-01 ] . | As a disclaimer, I have to note that I am quite new to both TWAMP and YAN= G. | Nevertheless, here are some comments that might be relevant: | -1- | typedef twamp-modes { | type bits { | bit unauthenticated { | position 0; | description | "Unauthenticated mode. See [ https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc= 7717#section-7 | RFC | 7717 Section=C2=A07 ] ."; | } | The description refers to RFC7717 Section 7, which in turn refers to RFC4= 656 | Section 3.4 . I was wondering if a short description wouldn=E2=80=99t be = more | disambiguating. | The comment applies for the authenticated and encrypted modes as well. | -2- | leaf max-count { | type uint32 { | range 1024..4294967295; | } | default 32768; | description | "This parameter limits the maximum Count value. | If an attacking system sets the maximum value in | Count (2**32), then the system under attack would stall | for a significant period of time while it attempts to | generate keys."; | } | I was wondering what a =E2=80=9Csignificant amount of time=E2=80=9D means= , or if any reference | value should be given. | -3- | leaf server-start-time { | type uint64; | config false; | description | "The Start-Time advertized by the Server in the | Server-Start message ( [ https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4656= #section-3.1 | RFC | 4656, Section=C2=A03.1 ] ). This is | a timestamp representing the time when the current | instantiation of the Server started operating."; | } | Maybe a time format would help. I think the same applies for leaf start-t= ime { | -4- | leaf max-interval { | type uint32; | description | "Indicates the maximum time between packet | transmissions."; | } | Maybe a time unit should be mentioned. | -5- | 203.0.113.1 | 203.0.113.2 | | Test1 | 10.1.1.1 | While the client/server IPs are using the RFC5737 documentation class, I = was | wondering why the sender-IP is not. | Considering it is a private class, I am assuming a NAT box is considered = along | the path. If that=E2=80=99s the case, maybe it should be specified. | Best regards, | Marius Georgescu --=_db4b9d9f-5118-4c0d-a7d1-d6cbebb0e66a Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Marius,

Many thanks for your review, and my sincere apologies f= or the delay.

We took all com= ments into consideration as we worked in two steps (-02 and -03) to update = the document. I believe we have addressed all points below. If you could sp= are the time, please kindly review the updated version (https://www.ietf.or= g/id/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-03.txt) and let us know if we can improve t= he draft further.

Best regards,

Kostas

From: "Marius Georgescu= " <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
To: "ippm" <ippm@ietf.org&= gt;
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 5:56:06 AM
Subject: [= ippm] Review of the YANG data model in      &= nbsp; draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-01
Hello IPPM,

Following the promise I made in IETF96, this is my revi= ew of the YANG data model in https://tools.iet= f.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-01 .
As= a disclaimer, I have to note that I am quite new to both TWAMP and YANG.
Nevertheless, here are some comments that might be rele= vant:

-1- 
    typedef twa=
mp-modes {
      type bits {
        bit unauthenticated {
          position 0;
          description
              "Unauthenticated mode. See RFC 7717 Section =
7.";
        }
The description refers to RFC7717 Section 7,= which in turn refers to RFC4656 Section 3.4 . I was wondering if a short d= escription wouldn=E2=80=99t be more disambiguating. 
The comment applies for the authenticated and encrypted modes as = well. 

-2-&n= bsp;

          leaf max-count {
            type uint32 {
              range 1024..4294967295;
            }
            default 32768;
            description
              "This parameter limits the maximum Count value.

              If an attacking system sets the maximum value in
              Count (2**32), then the system under attack would stall
              for a significant period of time while it attempts to
              generate keys.";
          }

I was wondering what a =E2=80=9Csignificant amount of time=E2=80=9D = means, or if any reference value should be given.

-3- 

leaf se=
rver-start-time {
            type uint64;
            config false;
            description
              "The Start-Time advertized by the Server in the
              Server-Start message (RFC 4656, Section 3.=
1). This is
              a timestamp representing the time when the current
              instantiation of the Serve=
r started operating.";
          }

Maybe a time format would help. I think the same applies for leaf start-= time {

-4-= 
             =
 leaf max-interval {
                type uint32;
                description
                  "Indicates the maximum time between packet
                  transmissions.";
              }
Maybe a time unit should be mentioned.=  

-5-<= /div>
 <client-ip=
>203.0.113.1</client-ip>
               <server-ip>203.0.113.2</server-ip>
               <test-session-request>
                  <name>Test1</name>
                  <sender-ip>10.1.1.1</sender-ip>

While the client/server = IPs are using the RFC5737 documentation class, I was wondering why the send= er-IP is not. 
Considering it is a private class,= I am assuming a NAT box is considered along the path. If that=E2=80=99s th= e case, maybe it should be specified. 


Best regards,
Marius Georgescu
<= div style=3D"margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=3D"">




--=_db4b9d9f-5118-4c0d-a7d1-d6cbebb0e66a-- From nobody Fri Feb 24 12:41:08 2017 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 6A3B91294FD for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:41:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jb0OdJGgrcws for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD9EB1294FB for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:41:01 -0800 Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:41:01 -0800 From: Michelle Cotton To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" , "ippm@ietf.org" , Amanda Baber Thread-Topic: [Ext] RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt Thread-Index: AQHSjt5Oh3hq/ErUSEeRSqr5YdKjbw== Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:41:00 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1e.0.170107 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234] Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha256; boundary="B_3570784860_1360622421" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Benoit Claise , Aamer Akhter Subject: Re: [ippm] [Ext] RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 24 Feb 2017 20:41:07 -0000 --B_3570784860_1360622421 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Al, I have started the review and do have some comments. I should get back to you in the next week. Thank you, Michelle -----Original Message----- From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" Date: Friday, February 17, 2017 at 5:12 AM To: "ippm@ietf.org" , Michelle Cotton , Amanda Baber Cc: Benoit Claise , Marcelo Bagnulo , Aamer Akhter , Philip Eardley Subject: [Ext] RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt Hi Michelle and Amanda, reminder on the registry draft review, thanks, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:13 PM > To: ippm@ietf.org; Michelle Cotton > (michelle.cotton@icann.org); Amanda Baber (amanda.baber@iana.org) > Cc: 'Benoit Claise'; 'Marcelo Bagnulo'; 'Aamer Akhter'; 'Philip Eardley' > Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt > > IPPM and IANA Experts, > > I met with IANA folks again in Seoul, and collected > additional comments and suggestions for clarification > from Michelle and Amanda. This version addresses > their comments. > > Michelle and Amanda, > We talked about a mock-up of the Registry. After returning > home, I realized I made a mock-up back in 2014. I'll share > that (an updated version) with you in a separate message. > > comments welcome, > Al > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > internet-drafts@ietf.org > > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:01 PM > > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > > Cc: ippm@ietf.org > > Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. > > > > Title : Registry for Performance Metrics > > Authors : Marcelo Bagnulo > > Benoit Claise > > Philip Eardley > > Al Morton > > Aamer Akhter > > Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt > > Pages : 32 > > Date : 2016-11-30 > > > > Abstract: > > This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics > registry > > and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This > document > > also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric > > requesters and reviewers. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dmetric-2Dregistry_&d=DwIFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DtXLhb_G8hD85GLUyK8Z_tHchz8XPohfWYCwPbpStcU&m=_L1U5216PxPVrg0JqBTu3X05jAvBAnGoHtR8t1kFzMk&s=hRpFknJOQHrOZNz2wjcqvibbi_5S4hBVRBIZCeohF6w&e= > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dmetric-2Dregistry-2D10&d=DwIFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DtXLhb_G8hD85GLUyK8Z_tHchz8XPohfWYCwPbpStcU&m=_L1U5216PxPVrg0JqBTu3X05jAvBAnGoHtR8t1kFzMk&s=EI2x6GrRIt2Has4fSLDvztOQMM4zIZYKjKiBCyzjsp0&e= > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dmetric-2Dregistry-2D10&d=DwIFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DtXLhb_G8hD85GLUyK8Z_tHchz8XPohfWYCwPbpStcU&m=_L1U5216PxPVrg0JqBTu3X05jAvBAnGoHtR8t1kFzMk&s=E_hVTPvMnFpdQsdJMPCA97_BjHl9jPcJtzOI24Ozcpg&e= > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > > submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ftp-3A__ftp.ietf.org_internet-2Ddrafts_&d=DwIFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DtXLhb_G8hD85GLUyK8Z_tHchz8XPohfWYCwPbpStcU&m=_L1U5216PxPVrg0JqBTu3X05jAvBAnGoHtR8t1kFzMk&s=gAOq4mC2QeFzKIYbk_y-9zHv_uZ9CeWgUQijbD6jnAQ&e= > > > > _______________________________________________ > > I-D-Announce mailing list > > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_i-2Dd-2Dannounce&d=DwIFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DtXLhb_G8hD85GLUyK8Z_tHchz8XPohfWYCwPbpStcU&m=_L1U5216PxPVrg0JqBTu3X05jAvBAnGoHtR8t1kFzMk&s=0uhqYVC5AlHzXRmgjj-2I_Z0AwgB5FtVI6wFGGu2d8Y&e= > > Internet-Draft directories: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ietf.org_shadow.html&d=DwIFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DtXLhb_G8hD85GLUyK8Z_tHchz8XPohfWYCwPbpStcU&m=_L1U5216PxPVrg0JqBTu3X05jAvBAnGoHtR8t1kFzMk&s=dCTkcBnxQjircKPuu1vtYcvTKcea-M29YlYP20f7L2k&e= > > or https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ftp-3A__ftp.ietf.org_ietf_1shadow-2Dsites.txt&d=DwIFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DtXLhb_G8hD85GLUyK8Z_tHchz8XPohfWYCwPbpStcU&m=_L1U5216PxPVrg0JqBTu3X05jAvBAnGoHtR8t1kFzMk&s=z3WswQ8qNTfO25fgXTl1ch8e9EEs8FGGUa_EaMNxdU0&e= --B_3570784860_1360622421 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIISBAYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIR9TCCEfECAQExDzANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFADALBgkqhkiG9w0B BwGggg+5MIIFqDCCBJCgAwIBAgIQCuvDwxHaHKymSygUiz0IATANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADBl MQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEVMBMGA1UEChMMRGlnaUNlcnQgSW5jMRkwFwYDVQQLExB3d3cuZGln aWNlcnQuY29tMSQwIgYDVQQDExtEaWdpQ2VydCBTSEEyIEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgQ0EwHhcNMTYx MDAzMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkxMDAzMTIwMDAwWjCBxTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxEzARBgNVBAgTCkNh bGlmb3JuaWExFDASBgNVBAcTC0xvcyBBbmdlbGVzMTwwOgYDVQQKEzNJbnRlcm5ldCBDb3Jw b3JhdGlvbiBmb3IgQXNzaWduZWQgTmFtZXMgYW5kIE51bWJlcnMxJDAiBgNVBAMTG01pY2hl bGxlIENvdHRvbiBJQU5BIDNPY3QxNjEnMCUGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYYbWljaGVsbGUuY290dG9u QGlhbmEub3JnMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA6V4aMB8RQMy4vQOd nvINsoYARWq26DERE228XVCA7SxnxpHKRAgnpV4iBoL5rgjsiJy5utpRlbCZcV7PVaVp6yxM ozNUSzmiSu+O04PyYWjvJRzSLda6W0hc8B766JDK3V8QVX+5Pnt9E2JxyYL6j5zTrD/kZGTB XpaRNBF5DorhvPEwXNuRyWt5yD3m4vMwinCahC+5DB78PlxvbbEgTLenW8ZnSOunflX11Q8W XkYBAHEWLSDEO8MY4t7b7FBTWoDA6arnmiJApfBm+tfJ9VPto6KX1YWWuUMrmg7PVF6jfiuW ncwVZzed6VBW9Sp1oVKWP3GXraq0glyTutf5MQIDAQABo4IB8TCCAe0wHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU 5wIjgABP2Ne8lAvZP3Q5STI8inkwHQYDVR0OBBYEFD4OJSm8pR0KSROJ2Te94XiGhEJAMAwG A1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIwYDVR0RBBwwGoEYbWljaGVsbGUuY290dG9uQGlhbmEub3JnMA4GA1Ud DwEB/wQEAwIFoDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwQwYDVR0gBDwwOjA4 BgpghkgBhv1sBAECMCowKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9D UFMwgYgGA1UdHwSBgDB+MD2gO6A5hjdodHRwOi8vY3JsMy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vRGlnaUNl cnRTSEEyQXNzdXJlZElEQ0EtZzIuY3JsMD2gO6A5hjdodHRwOi8vY3JsNC5kaWdpY2VydC5j b20vRGlnaUNlcnRTSEEyQXNzdXJlZElEQ0EtZzIuY3JsMHkGCCsGAQUFBwEBBG0wazAkBggr BgEFBQcwAYYYaHR0cDovL29jc3AuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tMEMGCCsGAQUFBzAChjdodHRwOi8v Y2FjZXJ0cy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vRGlnaUNlcnRTSEEyQXNzdXJlZElEQ0EuY3J0MA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQCFn08dbc9474OYmBeeFe4I08uzdP/Glg78Au1o7+IhufO+BN/fqn31 VhE7Q2aYCh28LF99PbdJ2IOBsz+BUGlrz7C0UvrHjmbXBTuR/gHez2Hmk6SOu0o4anLJqVFl xMzQtpBQXWM0K8GlyqDlPtiWQDORtUsMOXnL2+smNqb5xoz1SyK30KEMMeq9ZndDuBpM1Gyh 7JdgiLypKnYfRc1c1INCWiDlvpTA+C60BZSv5e/k1GMW0USd7TZTzphQxKmLNRUXUxRjub3H Yiby5y1hTnUyalL6HHbYVJX8bOgmaaOAjLvsJzX0rHRaMYlFbC4CgNlQNExJd4Xt7c39ghay MIIGTjCCBTagAwIBAgIQBK55YGZmkBq5xX+mbFvczTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADBlMQswCQYD VQQGEwJVUzEVMBMGA1UEChMMRGlnaUNlcnQgSW5jMRkwFwYDVQQLExB3d3cuZGlnaWNlcnQu Y29tMSQwIgYDVQQDExtEaWdpQ2VydCBBc3N1cmVkIElEIFJvb3QgQ0EwHhcNMTMxMTA1MTIw MDAwWhcNMjgxMTA1MTIwMDAwWjBlMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEVMBMGA1UEChMMRGlnaUNlcnQg SW5jMRkwFwYDVQQLExB3d3cuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tMSQwIgYDVQQDExtEaWdpQ2VydCBTSEEy IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgQ0EwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDc+BEjP2q1 78AneRstBYeiEEMx3w7UFRtPd6Qizj6McPC+B47dJyq8AR22LArK3WlYH0HtagUf2mN4WR4i LCv4un7JNTtW8R98Qn4lsCMZxkU41z1E+SB8YK4csFoYBL6PO/ep8JSapgxjSbZBF1NAMr1P 5lB6UB8lRejxia/N/17/UPPwFxH/vcWJ9b1iudj7jkUEhW2ZzcVITf0mqwI2Reo2119q4hqC QQrc6dn1kReOxiGtODwT5h5/ZpzVTdlG2vbPUqd9OyTDtMFRNcab69TvfuR7A+FEvXoLN+BP y4KKDXEY5KbgiSwb87JzPMGwkp4Yfb2rfcV9CKEswp9zAgMBAAGjggL4MIIC9DASBgNVHRMB Af8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBhjA0BggrBgEFBQcBAQQoMCYwJAYIKwYBBQUH MAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTCBgQYDVR0fBHoweDA6oDigNoY0aHR0cDov L2NybDQuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0QXNzdXJlZElEUm9vdENBLmNybDA6oDigNoY0 aHR0cDovL2NybDMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0QXNzdXJlZElEUm9vdENBLmNybDAd BgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwggGzBgNVHSAEggGqMIIBpjCCAaIGCmCG SAGG/WwAAgQwggGSMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vQ1BT MIIBZAYIKwYBBQUHAgIwggFWHoIBUgBBAG4AeQAgAHUAcwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGkAcwAg AEMAZQByAHQAaQBmAGkAYwBhAHQAZQAgAGMAbwBuAHMAdABpAHQAdQB0AGUAcwAgAGEAYwBj AGUAcAB0AGEAbgBjAGUAIABvAGYAIAB0AGgAZQAgAEQAaQBnAGkAQwBlAHIAdAAgAEMAUAAv AEMAUABTACAAYQBuAGQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAFIAZQBsAHkAaQBuAGcAIABQAGEAcgB0AHkAIABB AGcAcgBlAGUAbQBlAG4AdAAgAHcAaABpAGMAaAAgAGwAaQBtAGkAdAAgAGwAaQBhAGIAaQBs AGkAdAB5ACAAYQBuAGQAIABhAHIAZQAgAGkAbgBjAG8AcgBwAG8AcgBhAHQAZQBkACAAaABl AHIAZQBpAG4AIABiAHkAIAByAGUAZgBlAHIAZQBuAGMAZQAuMB0GA1UdDgQWBBTnAiOAAE/Y 17yUC9k/dDlJMjyKeTAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBRF66Kv9JLLgjEtUYunpyGd823IDzANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEATtSJJ7n9HYd3fg8oBZDxCi/JOz69k5yQxq/6kVGHMlRr6MrBcVFcmY61 +uBiGZmmB5p8Eyfb5QKihBLZFfYKRFfENI9tcx861qABPd7jguRFa7LrJf2AXh05kL5bQvbO kWDj+aBWDEgQzjNoe82Tq/Bqy09YD7l7XRsEgZ6nIuJXSSfukpMIvmkIUwI6Ll3IGfRQgE4C 2bBdkbSTh/mWloFVQI5m7YLYuyhf7Uxh7QZYKBlTEUS8RyApsgRs2IlUmTt122d4LB6SeMZV PVgSETJuvUMMTTTbe8ZC2+y+q5thTAaS447fISpQVwTAYKI11SSeZjcJSc/V+GWz4OJuwjCC A7cwggKfoAMCAQICEAzn4OUX2Eb+j+Vg/BvwMDkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwZTELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxFTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNv bTEkMCIGA1UEAxMbRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBSb290IENBMB4XDTA2MTExMDAwMDAw MFoXDTMxMTExMDAwMDAwMFowZTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IElu YzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEkMCIGA1UEAxMbRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJl ZCBJRCBSb290IENBMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEArQ4VzuRDgFyx h/O3YPlxEqWu3CaUiKr0zvUgOShYYAz4gNqpFZUyYTy1sSiEiorcnwoMgxd6j5Csiud5U1wx hCr2D5gyNnbM3t08qKLvavsh8lJh358g1x/isdn+GGTSEltf+VgYNbxHzaE2+Wt/1LA4PsEb w4wz2dgvGP4oD7Ong9bDbkTAYTWWFv5ZnIt2bdfxoksNK/8LctqeYNCOkDXGeFWHIKHP5W0K yEl8MZgzbCLph9AyWqK6E4IR7TkXnZk6cqHm+qTZ1Rcxda6FfSKuPwFGhvYoecix2uRXF8R+ HA6wtJKmVrO9spftqqfwt8WoP5UW0P+hlusIXxh3TwIDAQABo2MwYTAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMC AYYwDwYDVR0TAQH/BAUwAwEB/zAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUReuir/SSy4IxLVGLp6chnfNtyA8wHwYD VR0jBBgwFoAUReuir/SSy4IxLVGLp6chnfNtyA8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAKIOvN/i 7fDjcnN6ZJS/93Jm2DLkQnVirofr8tXZ3lazn8zOFCi5DZdgXBJMWOTTPYNJRViXNWkaqEfq VsZ5qxLYZ4GE338JPJTmuCYsIL09syiJ91//IuKXhB/pZe+H4N/BZ0mzXeuyCSrrJu14vn0/ K/O3JjVtX4kBtklbnwEFm6s9JcHMtn/C8W+GxvpkaOuBLZTrQrf6jB7dYvG+UGe3bL3z8R9r DDYHFn83fKlbbXrxEkZgg9cnBL5Lzpe+w2cqaBHfgOcMM2a/Ew0UbvN/H2MQHvqNGyVtbI+l t2EBsdKjJqEQcZ2t4sP5w5lRtysHCM4u5lCyp/oKRS+i8PIxggIPMIICCwIBATB5MGUxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2Vy dC5jb20xJDAiBgNVBAMTG0RpZ2lDZXJ0IFNIQTIgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBDQQIQCuvDwxHaHKym SygUiz0IATANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFAKBpMC8GCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEiBCDSEk6NTTAWzjvjite0 SezgLvheN40Jhd4FwE5zLstS/TAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3 DQEJBTEPFw0xNzAyMjQyMDQxMDBaMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAI3JRMgJdARIToyxoS1N j2AbAU2BxB5lf8LqASG8GjfcrAA5C/HL6yOlIxqtQL3fMNYfng8Uq0PP/F8h9ubOZzfCUyK3 3BSqkqrnqzGmlXVq9oq3hkr2ZhXKa+3ZTX0c45pZXYFHp1jpqMyDi6R7lRS15CkiLaGKJjUH Pptp8zOymycx3BHfHdoDtcSckwKPSxJ+7sno4hg/Fb+VTGoRraBr3BABzeDRtXFy4G5LEOUw fiwiAhDomntj+SdJgM/7wj8ARNxS8vyj2ir1/wKXcJvUjDFNaDX89v/v0UZCNAZI5H9LxzWv F/qOvZFxKNyCRhiFMZR3tSiDiHCEfzVePy4= --B_3570784860_1360622421-- From nobody Fri Feb 24 14:25:43 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27ED5129525; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:25:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148797513615.3306.9021738778075554565.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:25:36 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-02.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 22:25:36 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. Title : Support of IEEE-1588 time stamp format in Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Authors : Greg Mirsky Israel Meilik Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-02.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2017-02-24 Abstract: This document describes an OPTIONAL feature for active performance measurement protocols allowing use of the Precision Time Protocol time stamp format defined in IEEE-1588v2-2008, as an alternative to the Network Time Protocol that is currently used. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Feb 27 01:57:30 2017 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 24509129CDD; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:57:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZHjj7IEgYw_0; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E5C9129CD7; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:57:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17262; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1488189447; x=1489399047; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=2AMFHFIDjpleqZC2yihj9tAwfpMB3HQTQiZrx0G572c=; b=OITOnBgXooxJw3v1xjSBrGdVjGIqdx0KL7WjI6q8FfHriDTutZbpEgQX a5UBfsnoqXaPdQpYiyW6P+7M4D/XRhd9Vhrzt9+NtU+vhCSSBQkeQej3f BZGPbu4OhJ9gRo1sjwdCmMQ9t4vn19Dp9PKvVo7ly3/hQCrPM2cSBGZZl 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ABAgDc9rNY/4oNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm5iYYEJB4NUigiRYJAJgx2CD4INKoV4AhqBdz8YAQIBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BYiiEcAEBAQQdBgpBGwIBCBEEAQEoAwICAjAUCQgCBAESCIlsDq9FgiaLOAEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFhkyEb4UKglCCXwWcHgGGc4sqggSFIIl9kzA?= =?us-ascii?q?BHziBAVQVPoRPHYFhdYkNgQ0BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,213,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="217134994" Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Feb 2017 09:57:26 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1R9vQaV028467 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:57:26 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 03:57:25 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 03:57:25 -0600 From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" To: IPPM Chairs , IETF IPPM WG Thread-Topic: [ippm] IETF98 IPPM meeting call for agenda items Thread-Index: AQHSiNLn07OHUJm1/EWWduuk+j0btKF8q7kw Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:57:25 +0000 Message-ID: <896872f1eba64b9f9394a47ec23bfee9@XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.55.190.230] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_896872f1eba64b9f9394a47ec23bfee9XCHRCD008ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] IETF98 IPPM meeting call for agenda items X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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 2017 09:57:29 -0000 --_000_896872f1eba64b9f9394a47ec23bfee9XCHRCD008ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgQmlsbCwNCg0KaXQgd291bGQgYmUgZ3JlYXQgdG8gYWxsb2NhdGUgMzBtaW4gKHRpbWUgcGVy bWl0dGluZyDigJMgMjBtaW4gY291bGQgYmUgZmVhc2libGUpIHRvIHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9m IGluLXNpdHUgT0FNLiBMaWtlIHlvdSBzYXksIHRoZSBrZXkgZHJhZnQgaXMgZHJhZnQtYnJvY2tu ZXJzLWluYmFuZC1vYW0tZGF0YSAod2XigJlsbCBwdWJsaXNoZWQgYSAtMDMgdmVyc2lvbiBzb29u KSDigJMgYnV0IHBlciBBZHJpYW7igJlzIG5vdGUsIGl0IG1pZ2h0IG1ha2Ugc2Vuc2UgdG8gYWxz byBicmllZmx5IHRvdWNoIG9uIGFuIG92ZXJ2aWV3L3JlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBvZiBpbi1zaXR1IE9B TSwgZ2l2ZW4gdGhhdCBpbiBJUFBNIHdlIGRpZCBub3QgaGF2ZSBhIHByZXNlbnRhdGlvbiBvbiBp bi1zaXR1IE9BTSB5ZXQuIEFuIGFnZW5kYSBmb3IgdGhlIDMwbWluIGNvdWxkIGxvb2sgbGlrZToN Cg0KwrcgICAgICAgT3ZlcnZpZXcvcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIG9mIGluLXNpdHUgT0FNDQoNCsK3ICAg ICAgIEluLXNpdHUgT0FNIGRhdGEgcmVjb3JkcyDigJMgY29uc2lkZXIgV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2Yg ZHJhZnQtYnJvY2tuZXJzLWluYmFuZC1vYW0tZGF0YS0wMw0KDQrCtyAgICAgICBEaXNjdXNzaW9u IChuZXh0IHN0ZXBzLCB3b3VsZCBhbHNvIGluY2x1ZGUgaG93IHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgdHJhbnNwb3J0 IHByb3RvY29sIGVuY2Fwc3VsYXRpb25zLCBzZWN1cml0eSBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucyBldGMuKQ0K DQpSZWdhcmRzLCBGcmFuaw0KDQpGcm9tOiBpcHBtIFttYWlsdG86aXBwbS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYu b3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgQmlsbCBDZXJ2ZW55DQpTZW50OiBGcmVpdGFnLCAxNy4gRmVicnVh ciAyMDE3IDA1OjA0DQpUbzogSUVURiBJUFBNIFdHIDxpcHBtQGlldGYub3JnPg0KU3ViamVjdDog W2lwcG1dIElFVEY5OCBJUFBNIG1lZXRpbmcgY2FsbCBmb3IgYWdlbmRhIGl0ZW1zDQoNCkRlYXIg SVBQTWVycywNCg0KSSBhbSB3b3JraW5nIG9uIHRoZSBhZ2VuZGEgZm9yIHRoZSB1cGNvbWluZyBJ UFBNIG1lZXRpbmcgYXQgSUVURjk4IGluIENoaWNhZ28gYW5kIG5lZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSBwcmVzZW50 ZXJzIGFuZCBwcmVzZW50YXRpb25zIGNvbmZpcm1lZCBhbmQgaWRlbnRpZmllZC4NCg0KVW5sZXNz IEnigJltIHdyb25nLCB3ZSBoYXZlIDQgSVBQTSBXRyBkb2N1bWVudHMgdG8gZGlzY3VzczoNCg0K ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pcHBtLWFsdC1tYXJrLTAzDQpkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0taW5pdGlhbC1yZWdp c3RyeS0wMg0KZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pcHBtLW1ldHJpYy1yZWdpc3RyeS0xMA0KZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1p cHBtLXR3YW1wLXlhbmctMDINCg0KV2Ugd2lsbCB0YWxrIGFib3V0IGRyYWZ0LWJyb2NrbmVycy1p bmJhbmQtb2FtLWRhdGEtMDIgKGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1icm9j a25lcnMtaW5iYW5kLW9hbS1kYXRhLTAyKQ0KDQpGcm9tIG15IHJldmlldyBvZiB0aGUgbWFpbGlu ZyBncm91cCBsaXN0LCBpdCB3b3VsZCBhcHBlYXIgdGhhdCBvdGhlciB0aGFuIGRyYWZ0LWJyb2Nr bmVycy1pbmJhbmQtb2FtLWRhdGEsIHRoZSBvbmx5IG90aGVyIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgZHJhZnQgZGlz Y3Vzc2VkIHdhcyBkcmFmdC1iaGFwcmFzdWQtaXBwbS1wbS0wMS4gVGhpcyBiZWluZyB0aGUgY2Fz ZSwgb3RoZXIgcHJlc2VudGVycyB3aG8gd2lzaCB0byBwcmVzZW50IHRoZWlyIGluZGl2aWR1YWwg ZHJhZnRzIGZvciBJUFBNIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24gd2lsbCBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIGRvIHNvIGR1cmlu ZyDigJxsaWdodG5pbmcgdGFsa3PigJ0sIHdoaWNoIHdpbGwgYmUgZml2ZSBtaW51dGVzIHBlciB0 b3BpYyAoc3RyaWN0KSwgd2l0aCBhdmFpbGFibGUgdGltZSBhdCB0aGUgZW5kIG9mIHRoZSBtYWlu IGFnZW5kYS4NCg0KQXV0aG9yczogUGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gdGhpcyBlLW1haWwgd2l0aCB0 aGUgYW1vdW50IG9mIHRpbWUgdGhhdCB5b3UgYXJlIHJlcXVlc3RpbmcgYW5kIHdobyB3aWxsIGJl IHByZXNlbnRpbmcuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCg0KQmlsbCBDZXJ2ZW55DQpJUFBNIFdHIGNvLWNoYWly DQo= --_000_896872f1eba64b9f9394a47ec23bfee9XCHRCD008ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTUgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 V2luZ2RpbmdzOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjUgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDA7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0K CXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2IDMg MiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1 IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWws IGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0 b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcg Um9tYW4iLHNlcmlmO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXBy aW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQph OnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5 Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnAuTXNv TGlzdFBhcmFncmFwaCwgbGkuTXNvTGlzdFBhcmFncmFwaCwgZGl2Lk1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgN Cgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5OjM0Ow0KCW1hcmdpbi10b3A6MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdo dDowY207DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTowY207DQoJbWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzYuMHB0Ow0KCW1hcmdp bi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1l cyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLHNlcmlmO30NCnAubXNvbm9ybWFsMCwgbGkubXNvbm9ybWFsMCwgZGl2Lm1z b25vcm1hbDANCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6bXNvbm9ybWFsOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFs dDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdodDowY207DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG87 DQoJbWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MGNtOw0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRp bWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIsc2VyaWY7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTgNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5 cGU6cGVyc29uYWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7DQoJ Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDt9DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQt b25seTsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjYx Mi4wcHQgNzkyLjBwdDsNCgltYXJnaW46NzAuODVwdCA3MC44NXB0IDIuMGNtIDcwLjg1cHQ7fQ0K ZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQovKiBMaXN0IERlZmluaXRp b25zICovDQpAbGlzdCBsMA0KCXttc28tbGlzdC1pZDoxMjU0NDMyOTg2Ow0KCW1zby1saXN0LXR5 cGU6aHlicmlkOw0KCW1zby1saXN0LXRlbXBsYXRlLWlkczoxODY1MTc0MjQwIDE3MjQwMjM5NDIg Njc1Njc2MTkgNjc1Njc2MjEgNjc1Njc2MTcgNjc1Njc2MTkgNjc1Njc2MjEgNjc1Njc2MTcgNjc1 Njc2MTkgNjc1Njc2MjE7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWwxDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1zdGFydC1hdDow Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgrc7 DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjps ZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U3ltYm9sOw0KCW1zby1m YXJlYXN0LWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJbXNvLWJpZGktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVz IE5ldyBSb21hbiI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWwyDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0 OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDpvOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0K CW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotMTguMHB0Ow0K CWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWwzDQoJe21zby1sZXZl bC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVs LXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQt aW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6V2luZ2RpbmdzO30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVs NA0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ674K3 Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246 bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotMTguMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlN5bWJvbDt9DQpAbGlz dCBsMDpsZXZlbDUNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZl bC10ZXh0Om87DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1w b3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJp ZXIgTmV3Ijt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDpsZXZlbDYNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVs bGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Ou+CpzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsNCglt c28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LTE4LjBwdDsNCglm b250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw3DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1i ZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgrc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1z dG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50 Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U3ltYm9sO30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsOA0KCXttc28t bGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ6bzsNCgltc28tbGV2 ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4 dC1pbmRlbnQ6LTE4LjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciO30NCkBsaXN0IGww OmxldmVsOQ0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRl eHQ674KnOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9z aXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotMTguMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OldpbmdkaW5n czt9DQpvbA0KCXttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjBjbTt9DQp1bA0KCXttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjBjbTt9 DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2 OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYg Z3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRtYXAg djpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZd LS0+DQo8L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBsYW5nPSJERSIgbGluaz0iYmx1ZSIgdmxpbms9InB1cnBsZSI+ DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEiPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90Oyxz YW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMiPkhpIEJp bGwsPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5z LXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5i c3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVO LVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1 b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDttc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+ aXQgd291bGQgYmUgZ3JlYXQgdG8gYWxsb2NhdGUgMzBtaW4gKHRpbWUgcGVybWl0dGluZyDigJMg MjBtaW4gY291bGQgYmUgZmVhc2libGUpIHRvIHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIGluLXNpdHUgT0FN LiBMaWtlDQogeW91IHNheSwgdGhlIGtleSBkcmFmdCBpcyBkcmFmdC1icm9ja25lcnMtaW5iYW5k LW9hbS1kYXRhICh3ZeKAmWxsIHB1Ymxpc2hlZCBhIC0wMyB2ZXJzaW9uIHNvb24pIOKAkyBidXQg cGVyIEFkcmlhbuKAmXMgbm90ZSwgaXQgbWlnaHQgbWFrZSBzZW5zZSB0byBhbHNvIGJyaWVmbHkg dG91Y2ggb24gYW4gb3ZlcnZpZXcvcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIG9mIGluLXNpdHUgT0FNLCBnaXZlbiB0 aGF0IGluIElQUE0gd2UgZGlkIG5vdCBoYXZlIGEgcHJlc2VudGF0aW9uDQogb24gaW4tc2l0dSBP QU0geWV0LiBBbiBhZ2VuZGEgZm9yIHRoZSAzMG1pbiBjb3VsZCBsb29rIGxpa2U6PG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgiIHN0eWxlPSJ0ZXh0LWlu ZGVudDotMTguMHB0O21zby1saXN0OmwwIGxldmVsMSBsZm8xIj48IVtpZiAhc3VwcG9ydExpc3Rz XT48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 U3ltYm9sO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMiPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSJtc28tbGlzdDpJZ25vcmUiPsK3PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQ6Ny4wcHQgJnF1b3Q7VGlt ZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJnF1b3Q7Ij4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsN Cjwvc3Bhbj48L3NwYW4+PC9zcGFuPjwhW2VuZGlmXT48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNl cmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMiPk92ZXJ2aWV3L3Jl cXVpcmVtZW50cyBvZiBpbi1zaXR1IE9BTTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29MaXN0UGFyYWdyYXBoIiBzdHlsZT0idGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LTE4LjBwdDttc28tbGlzdDps MCBsZXZlbDEgbGZvMSI+PCFbaWYgIXN1cHBvcnRMaXN0c10+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlN5bWJvbDtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEO21z by1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkVOLVVTIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLWxpc3Q6SWdub3JlIj7C tzxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250OjcuMHB0ICZxdW90O1RpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiZxdW90OyI+Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7DQo8L3NwYW4+PC9zcGFuPjwvc3Bhbj48 IVtlbmRpZl0+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEO21zby1m YXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkVOLVVTIj5Jbi1zaXR1IE9BTSBkYXRhIHJlY29yZHMg4oCTIGNvbnNp ZGVyIFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWJyb2NrbmVycy1pbmJhbmQtb2FtLWRhdGEtMDM8bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTGlzdFBhcmFncmFwaCIgc3R5bGU9InRl eHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7bXNvLWxpc3Q6bDAgbGV2ZWwxIGxmbzEiPjwhW2lmICFzdXBwb3J0 TGlzdHNdPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZh bWlseTpTeW1ib2w7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDttc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9Im1zby1saXN0Oklnbm9yZSI+wrc8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udDo3LjBwdCAmcXVv dDtUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4mcXVvdDsiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOw0KPC9zcGFuPjwvc3Bhbj48L3NwYW4+PCFbZW5kaWZdPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNh bnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDttc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+RGlzY3Vz c2lvbiAobmV4dCBzdGVwcywgd291bGQgYWxzbyBpbmNsdWRlIGhvdyB0byBhZGRyZXNzIHRyYW5z cG9ydCBwcm90b2NvbCBlbmNhcHN1bGF0aW9ucywgc2VjdXJpdHkgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMNCiBl dGMuKTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxh bmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxp YnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDttc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpF Ti1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+ PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZx dW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEO21zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxh bmd1YWdlOkVOLVVTIj5SZWdhcmRzLCBGcmFuazxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNs YXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBw dDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3 RDttc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0UxRTFF MSAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBjbSAwY20gMGNtIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PjxiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWls eTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBs YW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2Fs aWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4gaXBwbSBbbWFpbHRvOmlwcG0tYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9y Z10NCjxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+QmlsbCBDZXJ2ZW55PGJyPg0KPGI+U2VudDo8L2I+IEZy ZWl0YWcsIDE3LiBGZWJydWFyIDIwMTcgMDU6MDQ8YnI+DQo8Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IElFVEYgSVBQTSBX RyAmbHQ7aXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZyZndDs8YnI+DQo8Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4gW2lwcG1dIElFVEY5 OCBJUFBNIG1lZXRpbmcgY2FsbCBmb3IgYWdlbmRhIGl0ZW1zPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+ PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+RGVhciBJUFBNZXJzLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0K PGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+ DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+SSBhbSB3b3JraW5nIG9uIHRoZSBhZ2VuZGEg Zm9yIHRoZSB1cGNvbWluZyBJUFBNIG1lZXRpbmcgYXQgSUVURjk4IGluIENoaWNhZ28gYW5kIG5l ZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSBwcmVzZW50ZXJzIGFuZCBwcmVzZW50YXRpb25zIGNvbmZpcm1lZCBhbmQgaWRl bnRpZmllZC48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+VW5sZXNzIEnigJltIHdyb25nLCB3ZSBoYXZlIDQgSVBQTSBXRyBkb2N1bWVudHMgdG8g ZGlzY3Vzczo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPjxicj4NCmRyYWZ0LWlldGYtaXBwbS1hbHQtbWFyay0wMzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9k aXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pcHBtLWluaXRpYWwt cmVnaXN0cnktMDImbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPmRyYWZ0LWlldGYtaXBwbS1tZXRyaWMtcmVnaXN0cnktMTAmbmJzcDs8bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPmRyYWZ0LWll dGYtaXBwbS10d2FtcC15YW5nLTAyJm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp dj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPldlIHdpbGwgdGFsayBhYm91dCBkcmFmdC1icm9ja25l cnMtaW5iYW5kLW9hbS1kYXRhLTAyICg8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0 bWwvZHJhZnQtYnJvY2tuZXJzLWluYmFuZC1vYW0tZGF0YS0wMiI+aHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWJyb2NrbmVycy1pbmJhbmQtb2FtLWRhdGEtMDI8L2E+KTxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8 L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5Gcm9tIG15IHJl dmlldyBvZiB0aGUgbWFpbGluZyBncm91cCBsaXN0LCBpdCB3b3VsZCBhcHBlYXIgdGhhdCBvdGhl ciB0aGFuIGRyYWZ0LWJyb2NrbmVycy1pbmJhbmQtb2FtLWRhdGEsIHRoZSBvbmx5IG90aGVyIGlu ZGl2aWR1YWwgZHJhZnQgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIHdhcyBkcmFmdC1iaGFwcmFzdWQtaXBwbS1wbS0wMS4g VGhpcyBiZWluZyB0aGUgY2FzZSwgb3RoZXIgcHJlc2VudGVycyB3aG8gd2lzaCB0byBwcmVzZW50 DQogdGhlaXIgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBkcmFmdHMgZm9yIElQUE0gY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiB3aWxsIGJl IGFibGUgdG8gZG8gc28gZHVyaW5nIOKAnGxpZ2h0bmluZyB0YWxrc+KAnSwgd2hpY2ggd2lsbCBi ZSBmaXZlIG1pbnV0ZXMgcGVyIHRvcGljIChzdHJpY3QpLCB3aXRoIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB0aW1lIGF0 IHRoZSBlbmQgb2YgdGhlIG1haW4gYWdlbmRhLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2 Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxk aXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5BdXRob3JzOiBQbGVhc2UgcmVzcG9uZCB0byB0aGlz IGUtbWFpbCB3aXRoIHRoZSBhbW91bnQgb2YgdGltZSB0aGF0IHlvdSBhcmUgcmVxdWVzdGluZyBh bmQgd2hvIHdpbGwgYmUgcHJlc2VudGluZy48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4N CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2 Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+VGhhbmtzLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5CaWxsIENlcnZlbnk8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4N CjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPklQUE0gV0cgY28tY2hhaXI8bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_896872f1eba64b9f9394a47ec23bfee9XCHRCD008ciscocom_-- From nobody Mon Feb 27 06:29:43 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2306C129955; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:29:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <148820577713.21198.12686181583353885686.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:29:37 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: Bill Cerveny , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Last Call: (Support of IEEE-1588 time stamp format in Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org 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 2017 14:29:37 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'Support of IEEE-1588 time stamp format in Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-03-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes an OPTIONAL feature for active performance measurement protocols allowing use of the Precision Time Protocol time stamp format defined in IEEE-1588v2-2008, as an alternative to the Network Time Protocol that is currently used. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2850/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2851/ From nobody Mon Feb 27 12:56:52 2017 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 B872612A31A for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:56:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ggOzbBvLUFnu for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:56:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi0-x236.google.com (mail-oi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A8D128874 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:56:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x236.google.com with SMTP id m124so18586849oig.1 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:56:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nUknDgd1G1FIo0lXAjhTrhJzgdUp9F4yBEnvEdqYV4I=; b=tQjkr6lwUO9n87hRX7TbAuwPCXq7pcjcrSmpg3Dhp2cyVg3vTITOcz9sRlkEstdCSX vn0QuZuVOOGf+eOl6HzIhqj8xrCdoLVJuyhx3Kn4DURURTbC57DKlsCj+ZdV2LiWOuqI cIpiEgjBXQhPrFJXNv6EiX3wqZWAYoD8bFwjZQ51RxFOM/InmhWHT9Cb7k/siDV8074A vccoTlb3rSOAj0prRCGGUVyGko7OlM7LMJkk0OP8niP9QUcvdBRb47KNWqurr2sKNtS0 FsIm9GS/TGSXfEq+xKsS4f29MO7j4HnwaQeSovKcGq38YX+mKgjj7ICiY5kM8hogwqMn 6Wbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=nUknDgd1G1FIo0lXAjhTrhJzgdUp9F4yBEnvEdqYV4I=; b=E0ybDjEcx8iMDA+baSAr7H65SrNmVXaYldakXqg2wibsr0rPaAgceOKF0ShOZE3LGH VF+hxsj63tyEY8T/7q9ax5a8FcGMfTgVhbaE1cOAh48QeWBn3DvkZ58MBWn0CW9hAOvx y9ZHBKVNIdJYCTsbu0SCSK9AD3PA7KNTXcibU4s9wtwsVwo4giRZ9CaEHj4LI983C33F rcSFus6/COfR+7Zu6Po//4IUG9b6Oo01iToq4GGZfYRwdW2/YSOv9Qaj9YxdLQ2rj0Oi 8fSVL9V726HLMcVGKJ8TfbJGcuFf8+eXrjKLMqzlUDhY7QV04mzwIuw2RN+whw6kF8Dp vV6g== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lQBan9X2NzJ1UqiWlUVU1B6FR7tCFNfmyidut/qp4kLnx30HoOSTIVIG29ZsIfRb2TOm/Palet4f73oQ== X-Received: by 10.202.232.210 with SMTP id f201mr8466147oih.60.1488229008549; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:56:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.21.21 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:56:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <148822875524.13823.11260167662924467748.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <148822875524.13823.11260167662924467748.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Greg Mirsky Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:56:48 -0800 Message-ID: To: "ippm@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11407b32662c7105498951b8 Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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 2017 20:56:51 -0000 --001a11407b32662c7105498951b8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear All, TWAMP Light YANG model updated to use Routing Key Chain YANG Data Model for test session authentication or encryption configuration. Always welcome your comments, suggestions and questions. Regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:52 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-06.txt To: Gregory Mirsky , Adrian Pan < adrian.pan@ericsson.com> A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-06.txt has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang Revision: 06 Title: Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Light Data Model Document date: 2017-02-27 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 21 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mirsky-ippm- twamp-light-yang-06.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp- light-yang/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light- yang-06 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp- light-yang-06 Abstract: This document specifies the data model for implementations of Session-Sender and Session-Reflector for Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Light mode using YANG. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --001a11407b32662c7105498951b8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All,
TWAMP Light YANG model updated to use=C2=A0<= span style=3D"background-color:rgb(255,253,245);color:rgb(0,0,0)">Routing Key Chain YANG Data Model for te= st session authentication or encryption configuration.
<= div>Always we= lcome your comments, suggestions and questions.

<= font color=3D"#000000" face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Regards,
G= reg

---------- Forwarded message = ----------
From: &l= t;internet-drafts@ietf.org&= gt;
Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:52 PM
Subject: New Version N= otification for draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-06.txt
To: Gregory Mi= rsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com= >, Adrian Pan <adrian.pan@= ericsson.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-06.txt
has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light= -yang
Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A006
Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Two-Way Active Measurement Protoco= l (TWAMP) Light Data Model
Document date:=C2=A0 2017-02-27
Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Individual Submission
Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 21
URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mir= sky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-06.txt
Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang/
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-0= 6
Diff:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-mirsky-ip= pm-twamp-light-yang-06

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This document specifies the data model for implementations of<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Session-Sender and Session-Reflector for Two-Way Active Measur= ement
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Protocol (TWAMP) Light mode using YANG.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat


--001a11407b32662c7105498951b8-- From nobody Mon Feb 27 13:01:44 2017 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 1760F12A343; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:01:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2dw20BWyR7li; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D6D3128B37; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id f192so25686443oic.3; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:01:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OsIlC53R0mffDx08FyUFMG3sT6IItQqFnMNVVn4fGmE=; b=LOhg4NbKppXBPAnCX1x5zuofRYFrXJigBCIBMnrP16beE9ETTxyDDM8hitHpBiMGHZ 0tTHfqJmZ/h8j51edl5QjclQycxgI31BdqvZ8SCBhevTtvT348IvhWMmm7Dng0U2HDRj fV2hDKuL2ZR7INPOSbiWg3ZeITWqGqT33eEZF20Epkk/rQAQ/uq7Fpye+MWDTsuFN3f6 IigkoriOxfm9NhAJEh3oV+aCwEnkVG22D21VOhN7CNQXVEY3M/viKRGbPiagfNn4mbUZ BsbUvnApr5Efe3zBAbq5lIFOMDVQed//TCug7wBrD++EJRtqIY2lZvMDVpg1LlQ7ADoW fbdw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OsIlC53R0mffDx08FyUFMG3sT6IItQqFnMNVVn4fGmE=; b=XEDutPOpvFNmHT/01ya3+3AHPxstzNifVIlc4ODjMxmz+Rd1wdFzDkCCfD1GSaUBo9 htNykiWcfbP0aktGXfBKy+qBjfcttwniC8wHWn1veoTozcg9JcC+QbRqr6cF+uUBcN1v pgj+Ryxs2CPrR04QW0gSxND+Ls3cVO9nKGuScwkjoc0OXBWuTd0BC9yz6qKiGNNxwGu3 eqvpuovFUT8mCj504WFcYAu2kOXyi99PQ5DJeaYW4DgVxkSuepIGYbmz0g/gniFwsTJD iHI1lzW+24Gwz3bhTYdituIJiwqQEVG/bzDnuQ4YXKiSCdSdD1MrVlZkH1MBUYgsyO8B DZ4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n3mCKOfjhQ5I/WvcHB5VBt9NmnemTHzCICVpIaVHNBc53jqlrWeHuVQ1Ok6cSLsSteeJOoPukcOlX3dg== X-Received: by 10.202.239.2 with SMTP id n2mr10326400oih.157.1488229298698; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:01:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.21.21 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:01:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:01:38 -0800 Message-ID: To: IPPM Chairs Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0931dab17f2e054989627b Archived-At: Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] IETF98 IPPM meeting call for agenda items X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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 2017 21:01:41 -0000 --94eb2c0931dab17f2e054989627b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bill and Brian, just posted updated version of TWAMP Light data model. Would appreciate your consideration of request for the presentation slot in Chicago: - draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-06 15 min Greg Mirsky (presenting) Regards, Greg On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Bill Cerveny wrote: > Dear IPPMers, > > I am working on the agenda for the upcoming IPPM meeting at IETF98 in > Chicago and need to have presenters and presentations confirmed and > identified. > > Unless I=E2=80=99m wrong, we have 4 IPPM WG documents to discuss: > > draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03 > draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02 > draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10 > draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-02 > > We will talk about draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02) > > From my review of the mailing group list, it would appear that other than > draft-brockners-inband-oam-data, the only other individual draft > discussed was draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-01. This being the case, other > presenters who wish to present their individual drafts for IPPM > consideration will be able to do so during =E2=80=9Clightning talks=E2=80= =9D, which will be > five minutes per topic (strict), with available time at the end of the ma= in > agenda. > > Authors: Please respond to this e-mail with the amount of time that you > are requesting and who will be presenting. > > Thanks, > > Bill Cerveny > IPPM WG co-chair > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > > --94eb2c0931dab17f2e054989627b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Bill and Brian,
just posted updated version of TWAM= P Light data model. Would appreciate your consideration of request for the = presentation slot in Chicago:
  • draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-lig= ht-yang-06 =C2=A0 15 min =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Greg Mirsky (presenting)
    <= /li>
Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Bill= Cerveny <ippm@wjcerveny.com> wrote:
Dear IPPMers,

I am working on the agenda for the upcoming IPPM meeting at IETF98 = in Chicago and need to have presenters and presentations confirmed and iden= tified.

Unless I=E2=80=99m wrong, we have 4 IPPM W= G documents to discuss:

draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03
draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02=C2=A0
draft-ietf-ippm-m= etric-registry-10=C2=A0
draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-02=C2=A0<= /div>

We will talk about draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockner= s-inband-oam-data-02)

From my review of t= he mailing group list, it would appear that other than draft-brockners-inba= nd-oam-data, the only other individual draft discussed was draft-bhapr= asud-ippm-pm-01. This being the case, other presenters who wish to present = their individual drafts for IPPM consideration will be able to do so during= =E2=80=9Clightning talks=E2=80=9D, which will be five minutes per topic (s= trict), with available time at the end of the main agenda.

Authors: Please respond to this e-mail with the amount of time tha= t you are requesting and who will be presenting.

T= hanks,

Bill Cerveny
IPPM WG co-chair

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


--94eb2c0931dab17f2e054989627b-- From nobody Mon Feb 27 15:11:18 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96287129452; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:11:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148823707760.13816.2533719747204946395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:11:17 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-09.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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 2017 23:11:17 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. Title : Model Based Metrics for Bulk Transport Capacity Authors : Matt Mathis Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-09.txt Pages : 52 Date : 2017-02-27 Abstract: We introduce a new class of Model Based Metrics designed to assess if a complete Internet path can be expected to meet a predefined Target Transport Performance by applying a suite of IP diagnostic tests to successive subpaths. The subpath-at-a-time tests can be robustly applied to critical infrastructure, such as network interconnections or even individual devices, to accurately detect if any part of the infrastructure will prevent paths traversing it from meeting the Target Transport Performance. Model Based Metrics rely on peer-reviewed mathematical models to specify a Targeted Suite of IP Diagnostic tests, designed to assess whether common transport protocols can be expected to meet a predetermined Target Transport Performance over an Internet path. For Bulk Transport Capacity, the IP diagnostics are built on test streams that mimic TCP over the complete path and statistical criteria for evaluating the packet transfer statistics of those streams. The temporal structure of the test stream (bursts, etc) mimic TCP or other transport protocol carrying bulk data over a long path. However they are constructed to be independent of the details of the subpath under test, end systems or applications. Likewise the success criteria evaluates the packet transfer statistics of the subpath against criteria determined by protocol performance models applied to the Target Transport Performance of the complete path. The success criteria also does not depend on the details of the subpath, end systems or application. Model Based Metrics exhibit several important new properties not present in other Bulk Transport Capacity Metrics, including the ability to reason about concatenated or overlapping subpaths. The results are vantage independent which is critical for supporting independent validation of tests by comparing results from multiple measurement points. This document does not define the IP diagnostic tests, but provides a framework for designing suites of IP diagnostic tests that are tailored to confirming that infrastructure can meet the predetermined Target Transport Performance. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-09 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Feb 28 06:58:54 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C3BC12953F; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:58:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148829393250.30767.17829120296782409470.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:58:52 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-08.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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 2017 14:58:52 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option Authors : Nalini Elkins Robert M. Hamilton Michael S. Ackermann Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-08.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2017-02-28 Abstract: To assess performance problems, measurements based on optional sequence numbers and timing may be embedded in each packet. Such measurements may be interpreted in real-time or after the fact. An implementation of the existing IPv6 Destination Options extension header, the Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Options extension header as well as the field limits, calculations, and usage of the PDM in measurement are included in this document. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Feb 28 14:27:12 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F9C1293DF; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:27:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148832082702.29462.4331182979665238825.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:27:07 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-10.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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 2017 22:27:07 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. Title : Model Based Metrics for Bulk Transport Capacity Authors : Matt Mathis Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-10.txt Pages : 52 Date : 2017-02-28 Abstract: We introduce a new class of Model Based Metrics designed to assess if a complete Internet path can be expected to meet a predefined Target Transport Performance by applying a suite of IP diagnostic tests to successive subpaths. The subpath-at-a-time tests can be robustly applied to critical infrastructure, such as network interconnections or even individual devices, to accurately detect if any part of the infrastructure will prevent paths traversing it from meeting the Target Transport Performance. Model Based Metrics rely on peer-reviewed mathematical models to specify a Targeted Suite of IP Diagnostic tests, designed to assess whether common transport protocols can be expected to meet a predetermined Target Transport Performance over an Internet path. For Bulk Transport Capacity, the IP diagnostics are built on test streams that mimic TCP over the complete path and statistical criteria for evaluating the packet transfer statistics of those streams. The temporal structure of the test stream (bursts, etc) mimic TCP or other transport protocol carrying bulk data over a long path. However they are constructed to be independent of the details of the subpath under test, end systems or applications. Likewise the success criteria evaluates the packet transfer statistics of the subpath against criteria determined by protocol performance models applied to the Target Transport Performance of the complete path. The success criteria also does not depend on the details of the subpath, end systems or application. Model Based Metrics exhibit several important new properties not present in other Bulk Transport Capacity Metrics, including the ability to reason about concatenated or overlapping subpaths. The results are vantage independent which is critical for supporting independent validation of tests by comparing results from multiple measurement points. This document does not define the IP diagnostic tests, but provides a framework for designing suites of IP diagnostic tests that are tailored to confirming that infrastructure can meet the predetermined Target Transport Performance. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-10 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-10 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Feb 28 15:05:47 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261B8129435; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:05:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <148832314214.29523.15328467740148565286.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:05:42 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Last Call: (Model Based Metrics for Bulk Transport Capacity) to Experimental RFC X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org 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 2017 23:05:42 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'Model Based Metrics for Bulk Transport Capacity' as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-03-14. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract We introduce a new class of Model Based Metrics designed to assess if a complete Internet path can be expected to meet a predefined Target Transport Performance by applying a suite of IP diagnostic tests to successive subpaths. The subpath-at-a-time tests can be robustly applied to critical infrastructure, such as network interconnections or even individual devices, to accurately detect if any part of the infrastructure will prevent paths traversing it from meeting the Target Transport Performance. Model Based Metrics rely on peer-reviewed mathematical models to specify a Targeted Suite of IP Diagnostic tests, designed to assess whether common transport protocols can be expected to meet a predetermined Target Transport Performance over an Internet path. For Bulk Transport Capacity, the IP diagnostics are built on test streams that mimic TCP over the complete path and statistical criteria for evaluating the packet transfer statistics of those streams. The temporal structure of the test stream (bursts, etc) mimic TCP or other transport protocol carrying bulk data over a long path. However they are constructed to be independent of the details of the subpath under test, end systems or applications. Likewise the success criteria evaluates the packet transfer statistics of the subpath against criteria determined by protocol performance models applied to the Target Transport Performance of the complete path. The success criteria also does not depend on the details of the subpath, end systems or application. Model Based Metrics exhibit several important new properties not present in other Bulk Transport Capacity Metrics, including the ability to reason about concatenated or overlapping subpaths. The results are vantage independent which is critical for supporting independent validation of tests by comparing results from multiple measurement points. This document does not define the IP diagnostic tests, but provides a framework for designing suites of IP diagnostic tests that are tailored to confirming that infrastructure can meet the predetermined Target Transport Performance. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.