Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0438421F8555 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:41:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.321, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t8IlKpvMdelh for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:41:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F84B21F8422 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:41:09 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,757,1344236400"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="709177936" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2012 06:41:09 -0800 Received: from vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.241]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id qABEf8Bp024098; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.216]) by vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.241]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:41:07 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Vinayak Hegde Thread-Topic: [PMOL] RMCAT Thread-Index: AQHNwBqVgMCleJmIEkOHmuL3oBevLg== Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:39:51 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7.0.1.0.0.20121106110532.04dd2568@att.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20121108093854.04bdf6b8@att.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.114] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_82A35839-066E-4D55-8DCF-CE0CD8D1DAB4"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:15:37 -0800 Cc: Varun Singh , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mirja_K=FChlewind?= , "pmol@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PMOL] RMCAT X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:41:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_82A35839-066E-4D55-8DCF-CE0CD8D1DAB4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Thanks for the detailed comments! Lars On Nov 11, 2012, at 7:33, Vinayak Hegde wrote: > Draft comments for draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval follow: > > Draft Section 3 - Metrics > > 1. Can you please explain why each metric is relevant for congestion ? > For example > > Delay can be caused due to buffer bloat or due to the underlying > (suboptimal) path that is taken. Both have different remedies. > Possibly add ways of finding out root cause for this. > > 2. Also how do you account for burstiness. Lots of packets arriving at > once with some having expired (arrived late) by the time of arrival. > How does this interplay with the User's experience of quality > (blockiness and jitter depending on how the codec works). > > 3. Also some of the metrics are interdependent. Packet loss and > discard rate can be made to approximate User's experience if we know > how the codec works (such as amount of robustness under packet loss) > and delay characteristics of the underlying streams (Such as busty > arrival of packets). > > 4. In the statistical measures - Standard deviation and variance might > also be useful in the context of interactive streams possibly to > measure possibility of interruptions in play (Directly correlates to > User's quality of experience). > > 4. Guidelines > Section 4.4 Diverse Environments > 1. A minimum list of environment or simulations in which the algorithm > is recommended to be tested could be useful. Even more useful could be > setting min/max range limits for tests (such as delay/bandwidth). This > could closely model real network characteristics. > > Section 4.8 Impact on Cross Traffic > How will you measure the impact of the RTP flows on competing TCP > flows. A list of metrics and/or examples would be useful. > > General comments: > 1. If any simulation/real world tests are carried out by network > equipment what are the standards that they should adhere to in terms > of delay (sensitivity) in counting / measuring. > > Regards > Vinayak > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Al Morton wrote: >> Thanks Vin, there is at least one proposal >> identified in my first message. >> >> Al >> >> >> At 02:39 AM 11/8/2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Al Morton wrote: >>>> 2- Do we have a volunteer to review this work on an on-going basis? >>>> >>>> I will look in on this myself too, but I plan to return home >>>> to the "more-Sandy-than-usual" Jersey Shore on Thursday morning >>>> to deal with additional issues there, so I'll miss rmcat this time. >>> >>> I am not attending this meeting and the next one in person but I can >>> help review the drafts if they forward it to this list. >>> >>> Regards >>> Vinayak >> >> --Apple-Mail=_82A35839-066E-4D55-8DCF-CE0CD8D1DAB4 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMQDCCBUow ggQyoAMCAQICEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMTEyMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEyMDkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAuY29t MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAokrhJTcXt6J/VEpZOicLoguBlYTjXP9v Ze4HuuhXnURUS8YouAfgaqA0zYbt5yd6fh4PBMdAaEWr5yJyHuFykXlrCumjUWSpLuqTS2A+pt4q cZaAQk9iLDN/UVd3SpkUuvWbxXlqzG7/BSqa3VNObBzCmyh+V7aXxri+30CT//DSsNRC4VFy6sn6 dMgSaFenXLwe/FBwY0qTMfICT1PrrX6Sw1S8OfH9rykLlZXbmfkFExxQngp1DJH9xMHeODHGbCv/ ty5gdxMOrLe+vENxFEcy1YQWBZd1kNL4UObugF8A/jE/s+Oa3H1VFH8ghqZTdqGDysVxmtKHuNFx 6jIBSQIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXATAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIFoDAdBgNV HSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDovL2luZGMx ZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3JsMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBA7q6tR92qpd7xo7VBsrOfGCWzoxIVfTc7t0RhB/Oz/+c3lnhYnNScIuKN JmyZvznmVxqB9BJ72+NkvmdB/hnILSBTRawL2tyLo9PkBtN0nRt4gS6wjpWnD8G83hlJLE7r25jk 7HkRev61dTIXsANFpJKF02C4XSoDfEzNV6MpuEvHvcgHCqMrlwWwfKc7+NoDnE8PBuRzwSXvlD5L mswCY2iiOsd7ImNO4OzTCxETvKTDu92+FTIbRJJpYjVNv1UF7e3w9Kq65BkZJErUH19beUeQl0Wh 2BJQE6/15rQyCnP0iJ/Nmx2/kI6M0PWunEsI6FMs0MbosreaWGHlQmomMIIG7jCCBdagAwIBAgIQ cRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoT DlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTowOAYDVQQL EzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MUUwQwYD VQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9y aXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3Jr MTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAo YykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBD bGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6ZvgSU6Lb9UB 0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHsEnMhjfXc MM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO4YM/d/mZ //6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSyriMGZSal J1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCCArUwNAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wEgYDVR0T AQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9w Y2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgwVhYJaW1h Z2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDovL2xvZ28u dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQcml2YXRl TGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYDVR0jBIHp MIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg UHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaEVIULAM+v OEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlMJBq6WaSH O3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKvYLMVirOV nDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDRyxTWcVib vtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy+kgOZY5J yNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/wYIxggSL MIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMTExMTE0NDExMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFI+Y cqCqTVMOPmQGc6I8CrTurdHyMIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAJHUYrh7 iyMAoaQLqTxfZE9bP2L4lL4k96Kq7biyrTS92KFm3JloPUMI/DqvL/W720drCaWOJyM+fdylma0j NaQ27i+JnVXJtG4IsC9KZs1vOtLZHx7FbY2/Zy7TBffUzc1/FsEiDXV4hEr7VKH7mvPnEUGgw2cT Gb1Rf5Z6AoK2moye6m76KYgi85eMLMu5u9HjBFBJohMToL2nW2Nh5Ta+k+HEIWHElfbeVRQCeI1w CdF8HONq3p+q5Cec76mVRYzGvJihB88ViSbs3auvqKLoJK+erlD+aRsjocXlg/xgZ4qQxaMox870 vTXCOC3RAzx78xs1FIPs/2FBTl3+6REAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_82A35839-066E-4D55-8DCF-CE0CD8D1DAB4-- Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2EBC21F85EE for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:33:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P0nQKwVHRDBK for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:33:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ea0-f172.google.com (mail-ea0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E040421F851C for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ea0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so2336574eaa.31 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:33:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bjAhcjFcguqqGEWVZYcsHetqQQFArQM3eh4ZOS8RdG4=; b=Qos24bySQ4VWQuI+NeTcozQqOP9o+GJuHTKa19LgwzwGHUsOZXFgB/15GhEe5WO3oq t32m2fEWrjV5+nALb2/mvpEydgUJaCejIswrQrTKtzP1jmwcKlV2Oc5s7Awam6aZ2cu9 Vkg8bmKlUKz/F6gd0HgEPWkmSYdxeiSqG/GlriEbD6RTsMLbIHGhBBFnQBB0GIuRXuX/ e7hzQkJIFk2tPS7MDgMCQVe8fTuVFAdT6Iqe4cQsce4qvrn6FCM8B3PK9Ci041uGuxht WdtD9xfxCSLWVrSjs+/vwbu/A0x0J8P1oCMU5FAzjqB0Ah/DywGkT0nOg4NL3Vw5bh1d oz8g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.184.1 with SMTP id r1mr54288876eem.4.1352644389136; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.14.174.66 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:33:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20121108093854.04bdf6b8@att.com> References: <7.0.1.0.0.20121106110532.04dd2568@att.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20121108093854.04bdf6b8@att.com> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:03:09 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Al Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "Eggert, Lars" , pmol@ietf.org, Varun Singh Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: RMCAT X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:33:10 -0000 Draft comments for draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval follow: Draft Section 3 - Metrics 1. Can you please explain why each metric is relevant for congestion ? For example Delay can be caused due to buffer bloat or due to the underlying (suboptimal) path that is taken. Both have different remedies. Possibly add ways of finding out root cause for this. 2. Also how do you account for burstiness. Lots of packets arriving at once with some having expired (arrived late) by the time of arrival. How does this interplay with the User's experience of quality (blockiness and jitter depending on how the codec works). 3. Also some of the metrics are interdependent. Packet loss and discard rate can be made to approximate User's experience if we know how the codec works (such as amount of robustness under packet loss) and delay characteristics of the underlying streams (Such as busty arrival of packets). 4. In the statistical measures - Standard deviation and variance might also be useful in the context of interactive streams possibly to measure possibility of interruptions in play (Directly correlates to User's quality of experience). 4. Guidelines Section 4.4 Diverse Environments 1. A minimum list of environment or simulations in which the algorithm is recommended to be tested could be useful. Even more useful could be setting min/max range limits for tests (such as delay/bandwidth). This could closely model real network characteristics. Section 4.8 Impact on Cross Traffic How will you measure the impact of the RTP flows on competing TCP flows. A list of metrics and/or examples would be useful. General comments: 1. If any simulation/real world tests are carried out by network equipment what are the standards that they should adhere to in terms of delay (sensitivity) in counting / measuring. Regards Vinayak On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Al Morton wrote: > Thanks Vin, there is at least one proposal > identified in my first message. > > Al > > > At 02:39 AM 11/8/2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Al Morton wrote: >> > 2- Do we have a volunteer to review this work on an on-going basis? >> > >> > I will look in on this myself too, but I plan to return home >> > to the "more-Sandy-than-usual" Jersey Shore on Thursday morning >> > to deal with additional issues there, so I'll miss rmcat this time. >> >> I am not attending this meeting and the next one in person but I can >> help review the drafts if they forward it to this list. >> >> Regards >> Vinayak > > Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D0721F8596 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:54:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.314 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.314 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u29t2ANQuUz6 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:54:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com [209.65.160.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32A021F8B67 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:54:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-12) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 4a7cb905.0.1557370.00-457.4279585.nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:54:28 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 509bc7a401ae3093-3a842da252dab605433ee290852f32bda7ed81ef Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA8EsRP0015558 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:54:27 -0800 Received: from fflint04.pst.cso.att.com (fflint04.pst.cso.att.com [150.234.39.64]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA8EsJrt015405 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:54:21 -0800 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by fflint04.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:53:59 -0800 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA8ErwiO030281 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:53:58 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA8Erput029961 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:53:53 -0500 Received: from lt-hp1044652.att.com (vpn-135-70-251-38.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.251.38](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20121108145414gw10063262e>; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:54:14 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.251.38] Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20121108095211.04bdf800@att.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:52:36 -0500 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.128.153] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=Pd1IcFdd c=1 sm=0 a=xwOvzTHDVLE4u4nGvK72ag==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=rdDtHChA7sIA:10 a=BO7V37CYI0UA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLc] X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=KdKbLI-w] X-AnalysisOut: [2P4A:10 a=r1nLaAYvN4NE99Qgu-IA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10] Subject: Re: [PMOL] stats registry in rtcweb X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:54:31 -0000 The request has been made, but no response yet. Al At 09:50 AM 11/8/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >Speaking of pointers, when does the transition to the new list happen? Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F29121F8419 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:50:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.42 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.179, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Aem-z+NQ9Ji for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:50:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D990521F8433 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:50:47 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAPXFm1DGmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEw2qBCIIgAQEDEh4KUQEVFQYMDAdQBwEEGxqHaJpfhCudN480gkRhA5wIijaCcA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,738,1344225600"; d="scan'208";a="375247070" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2012 09:43:01 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.16]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2012 09:48:37 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:50:45 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: stats registry in rtcweb Thread-Index: Ac29wG6PULdHWC/pQhKiOVYhkWE1wA== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] stats registry in rtcweb X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:50:48 -0000 I appologize that I had to leave the meeting yesterday.=20 What was the decision concerning the registry of metrics? Are we proceeding with this, do we have a time estimate?=20 I am right now in the rtcweb meeting, they discussed the issue of creating a registry of statistics for rtcweb (I previously forwarded the I-D by Harald). Actually this could point to a future registry of metrics (if we create one) and selects a subset. I made the point in the meeting and they were pretty interested ("if somebody does our work, that's good") but would like to get pointers.=20 Speaking of pointers, when does the transition to the new list happen? Dan Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F93721F8B58 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:41:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.242 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PTmbveCYxzBG for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5305721F8B4B for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-12) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 794cb905.0.1558324.00-266.4276472.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:41:28 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 509bc4986caa978c-79694da0eacc3e5571aa275b34c0b46524519a99 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA8EfRBC031835 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:41:27 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA8EfKdn031789 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:41:20 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:41:08 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA8Ef8KD008460 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:41:08 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA8Ef3dj008348 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:41:05 -0500 Received: from lt-hp1044652.att.com (vpn-135-70-251-38.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.251.38](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20121108144126gw10063260e>; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:41:27 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.251.38] Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20121108093854.04bdf6b8@att.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:39:48 -0500 To: Vinayak Hegde From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.0.20121106110532.04dd2568@att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=DIM4FVxb c=1 sm=0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=rdDtHChA7sIA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9] X-AnalysisOut: [zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=zMz6aej08AoA:10 a=2WcrlvzF] X-AnalysisOut: [kO98yMLu2eIA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=Hz7IrDYlS0cA:10] Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: RMCAT X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:41:29 -0000 Thanks Vin, there is at least one proposal identified in my first message. Al At 02:39 AM 11/8/2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Al Morton wrote: > > 2- Do we have a volunteer to review this work on an on-going basis? > > > > I will look in on this myself too, but I plan to return home > > to the "more-Sandy-than-usual" Jersey Shore on Thursday morning > > to deal with additional issues there, so I'll miss rmcat this time. > >I am not attending this meeting and the next one in person but I can >help review the drafts if they forward it to this list. > >Regards >Vinayak Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5872721F8B4B for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:39:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.191 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.408, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rkpfWVYMApym for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:39:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A8A21F8A65 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:39:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-12) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id b24cb905.0.1557691.00-379.4274672.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:39:40 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 509bc42c5e5279d6-56c84f0ac7d580442588540a1a5e3acbb7ca90a0 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA8EddCm031118 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:39:39 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA8EdZWD031059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:39:35 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:39:20 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA8EdK0K004654 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:39:20 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA8EdI2V004609 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:39:18 -0500 Received: from lt-hp1044652.att.com (vpn-135-70-251-38.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.251.38](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20121108143937gw1006325ve>; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:39:41 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.251.38] Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20121108093551.04bdf428@att.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:38:00 -0500 To: Vinayak Hegde From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.0.20121107173912.04d30910@att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=DIM4FVxb c=1 sm=0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=rdDtHChA7sIA:10 a=rWuvQghtPnsA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLc] X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=sBhVEvTh] X-AnalysisOut: [6tsA:10 a=Q7SHK1IfaHawDfg7IvYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10] Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: moving former WG list pmol to new list pmdir, and web page update X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:39:41 -0000 Since we are moving all addresses from PMOL, I doubt the welcome message will apply! Also, the list name will be pm-dir, Benoit made the change to be consistent with ops-dir, etc. Al At 10:20 PM 11/7/2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >About (6) (7). It might be useful to have a welcome message for people >who might have missed this move Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A71521F88A6 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:39:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OBPEtgXhvR+j for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:39:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D931221F88A5 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:39:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d4so1553370eek.31 for ; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 23:39:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XhSXhNRzxQcwmBIcQEyQAEIUc66uf3YtWIIjhyzT2j8=; b=XE5uNArvy6Uvdtwzst6IH7eBcqW+Huo/n9HZR34jeXWOv/jvE3nerql7iSSX5XR4XT iIB/lgr41ZO1zz8e2N7TQIhOgYha+tTu9ZCskpkQBHKlgbkk5oAVRUmfhL9HRyMLjhhD Fu6AEn1hoOeV5K5CudAbIpf3gZ7rALsehv7bE5V3sZxq1LzzrUYJiKN3rzPRgjck3BV2 Va5+u8s8O01Ky4iB3FENwht471/L5TuCGfgG5ZqeS9iUb0nkWrjdKSVTJXWV0hoN++vN wt/Y1hQUKHaomjTiek66vdSdMRKDRv4MoRZvTM/BbsB4gizzOtJK6qaKzswc4xwS4SY7 Iw9g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.184.1 with SMTP id r1mr24946250eem.4.1352360390136; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 23:39:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.14.174.66 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:39:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20121106110532.04dd2568@att.com> References: <7.0.1.0.0.20121106110532.04dd2568@att.com> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:09:50 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Al Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: RMCAT X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 07:39:51 -0000 On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Al Morton wrote: > 2- Do we have a volunteer to review this work on an on-going basis? > > I will look in on this myself too, but I plan to return home > to the "more-Sandy-than-usual" Jersey Shore on Thursday morning > to deal with additional issues there, so I'll miss rmcat this time. I am not attending this meeting and the next one in person but I can help review the drafts if they forward it to this list. Regards Vinayak Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFB521F8A55 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:20:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fxr4acnH4b6q for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:20:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC67121F8A69 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:20:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d4so1460645eek.31 for ; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:20:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8tVKvJ9LNlJRjZYYJxkQoASpuOuMRkqRdAN/yb1ZSwI=; b=QbXtTMeQ5tDUW7Swdg6BFOi2qaI4UMHgDOaB92RMRJ53DkGCY7k0+I95wW53SVS1JO hsj1NNexPr01ezGPLzfm9SRj+mIdw5LD7nM5bWJu9c6L/hwcLI/UeD1d7r9G7x/eqL8V 3eK5elbroy+/YvHN7sbESb/j/pue2xw6Aj8xbT5k5j13/9nbUNaME0U/fQsjyYWG5Ntv hWXbOUVR7zk65m+I3RhF+dkhyw7I+/EVB4TXSqy0pv/OX+hBjydrl0m3Fa9Td9VkrYPt eWfy8/WpR9Nv7Q+mG6XpZ5NQlma+o6J4lMlNUl8RAV3M9S4HUJem3YRJblXyPqCjmI0j 0F8w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.184.1 with SMTP id r1mr22847496eem.4.1352344837077; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:20:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.14.174.66 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:20:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20121107173912.04d30910@att.com> References: <7.0.1.0.0.20121107173912.04d30910@att.com> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 08:50:37 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Al Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: moving former WG list pmol to new list pmdir, and web page update X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 03:20:39 -0000 About (6) (7). It might be useful to have a welcome message for people who might have missed this move. Regards Vinayak On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Al Morton wrote: > PM Dir, > > when the request below is executed, you should see the list > change and may need to update your filters, etc. > > regards, > Al > PM Dir admin > > >> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:30:38 -0500 >> To: ietf-action@ietf.org >> From: Al Morton >> Subject: moving former WG list pmol to new list pmdir, and web page update >> Cc: Benoit Claise >> >> Hi ietf-action, >> >> I'm the admin of the Performance Metrics Directorate in the OPS area. >> >> At our directorate meeting today, we decided to request to move the "pmol" >> list (because no one remembers what that means anymore, except me) >> to a name which directly reflects who we are now, pmdir. >> >> The request to make this change is below, and AD Benoit Claise is CC'd >> so he can approve the request easily. >> >> Note that when this change is complete, the list address on our web page: >> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html >> needs to be updated with the new email address, when done with the >> transfer. >> >> thanks and regards, >> Al >> PM Dir admin >> >> MAILING LIST REQUEST TEMPLATE >> >> (0) Your (requestor's) full name and email address: >> Alfred C. Morton Jr. (Al Morton) acmorton@att.com >> >> (1) List name (often @ietf.org): pmdir@ietf.org >> >> (2) Provide a short description of the email list. This description is >> used when the mailing list is listed with other mailing lists, or in >> headers, and so forth. It should be as succinct as you can get it, >> while still identifying what the list is. For example, "Media Gateway >> Control working group discussion list". >> Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list >> >> (3) Provide a longer description of the email list: >> "This list is for discussions relating to the development, clarification, >> and documentation of performance metrics in the IETF (and IRTF) >> according to RFC 6390. The Directorate web page is currently >> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html " >> >> >> (4) Who are the list Administrators? >> Al Morton, PM Dir admin, acmorton@att.com >> >> (5) Initial list member(s): >> Transfer all names from the pmol@ietf.org list >> >> (6) Provide a welcome message for initial subscriber(s) (optional): No >> >> (7) Provide a welcome message for new subscriber(s) (optional): No >> >> (8) What steps are required for subscription? >> [ ] Confirm (RECOMMENDED) >> [ ] Approve >> [x] Confirm + Approve >> >> (9) Messages to this list can be posted by: >> [x] List members only (RECOMMENDED) >> [ ] Anyone >> >> (10) Do postings need to be approved by an administrator? >> [ ] Yes >> [x] No (RECOMMENDED) >> >> (11) Provide specific information about how to access and move the >> existing archive (optional): >> it's an ietf-hosted list, I assume this can be done easily. > > > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841A321F8BE7 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:20:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.445 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.304, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ICNd8BEJvpbP for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:20:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com [209.65.160.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EE421F8BDA for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:19:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-12) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id eaafa905.0.1381208.00-308.3811643.nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:19:59 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 509afaaf70cb41d6-24ba9ab2319c2c8730a263e05ba54ad2e6dee8d2 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA80JwBk013883 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:19:58 -0800 Received: from fflint04.pst.cso.att.com (fflint04.pst.cso.att.com [150.234.39.64]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA80JpJC013821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:19:53 -0800 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by fflint04.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:19:24 -0800 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA80JNKU022734 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:19:23 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA80JEl6022553 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:19:17 -0500 Received: from lt-hp1044652.att.com (vpn-135-70-42-179.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.42.179](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20121108001936gw1006325ie>; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 00:19:37 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.42.179] Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20121107191017.04d30e30@att.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:17:58 -0500 To: Paul Aitken , pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <509AEAF3.9020201@cisco.com> References: <7.0.1.0.0.20121107173912.04d30910@att.com> <509AEAF3.9020201@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.128.153] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=Na1RIR/4 c=1 sm=0 a=xwOvzTHDVLE4u4nGvK72ag==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=9aSTAUa81U0A:10 a=rWuvQghtPnsA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLc] X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=sBhVEvTh] X-AnalysisOut: [6tsA:10 a=ARQKoJho1gJtVzZF6aEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=_W_S_] X-AnalysisOut: [7VecoQA:10] Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: moving former WG list pmol to new list pmdir, and web page update X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:20:00 -0000 Hi Paul,

At 06:12 PM 11/7/2012, Paul Aitken wrote:
Will the PMOL archive be moved to PMDIR, or archived separately, or deleted?
It's not our intent to delete the archive, for sure!

You probably noticed that the template doesn't include a question
about the archive, so I added instructions in a follow-up
message. I hope they can move the archive, but if not, it will
probably suffice if it is preserved and easily accessible.

Al
Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A6F21F843A for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:47:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.891 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.708, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7nj9yz92ZlsR for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:47:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC2721F8441 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:47:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-12) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id f05ea905.0.1347393.00-426.3723094.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:47:43 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 509ae50f59f2c448-6b6d0fecf948ab2f0210646b841f0c58f8ceb340 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA7Mlg9W032354 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:47:42 -0500 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA7MlVAI032291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:47:35 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:47:19 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA7MlHlu016549 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:47:17 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA7Ml9ta016326 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:47:14 -0500 Received: from lt-hp1044652.att.com (vpn-135-70-42-179.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.42.179](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20121107224731gw1006325fe>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:47:32 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.42.179] Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20121107173912.04d30910@att.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:45:55 -0500 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=KI7t+i5o c=1 sm=0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=9aSTAUa81U0A:10 a=SI6KtiLMAmAA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLc] X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=lfZuYd_w] X-AnalysisOut: [yjEA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=nCYufcu_aWypzH] X-AnalysisOut: [gsLEIA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=ISSXQUU-yzIA:10 a=HlLFuPE95S0] X-AnalysisOut: [A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=Hz7IrDYlS0cA:10 a=JfD0Fch1gWkA:10] X-AnalysisOut: [ a=e_K3-V_flAV7hkfH:21 a=TuDUPcaaAiL5cQ4-:21] Subject: [PMOL] Fwd: moving former WG list pmol to new list pmdir, and web page update X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:47:47 -0000 PM Dir, when the request below is executed, you should see the list change and may need to update your filters, etc. regards, Al PM Dir admin >Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:30:38 -0500 >To: ietf-action@ietf.org >From: Al Morton >Subject: moving former WG list pmol to new list pmdir, and web page update >Cc: Benoit Claise > >Hi ietf-action, > >I'm the admin of the Performance Metrics Directorate in the OPS area. > >At our directorate meeting today, we decided to request to move the "pmol" >list (because no one remembers what that means anymore, except me) >to a name which directly reflects who we are now, pmdir. > >The request to make this change is below, and AD Benoit Claise is CC'd >so he can approve the request easily. > >Note that when this change is complete, the list address on our web page: >http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html >needs to be updated with the new email address, when done with the >transfer. > >thanks and regards, >Al >PM Dir admin > >MAILING LIST REQUEST TEMPLATE > >(0) Your (requestor's) full name and email address: >Alfred C. Morton Jr. (Al Morton) acmorton@att.com > >(1) List name (often @ietf.org): pmdir@ietf.org > >(2) Provide a short description of the email list. This description is >used when the mailing list is listed with other mailing lists, or in >headers, and so forth. It should be as succinct as you can get it, >while still identifying what the list is. For example, "Media Gateway >Control working group discussion list". >Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list > >(3) Provide a longer description of the email list: >"This list is for discussions relating to the development, clarification, >and documentation of performance metrics in the IETF (and IRTF) >according to RFC 6390. The Directorate web page is currently >http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html " > > >(4) Who are the list Administrators? >Al Morton, PM Dir admin, acmorton@att.com > >(5) Initial list member(s): >Transfer all names from the pmol@ietf.org list > >(6) Provide a welcome message for initial subscriber(s) (optional): No > >(7) Provide a welcome message for new subscriber(s) (optional): No > >(8) What steps are required for subscription? >[ ] Confirm (RECOMMENDED) >[ ] Approve >[x] Confirm + Approve > >(9) Messages to this list can be posted by: >[x] List members only (RECOMMENDED) >[ ] Anyone > >(10) Do postings need to be approved by an administrator? >[ ] Yes >[x] No (RECOMMENDED) > >(11) Provide specific information about how to access and move the >existing archive (optional): >it's an ietf-hosted list, I assume this can be done easily. Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA7721F8C90 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:54:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EkAfWN1M-V-E for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:54:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563F821F887F for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:54:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=70; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352318069; x=1353527669; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=lQhnpELBA/gGjjRmb+ofeD+wzh6GnFVjNjEEykBDpt8=; b=VGpr+3CMMRGB/GaePNUf/IEmtFEPMnisBeWfXKrypae1gSVLRmAO40KA TPgCF1l5Dy15N+haG9TcyXcgCt7axHTb2Mdm15/H39uiPZacXpnxE7V5e 5MoQVUdDCYjLVR9Wj/+xfVd/3HP9FThiqNAInwey/7OmRhaOeGh70BXOZ o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlVCAEi7mlCtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABEhAGBUL0ZAQEBAXyBAQMEgiABBBIBJ1EBKhRCGwwEGwEZh2gLmn+BK6AzjEtEcScJS4J4YQOkVIFrgm+CGQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,732,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="139845389" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2012 19:54:29 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA7JsSs2031638 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:54:28 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.217]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:54:28 -0600 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: "pmol@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Performance Metrics Directorate Thread-Index: AQHNvSGx4HbcsHkMvUGW6fQqPi9Ajw== Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:54:27 +0000 Message-ID: <95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED320D7D9CB@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.108.126] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19346.005 x-tm-as-result: No--22.444800-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [PMOL] Fwd: Performance Metrics Directorate X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:54:29 -0000 FYI http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4548C21F8B75 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:23:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 351JOs9YM59R for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (av-tac-rtp.cisco.com [64.102.19.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F90221F8B6C for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:23:07 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA7GN5j9004422; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:23:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.82.224.65] (rtp-vpn1-65.cisco.com [10.82.224.65]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA7GN47J017401; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:23:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <509A8AE9.3040102@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:23:05 -0500 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benoit Claise References: <5085C8B9.2050508@cisco.com> <5090736A.5030108@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5090736A.5030108@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040104060507070200020505" Cc: Wesley Eddy , Ron Bonica , "pmol@ietf.org" , ipfix-chairs@tools.ietf.org, xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org, "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , Brian Trammell Subject: [PMOL] Reminder: meeting today: PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:23:08 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040104060507070200020505 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reminder: Wed Nov 7th at 1440 - 1540 in the IESG breakout room 202 Regards, Benoit > Dear PMOL directorate members, > > Based on doodle, this meeting will take place on Wed Nov 7th at 1440 - > 1540 in the IESG breakout room, to be confirmed. > I hope to see you all. > > Regards, Benoit >> Dear PMOL directorate members, >> >> During my review of the latest AVTCORE and XRBLOCK drafts ( >> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv and draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch), I >> came to the conclusion that we have an issue in terms of performance >> metrics at the IETF, and actually in the industry. >> >> As background information, here is my DISCUSS on the two drafts >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> My entire point is more a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, for both >> draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19 and draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05.txt. >> Sorry to pick on these two drafts, but we need to have an IESG >> performance metrics discussion. >> Where does the list of performance metric definitions come from at the >> IETF? >> We have multiple sources: >> - IPPM for IP performance metrics >> - RTCP for RTP performance metrics: >> Definitions in the document themselves or potentially referencing some >> other SDOs >> Example:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05 >> bits 014-011 >> 0: MAPDV2, Clause 6.2.3.2 of [G.1020], >> 1: 2-point PDV, Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540]. >> - PMOL: Performance Metrics at Other Layers, with >> RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics >> - IPFIX will one day or the other exports performance metrics. >> I see for example >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-03 >> It's again a redefinition, and it should not be! >> >> My concerns are that we start to define performance metrics in different >> parts of the IETF, without consistency. >> >> We have defined RFC 6390 on "Guidelines for Considering New Performance >> Metric Development", which ask for specific definition >> Seehttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6390#section-5.4.4 >> >> I believe that the IETF should at least: >> - define the performance metrics in a consistent way according to >> RFC6390. >> - document those performance metrics in a single location >> >> So my questions are: >> - are we defining the performance metrics the right way? >> - where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for >> the ones created in the IETF)? >> - is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively? >> >> After discussing with Dan Romascanu, we came to this conclusion >> >> I had a discussion with Dan Romascanu, and we settled on: >> - RFC 6390 template is required for new perf metric definition >> - RFC 6390 template is a nice-to-have when we refer to an existing perf metric >> Nice-to-have because the performance metric reference doesn't always include >> all the required information about: measurement points, measurement timing, use >> and applications, reporting model, etc... but focus only on the "Method of >> Measurement or Calculation" >> >> I would like to have a meeting during the IETF, with the following agenda >> - are we defining the performance metrics the right way? >> - where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for >> the ones created in the IETF)? >> - is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively? >> - conclusion discussed with Dan >> >> Here is a doodle invite. Please let me know if/when you are available. >> Your feedback on this mailer is also welcome. >> Regards, Benoit >> > --------------040104060507070200020505 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reminder: Wed Nov 7th at 1440 - 1540 in the IESG breakout room 202

Regards, Benoit
Dear PMOL directorate members,

Based on doodle, this meeting will take place on Wed Nov 7th at 1440 - 1540 in the IESG breakout room, to be confirmed.
I hope to see you all.

Regards, Benoit
Dear PMOL directorate members,

During my review of the latest AVTCORE and  XRBLOCK drafts ( draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv and draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch), I came to the conclusion that we have an issue in terms of performance metrics at the IETF, and actually in the industry.

As background information, here is my DISCUSS on the two drafts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My entire point is more a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, for both
draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19 and draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05.txt.
Sorry to pick on these two drafts, but we need to have an IESG
performance metrics discussion.
Where does the list of performance metric definitions come from at the
IETF?
We have multiple sources:
- IPPM for IP performance metrics
- RTCP for RTP performance metrics: 
  Definitions in the document themselves or potentially referencing some
other SDOs
  Example: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05
   bits 014-011
            0: MAPDV2, Clause 6.2.3.2 of [G.1020],
            1: 2-point PDV, Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540].
- PMOL: Performance Metrics at Other Layers, with 
  RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics
- IPFIX will one day or the other exports performance metrics.
  I see for example
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-03
  It's again a redefinition, and it should not be!

My concerns are that we start to define performance metrics in different
parts of the IETF, without consistency.

We have defined RFC 6390 on "Guidelines for Considering New Performance
Metric Development", which ask for specific definition
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6390#section-5.4.4

I believe that the IETF should at least:
- define the performance metrics in a consistent way according to
RFC6390.
- document those performance metrics in a single location

So my questions are:
- are we defining the performance metrics the right way?
- where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for
the ones created in the IETF)?
- is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?
After discussing with Dan Romascanu, we came to this conclusion
I had a discussion with Dan Romascanu, and we settled on:
- RFC 6390 template is required for new perf metric definition
- RFC 6390 template is a nice-to-have when we refer to an existing perf metric
Nice-to-have because the performance metric reference doesn't always include
all the required information about: measurement points, measurement timing, use
and applications, reporting model, etc... but focus only on the "Method of
Measurement or Calculation"
I would like to have a meeting during the IETF, with the following agenda
- are we defining the performance metrics the right way?
- where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for
the ones created in the IETF)?
- is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?
- conclusion discussed with Dan

Here is a doodle invite. Please let me know if/when you are available.
Your feedback on this mailer is also welcome.
Regards, Benoit



--------------040104060507070200020505-- Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0BE21F85C7 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:18:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wgyeUYvn9yQZ for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com [209.65.160.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A6B21F8434 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-12) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 64839905.0.766161.00-389.2081026.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:18:15 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 5099384726b1a53a-d24fbfd1449c4bd1ca53bf8f8f3d229cfd07f448 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA6GIEh6014909 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:18:14 -0800 Received: from fflint03.pst.cso.att.com (fflint03.pst.cso.att.com [150.234.39.63]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA6GI5LM014760 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:18:06 -0800 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by fflint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:17:41 -0800 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA6GHfod016236 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:17:41 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA6GHd4G016205 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:17:39 -0500 Received: from lt-hp1044652.att.com (vpn-135-70-43-14.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.43.14](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20121106161802gw1006322ne>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:18:03 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.43.14] Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20121106110532.04dd2568@att.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:16:32 -0500 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.128.153] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=a66HAzuF c=1 sm=0 a=xwOvzTHDVLE4u4nGvK72ag==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=-nvDnwBv4lQA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJ] X-AnalysisOut: [EP1OIZ-IA:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=JDjsHSkAAAAA:8 a=5t2-3fpEM] X-AnalysisOut: [QrAff9VtFMA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Hf6muOzgCGQA:10 a=Hz7IrD] X-AnalysisOut: [YlS0cA:10] Subject: [PMOL] Fwd: RMCAT X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:18:16 -0000 PM Dir members, FYI - Carlos Pignataro has volunteered to be our Liaison/Advisor to the Network Complexity Research Group. They will be working on metrics of network/configuration complexity which should be a challenging topic. In the message appended below, Lars Eggert has identified work and a draft of potential interest to the PM Dir, on evaluation metrics for congestion control of real-time media. 1- Do we have someone at IETF-85 who can attend rmcat this Thursday, and feedback info to the rest of the Directorate on metric development there? 2- Do we have a volunteer to review this work on an on-going basis? I will look in on this myself too, but I plan to return home to the "more-Sandy-than-usual" Jersey Shore on Thursday morning to deal with additional issues there, so I'll miss rmcat this time. thanks and regards, Al PM Dir admin >X-Originating-IP: [135.31.41.113] >X-IronPort-AV: E=3DSophos;i=3D"4.80,715,1344236400"; > d=3D"p7s'?scan'208";a=3D"707204331" >From: "Eggert, Lars" >To: Al Morton >CC: Mirja K=FChlewind >Subject: RMCAT >Thread-Topic: RMCAT >Thread-Index: AQHNu4BxAaAyiEzhrE2seqoTWOO2tQ=3D=3D >Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:06:51 +0000 >Accept-Language: en-US >X-MS-Has-Attach: yes >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.114] >X-Spam: [F=3D0.0967741935; B=3D0.500(0); spf=3D0.500;=20 >STSI=3D0.500(-49); STSM=3D0.300(-49); CM=3D0.500;=20 >MH=3D0.500(2012110508); S=3D0.200(2010122901); SC=3Dnone] >X-MAIL-FROM: >X-SOURCE-IP: [216.240.18.37] >X-AnalysisOut: [v=3D2.0 cv=3DPMy4D4WC c=3D1 sm=3D0= a=3DDIr8ZNXyXqu9Ub98gekLxA=3D=3D:17 a] >X-AnalysisOut: [=3DM9a1YIcYKwYA:10 a=3D2MUsH4NA2g4A:10 a=3DBLceEmwcHowA:10= a=3DJDj] >X-AnalysisOut: [sHSkAAAAA:8 a=3DTA9xfephONY9FTyEowIA:9 a=3DCjuIK1q_8ugA:10= a=3Dz] >X-AnalysisOut: [CHD0xgTAAAA:8 a=3Daw9yd_vvCxrm4Rc-QgwA:9 a=3DZVk8-NSrHBgA:1= 0 a] >X-AnalysisOut: [=3DdALb8cO8VnmdAbJO:21 a=3DqtuVMX0CIW0jGHo1:21] > >Hi Al, > >since you mentioned the metrics directorate=20 >earlier today: RMCAT will likely work on=20 >evaluation metrics for congestion control=20 >mechanisms for realtime media.=20 >draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval is one draft in this=20 >space. Not sure if this is of interest to the=20 >directorate; just wanted to make sure its on your radar. > >Lars From yaakov_s@rad.com Mon Nov 12 22:24:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0621D21F88CD for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:24:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.297 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RpMZNgdX7kRO for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:24:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay02.rad.co.il [62.0.23.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83D121F88CC for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay02 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Nov 2012 07:18:51 +0200 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:24:27 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: "pm-dir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: RESEND: two new PM-related drafts in L3VPN Thread-Index: Ac2+j4erEZLRl+j9T3+iP8Na+f5T7AC18qYQ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:24:26 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045EE4F6@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [207.232.33.112] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045EE4F6EXRAD5adradcoil_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Commtouch-Refid: str=0001.0A090201.50A1E79C.0033,ss=1,fgs=0 Subject: [pm-dir] RESEND: two new PM-related drafts in L3VPN X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:24:39 -0000 --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045EE4F6EXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't see this email in the archive, so I guess it was sent out too early= for "pm-dir" to function. Y(J)S From: Yaakov Stein Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 17:33 To: 'pm-dir@ietf.org' Subject: two new PM-related drafts in L3VPN Hi all (trying out the new list address), I am sitting in L3VPN and hearing presentations on two new drafts related t= o PM. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-l3vpn-pm-analysis-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-l3vpn-pm-framework-00 The idea is to properly identify the packets belonging to a particular VPN and then to use RFC 6374 to measure de= lay and packet loss. As such, there are really no new PM issues here. Y(J)S --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045EE4F6EXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't see this email= in the archive, so I guess it was sent out too early for "pm-dir"= ; to function.

 

Y(J)S

 

From: Yaakov S= tein
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 17:33
To: 'pm-dir@ietf.org'
Subject: two new PM-related drafts in L3VPN

 

Hi all (trying out the= new list address),

 

I am sitting in L3VPN = and hearing presentations on two new drafts related to PM.

 

http://tools.ietf.org/htm= l/draft-zheng-l3vpn-pm-analysis-00

http://tools.ietf.org/htm= l/draft-dong-l3vpn-pm-framework-00

 

The idea is to properl= y identify the packets belonging to a particular VPN

and then to use RFC 6374  to measure delay and packet loss.

 

As such, there are rea= lly no new PM issues here.

 

 

Y(J)S

 

--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045EE4F6EXRAD5adradcoil_-- From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Nov 15 00:53:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0A221F8809 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:53:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.894 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.295, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3O734idLxcvf for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:53:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BDC21F85EB for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:53:48 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAAEvoFCHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEw1WBCIIeAQEBAQMBAQEPHgo0FwYBCA0EBAEBCwYMCwEHJh8HAQEFBAEEEwgah2gLmXuEK5wBjBUagwmCRmEDlxiEcYo2gnCBYw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,759,1344225600"; d="scan'208";a="36240895" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 03:46:22 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.16]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 03:30:31 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:53:45 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [bmwg] WGLC on SIP Benchmarking Drafts (04) Thread-Index: Ac3AMZP4u6U+/ZctSpa51OdG9aaj6AC3QsYg From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [pm-dir] FW: [bmwg] WGLC on SIP Benchmarking Drafts (04) X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:53:49 -0000 I believe that pm-dir should also be informed about this WGLC (and similar).=20 Regards, Dan -----Original Message----- From: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:45 PM To: bmwg@ietf.org Cc: Worley, Dale R (Dale); sipcore@ietf.org Subject: [bmwg] WGLC on SIP Benchmarking Drafts (04) TO: BMWG, CC: RAI Dir Reviewer Dale Worley, sipcore wg, A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Drafts on SIP Device Benchmarking: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth/ will be open from 11 Nov 2012 through 10 Dec 2012. These drafts are continuing the BMWG Last Call Process. See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00846.html The first WGLC was completed on 5 April 2010 with comments. The second WGLC was completed on 18 May 2012 with comments. Please read and express your opinion on whether or not these Internet-Drafts should be forwarded to the Area Directors for publication as Informational RFCs. Send your comments to this list or acmorton@att.com Al bmwg chair=20 _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg From ietf-secretariat@ietf.org Fri Nov 16 12:35:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8097721F8AD3; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:35:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3dMiy5Txmoyk; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:35:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B442621F8A6D; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:35:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: IETF Announcement List X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.36 Message-ID: <20121116203523.6952.54421.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:35:23 -0800 Cc: pm-dir@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com Subject: [pm-dir] New Non-WG Mailing List: pm-dir -- Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:35:24 -0000 A new IETF non-working group email list has been created for the = Performance Metrics Directorate. This email list replaces the = pmol@ietf.org email list previously used by the directorate. List address: pm-dir@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/ To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir Purpose: This list is for discussions relating to the development, = clarification, and documentation of performance metrics in the IETF (and = IRTF) according to RFC 6390. The Directorate web page is currently = http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html = For additional information, please contact the list administrators. From bclaise@cisco.com Fri Nov 23 08:20:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA8C21F8570 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:20:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.491 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u+34rR3Uw02W for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:20:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD9E21F856C for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:20:29 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qANG9EoY028222 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:09:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qANG9DHC013754 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:09:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50AF9FA9.8080409@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:09:13 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pm-dir@ietf.org References: <509AEE2D.3060305@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <509AEE2D.3060305@cisco.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <509AEE2D.3060305@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040401030904060705060108" Subject: [pm-dir] Meeting minutes: PMOL/ Perf Metrics directorate: meeting at the IETF 85, Nov 7th 2012 X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:20:34 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040401030904060705060108 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, Topics addressed: 1. Are we defining the performance metrics the right way? is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively? 2. Shared repository of performance metrics (at least for the ones created in the IETF)? 3. How should this directorate function? ACTION Al: modify the mailing list Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list pm-dir@ietf.org Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and documentation of performance metrics in the IETF (and IRTF) according to RFC 6390. ACTION Benoit: script to generate a weekly email with drafts containing "performance metric", "6390", etc.. ACTION Benoit: WIKI, I'm targeting https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/PERFORMANCE_METRICS_DIR I sent an email to ietf-action@ietf.org. Hopefully, this is the right way ACTION All: once the WIKI is in place, populate the WIKI with the IETF-specified performance metrics, along with the reference. ACTION: once the pm-dir process is in place, advertise it Potentially: discussion with other ADs, send email to the WG chairs, next plenary Did I miss something? Regards, Benoit -------- Original Message -------- Subject: PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:29:13 -0400 From: Benoit Claise To: pmol@ietf.org CC: Ron Bonica , "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Wesley Eddy , me Dear PMOL directorate members, During my review of the latest AVTCORE and XRBLOCK drafts ( draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv and draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch), I came to the conclusion that we have an issue in terms of performance metrics at the IETF, and actually in the industry. As background information, here is my DISCUSS on the two drafts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My entire point is more a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, for both draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19 and draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05.txt. Sorry to pick on these two drafts, but we need to have an IESG performance metrics discussion. Where does the list of performance metric definitions come from at the IETF? We have multiple sources: - IPPM for IP performance metrics - RTCP for RTP performance metrics: Definitions in the document themselves or potentially referencing some other SDOs Example:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05 bits 014-011 0: MAPDV2, Clause 6.2.3.2 of [G.1020], 1: 2-point PDV, Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540]. - PMOL: Performance Metrics at Other Layers, with RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics - IPFIX will one day or the other exports performance metrics. I see for example http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-03 It's again a redefinition, and it should not be! My concerns are that we start to define performance metrics in different parts of the IETF, without consistency. We have defined RFC 6390 on "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development", which ask for specific definition Seehttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6390#section-5.4.4 I believe that the IETF should at least: - define the performance metrics in a consistent way according to RFC6390. - document those performance metrics in a single location So my questions are: - are we defining the performance metrics the right way? - where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for the ones created in the IETF)? - is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively? After discussing with Dan Romascanu, we came to this conclusion I had a discussion with Dan Romascanu, and we settled on: - RFC 6390 template is required for new perf metric definition - RFC 6390 template is a nice-to-have when we refer to an existing perf metric Nice-to-have because the performance metric reference doesn't always include all the required information about: measurement points, measurement timing, use and applications, reporting model, etc... but focus only on the "Method of Measurement or Calculation" I would like to have a meeting during the IETF, with the following agenda - are we defining the performance metrics the right way? - where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for the ones created in the IETF)? - is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively? - conclusion discussed with Dan Here is a doodle invite. Please let me know if/when you are available. Your feedback on this mailer is also welcome. Regards, Benoit --------------040401030904060705060108 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all,

Topics addressed:
1. Are we defining the performance metrics the right way? 
     is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?
2. Shared repository of performance metrics (at least for the ones created in the IETF)?
3. How should this directorate function?

ACTION Al: modify the mailing list
    Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list
    pm-dir@ietf.org
    Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and documentation of performance metrics in the IETF (and IRTF) according to RFC 6390.

ACTION Benoit: script to generate a weekly email with drafts containing "performance metric", "6390", etc..

ACTION Benoit: WIKI, I'm targeting https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/PERFORMANCE_METRICS_DIR
    I sent an email to ietf-action@ietf.org.
    Hopefully, this is the right way

ACTION All: once the WIKI is in place, populate the WIKI with the IETF-specified performance metrics, along with the reference.
 
ACTION: once the pm-dir process is in place, advertise it
    Potentially: discussion with other ADs, send email to the WG chairs, next plenary
   
Did I miss something?

Regards, Benoit   


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:29:13 -0400
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: pmol@ietf.org <pmol@ietf.org>
CC: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, me <bclaise@cisco.com>


Dear PMOL directorate members,

During my review of the latest AVTCORE and  XRBLOCK drafts ( draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv and draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch), I came to the conclusion that we have an issue in terms of performance metrics at the IETF, and actually in the industry.

As background information, here is my DISCUSS on the two drafts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My entire point is more a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, for both
draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19 and draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05.txt.
Sorry to pick on these two drafts, but we need to have an IESG
performance metrics discussion.
Where does the list of performance metric definitions come from at the
IETF?
We have multiple sources:
- IPPM for IP performance metrics
- RTCP for RTP performance metrics: 
  Definitions in the document themselves or potentially referencing some
other SDOs
  Example: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05
   bits 014-011
            0: MAPDV2, Clause 6.2.3.2 of [G.1020],
            1: 2-point PDV, Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540].
- PMOL: Performance Metrics at Other Layers, with 
  RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics
- IPFIX will one day or the other exports performance metrics.
  I see for example
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-03
  It's again a redefinition, and it should not be!

My concerns are that we start to define performance metrics in different
parts of the IETF, without consistency.

We have defined RFC 6390 on "Guidelines for Considering New Performance
Metric Development", which ask for specific definition
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6390#section-5.4.4

I believe that the IETF should at least:
- define the performance metrics in a consistent way according to
RFC6390.
- document those performance metrics in a single location

So my questions are:
- are we defining the performance metrics the right way?
- where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for
the ones created in the IETF)?
- is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?
After discussing with Dan Romascanu, we came to this conclusion
I had a discussion with Dan Romascanu, and we settled on:
- RFC 6390 template is required for new perf metric definition
- RFC 6390 template is a nice-to-have when we refer to an existing perf metric
Nice-to-have because the performance metric reference doesn't always include
all the required information about: measurement points, measurement timing, use
and applications, reporting model, etc... but focus only on the "Method of
Measurement or Calculation"
I would like to have a meeting during the IETF, with the following agenda
- are we defining the performance metrics the right way?
- where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for
the ones created in the IETF)?
- is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?
- conclusion discussed with Dan

Here is a doodle invite. Please let me know if/when you are available.
Your feedback on this mailer is also welcome.
Regards, Benoit







--------------040401030904060705060108-- From acmorton@att.com Sat Nov 24 05:29:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90FC21F854F for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvXnyo7MpkwV for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD5C21F854B for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-12) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id dcbc0b05.0.1771374.00-460.4877767.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:29:50 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 50b0cbce196a6474-49fccfad442d58d5315546fbd0ce2f02bbcd5722 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAODTniI030273 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:49 -0800 Received: from fflint04.pst.cso.att.com (fflint04.pst.cso.att.com [150.234.39.64]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAODTg5H030235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:45 -0800 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by fflint04.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:26 -0800 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAODTPsP004318 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:29:25 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAODTG0V004201 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:29:24 -0500 Received: from lt-hp1044652.att.com (vpn-135-70-99-109.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.99.109](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20121124132921gw100632ije>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:29:22 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.99.109] Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20121124082531.04b25640@att.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:27:22 -0500 To: Benoit Claise , pm-dir@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <50AF9FA9.8080409@cisco.com> References: <509AEE2D.3060305@cisco.com> <50AF9FA9.8080409@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.128.153] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=MZfbTeDf c=1 sm=0 a=xwOvzTHDVLE4u4nGvK72ag==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=itPZAO0FG0UA:10 a=Z0ZokH5oSI4A:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLc] X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=DDyPf683] X-AnalysisOut: [TFsA:10 a=Q6nK2EKl45xkBENrKx0A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10] Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Meeting minutes: PMOL/ Perf Metrics directorate: meeting at the IETF 85, Nov 7th 2012 X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:29:52 -0000 At 11:09 AM 11/23/2012, Benoit Claise wrote: >...Did I miss something? > >Regards, Benoit Not that I know of, except to add that this is the first message using the new pm-dir list, so the first action item is done. Al >