Subject: [lmap] Relationship of task & task-registry-entries (draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-06)

From: Holger Wiehen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:22:55 -0300

Hi.

In the information model, the ma-task-object references, potentially, multiple ma-task-registry-entries.

Is it right that a given measurement task always works with a single package stream, measuring multiple metrics simultaneously? So in a ma-task-object we can combine only those ma-task-registry-entries for which the ippm-metric-registry defines the same package stream (type-p, distribution)?

Is this interpretation right?

Regards,

Holger Wiehen.

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:11:40 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lmap [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Holger Wiehen
...
> Is it right that a given measurement task always works with a single
> package stream, measuring multiple metrics simultaneously? So in a ma-
> task-object we can combine only those ma-task-registry-entries for which
> the ippm-metric-registry defines the same package stream (type-p,
> distribution)?
> 
[ACM] 
Hi Holger,

I think so. It helps to maintain the association between metrics and 
*the* stream if they are the only metrics in a task, and this is what 
I highlighted in my slides.

If we want another simultaneous measurement, with a different stream
(or a passive measurement, etc.), then this could be composed as 
a separate task, and scheduled to be executed at the same time.

regards,
Al

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:16:49 +0200

> Is this interpretation right?

I would not put up a restriction that a task is limited to one packet
stream. We do have measurement tasks that do multiple things that are
closely related but effectively different packet trains on the wire. I
think it should be an implementation choice which metrics are combined
into a task (and ideally it is configurable which metrics are measured
when a task is executed).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:45:52 -0400

Al adds below:

> From: lmap [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Juergen
> Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:17 PM
> To: Holger Wiehen
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [lmap] Relationship of task & task-registry-entries (draft-
> ietf-lmap-information-model-06)
> 

[ACM] I agree, multiple streams are possible in a single task, as long as:

- people understand that the streams will start at exactly the same time
according to a single schedule. For Poisson streams, the implications
are small as long as different random distributions are used.

- Many of the other Task-common aspects must be the same. This includes
all the Run-Time parameters (expressed as options to the task).

and probably some other aspects which separating the streams into different
tasks would avoid, but yes, I agree it should be possible. I'm looking
at my slide 3 from the Interim meeting talk "Registry Meets LMAP".

Al