Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA9B28C88B; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:32:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.459 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VssZDqTAhASF; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:32:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1550C28C725; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:32:14 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B56128C690; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:32:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YV85mCsdmiCm; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:32:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8711828C5D0; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:32:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1TLW4bD030220; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:32:04 -0700 Received: from srvxchg3.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.25) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/511/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:32:04 -0700 (MST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/511/kyzyl.cablelabs.com) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:32:03 -0700 Message-ID: <160DE07A1C4F8E4AA2715DEC577DA4917B0DAC@srvxchg3.cablelabs.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] [sipping] New revision to SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics Thread-Index: Ach7Gpx+wPA/km4dSvGZTgand2dP+g== From: "Daryl Malas" To: X-Approved: ondar Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] [sipping] New revision to SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org All, A new version of the SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics has been posted. It can be reviewed here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-00 This update includes the following updated content (mostly minor clarifications and corrections): - Updated Introduction and Scope - Corrected (clarified) Registration Request Delay (RRD) Failures - Updated Session Disconnect Delay (SDD) - Updated Session Establishment Efficiency Rate (SEER) This version includes corrections based on recent feedback on the mailing list, individual emails, and input from draft-morton-perf-metrics-framework. Comments and feedback are appreciated. Thank you, Daryl _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EF43A6DE3; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:37:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.228 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.790, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eUO67kYpLXcs; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:37:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE693A6D87; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:36:19 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BF03A6D87 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:36:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BbBL75npEtK8 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.cbeyond.com (mx.cbeyond.com [66.180.96.58]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09A23A6DAB for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:33:35 -0800 (PST) X-Commtouch-RefID: Received: from [72.54.75.1] ([72.54.75.1:1209] helo=TELWS143) by mex06 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.1.24 r(21291)) with ESMTP id 1C/3F-20183-CEFD2C74; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:34:04 -0500 From: "Alan Clark" Message-ID: <1C.3F.20183.CEFD2C74@mex06> To: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:33:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: Ach3w16hc7ZVlbuASUqXT9stkz0lqAAAEnoQ x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Subject: [PMOL] New Version Notification for draft-morton-perf-metrics-framework-02 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org A new version of I-D, draft-morton-perf-metrics-framework-02.txt has been successfuly submitted by Alan Clark and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-morton-perf-metrics-framework Revision: 02 Title: Framework for Performance Metric Development Creation_date: 2008-02-25 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 15 Abstract: This memo describes a framework and guidelines for the development of performance metrics that are beyond the scope of existing working group charters in the IETF. In this version, the memo refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, or PM Entity, which may in future be a working group or directorate or a combination of these two.Requirements Language _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800123A6BB4; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:37:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.402 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.768, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ytGWX8kqgY63; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:37:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9483A6B46; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:37:46 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D8A3A6AF7 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:37:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wTVNvTOnyof4 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:37:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98BF3A6896 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:37:39 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1203644253!23098323!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 11993 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2008 01:37:34 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Feb 2008 01:37:34 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1M1bXE0027847 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:37:33 -0800 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1M1bUHu027825 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:37:30 -0800 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m1M1bTiY009238 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:37:29 -0600 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m1M1bQYr009212 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:37:26 -0600 Message-Id: <200802220137.m1M1bQYr009212@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.40.247](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080222013726gw10010g3fe>; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:37:26 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:37:24 -0500 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [PMOL] Suggestions for the framework draft X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org PMOL, While reviewing the SIP metrics draft, I found a few places where the framework draft needed further development. I suggest some text in several sections below. I'm not exactly sure where most of them fit in the outline, but section 4.2 is strawman text for an empty section. Al (as a participant) 3.x. Organization of Results The IPPM Framework [RFC2330] organizes the results of metrics into three related notions: 1. singleton, an elementary instance, or "atomic" value 2. sample, a set of singletons with some common properties and some varying properties. 3. statistic, a value derived from a sample through deterministic calculation, such as the mean. Many metrics can use this organization for the results, with or without the term names used by IPPM working group. Section 11 of [RFC2330] should consulted for further details. 3.y. Parameters, the variables of a metric Metrics are completely defined when all options and input variables have been identified and considered. These variables are sometimes left unspecified in a metric definition, and their general name indicates that the user must set them and report them with the results. Such variables are called "parameters" in the IPPM metric template. The scope of the metric, the time at which it was conducted, the settings for timers and the thresholds for counters are all examples of parameters. All memos defining performance metrics SHOULD identify ALL key parameters for each metric. 3.z. Packet Measurement Details Another key aspect of the IPPM Framework [RFC2330] is the discussion of "wire time". Internet hosts require physical resources to observe packet traffic, and they can contribute to the performance observed. Further, the observations SHOULD be related to some instant of time (such as a specific bit of a packet), because a packet contains many bits and exists on physical media long enough to introduce some ambiguity. Section 10.2 of [RFC2330] should be consulted. 3.a. Identifying and Categorizing the Audience Many of the aspects of metric definition and reporting, even the selection or determination of the essential metrics, depend on who will use the results, and for what purpose. The question, "How will the results be used?" usually yields important factors to consider when developing performance metrics. All memos defining performance metrics SHOULD identify the primary audience and its associated requirements. The audience can influence both the definition of metrics and the methods of measurement. The key areas of variation between different metric users include: o Suitability of passive measurements of live traffic, or active measurements using dedicated traffic o Measurement in laboratory environment, or on a network of deployed devices o Accuracy of the results o Access to measurement points and configuration information o Measurement topology (point-to-point, point-to-multipoint) o Scale of the measurement system o Measurements conducted on-demand, or continuously o Required reporting formats 4.2. Proposal Approval The process depends on the form that the PM Entity ultimately takes, Directorate or working group. In all cases, the proposal will need to achieve consensus, in the corresponding protocol development working group (or alternatively, an "Area" working group with broad charter), that there is interest and a need for the work. IF the PM Entity is a Directorate, THEN Approval SHOULD include the following steps o consultation with the PM Directorate, using this framework memo o consultation with Area Director(s) o and possibly IESG approval of a new or revised charter for the working group IF the PM Entity is a Working Group, and the protocol development working group decides to take up the work under its charter, THEN the approval is the same as the PM Directorate steps above, with the possible additional assignment of a PM Advisor for the work item. IF the PM Entity is a Working Group, and the protocol development working group decides it does not have sufficient expertise to take-up the work, or the proposal falls outside the current charter, THEN Approval SHOULD include the following steps o identification of protocol expertise to support metric development o consensus in the PM working group that there is interest and a need for the work, and that a memo conforming to this framework can be successfully developed o consultation with Area Director(s) o IESG approval of a revised charter for the PM working group _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol