Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8393A6A70; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:21:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 DE27228C0FD for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:21:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.496, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 tBIOfJmPJhjK for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.245.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A663B3A6A2E for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:21:36 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1217330506!6474396!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 1471 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2008 11:21:47 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-11.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 29 Jul 2008 11:21:47 -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 m6TBLjYv024358 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:21:45 -0700 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 m6TBLgYn024351 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:21:42 -0700 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 m6TBLfuX008117 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:21:41 -0500 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 m6TBLdtT008080 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:21:39 -0500 Message-Id: <200807291121.m6TBLdtT008080@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.112.32](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080729112137gw1003sn8pe>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:21:38 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:21:29 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [PMOL] Remote Participation URLs (Dublin) 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org For those who wish to participate remotely, we have: Start time: Today, July 29, 15:20-1720 in Dublin, Ireland (GMT+1:00) Much of the info below is available on the tools team agenda: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/ Jabber Instructions http://www.ietf.org/meetings/text_conf.html Jabber Room pmol@jabber.ietf.org Slides, not all posted yet (scroll down to pmol in OPS area) https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/72/materials.html Unicast Audio http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ pmol is on Channel 4 in Newcastle Al pmol co-chair _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C0D28C11A; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT) 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 5A7B93A6407 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 n7FNkIrRMnCA for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C33228C164 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:23:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,239,1215403200"; d="scan'208";a="136588270" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2008 11:24:36 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,239,1215403200"; d="scan'208";a="241182871" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2008 11:24:36 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:24:34 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: comments on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt Thread-Index: Acjs2DYqzewcfxG6R6OuKijmLVENHg== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] comments on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt 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 Please find below my contributor comments on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt 1. Section 1.1: s/Although the IETF has two Working Groups/Although the IETF currently has two active Working Groups/ 2. Section 3.3: s/Temporal Aggregation is a summarization of metrics into/Temporal Aggregation is a summarization of sets of metrics into/ 3. Section 3.4.1 - it is not clear what is the difference between 'what the metric is' and 'describes the metrics'. Maybe the intent here is s/describes the metric/describes the rationale of the metric/? 4. (iii) Measurement Method - should not we relate here also to the measurement points? For example in the sip-performance-metrics draft some of the metrics are measured only at UACs, other at UAC or UAS, etc. 5. The 2119 capitalization in section 3.4.2 is inconsistent. Maybe the MUST in the first phrase is enough and the rest needs not be capitalized. 6. There are alignment problems with the paragraphs in 3.4.3 7. 3.4.3 (ii) - is conformance testing really a SHOULD in our metrics documents? Or maybe just a MAY? I am hesitating on this, we define very little conformance testing in the IETF 8. 3.4.4 - if Conformance Testing is to stay, it should be part of the template. 9. It is not clear to me what is the scope of 3.5 and in any case I do not believe it should be located here in the document. Maybe its place is rather in section 4, as a checklist for reviewing PM documents, or maybe in an Annex. 10. The text in 3.6 and the whole subsection should be merged with the text about reporting models in 3.4.4 11. Section 4.2 - What proposal approval are we talking about here? The approval of initial work, or the final approval? In any case I think that we just need to refer to the IETF processes to charter new work, or to approve documents. We do not intent to invent a new process here, but to either support other WGs with the expertise of a cross-area directorate, or create the framework of a new WG. I am not sure this section is needed at all. 12. Section 4.3 - here we should explain in a few words the two options 1. a cross-area directorate which is called to give advice on the development of new PMOL metrics in other WGs and reviews the documents as part of the WGLC and IESG review process 2. a dedicated WG within the OPS Area which creates the framework for other areas protocol experts to develop here their PM definition documents. In both cases there is a need to interact - in case #1 as a WG-directorate review team relationship, in case #2 as a protocol WG- PMOL WG relation. The decision should be left IMO to the IESG 13. Section 4.3 - I think that the requirement for a dedicated mailing list for each effort is exaggerated - the protocol WG mail list and/or the PMOL (directorate or WG) list should be enough. Thanks and Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139413A6ADF; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:26:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 B8DA53A6894; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:26:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 R2z0z2GqbS5S; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5683A67A7; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:26:01 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,238,1215403200"; d="scan'208";a="115701348" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2008 08:26:02 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,238,1215403200"; d="scan'208";a="234150544" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2008 08:26:01 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:26:00 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200806260248.m5Q2m5q9006245@klph001.kcdc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Sipping] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01 Thread-Index: AcjXNxy57AyAWzE2QHSRg6KByAQk0AVdLarg References: <20080626003001.A570F28C19C@core3.amsl.com> <200806260248.m5Q2m5q9006245@klph001.kcdc.att.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Al Morton" , Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [Sipping] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01 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 Please find below my contributor comments. 1. idnits complains on a number of references problems: -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RFC 1157' on line 1149 '[RFC 1157] and via future extensions to the SIP Management...' Please add [RFC1157] as reference == Unused Reference: '12' is defined on line 1282, but no explicit reference was found in the text '[12] Faber, T., Touch, J. and W. Yue, "The TIME-WAIT state in TCP a...' == Unused Reference: '13' is defined on line 1286, but no explicit reference was found in the text '[13] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for Synta...' Please take out [12] and [13] if not needed. -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '7' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '8' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '9' These three are probably OK ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330 (ref. '11') Does this need to be a normative reference? -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2234 (ref. '13') (Obsoleted by RFC 4234) Is this intentional, or can 2234 be replaced by RFC 4234. Of course if [13] will be taken out (see above) no need to answer this. 2. Introduction - 'responsiveness of the network' - is it really only the network, or rather 'responsiveness of the network and application servers'? 3. same, why is DO NOT capitalized? 4. section 4.4 - why does SDT need to be adjusted to indicate 'minutes and seconds' and not just seconds? 5. section 4.8 - the definition of SD seems broken. If the output value of this metric is numerical and should be adjusted to indicate a percentage of defective sessions, the formula seems to be SD = (# of Defective Sessions) / (Total # of Session Requests). Am I missing something? 6. For consistency reasons should not metrics define in 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 be all named as Rate? 7. RFC1157 is historic. Use RFC3411 to refer to SNMP 8. I suggest to add RAQMON (RFC4710) with possible future extensions to the set of methods for transferring metrics information enumerated in 6.4 9. Sections 6.5 an 6.6 seem to deal with issues that are beyond the scope of the SIP performance metrics. I think their place is not in the normative part of this document, but maybe in the PMOL framework document. I suggest to take out these sections completely or move them to an Appendix to make clear that they are non-normative. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:48 AM > To: pmol@ietf.org > Cc: sipping@ietf.org > Subject: [Sipping] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01 > > PMOL WG, > cc SIPPING WG, > > This message begins a WG Last Call on the following: > > Title : SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CDF23A6949; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:07:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 03D733A67B4 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:07:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 9RV5Whd1CTdj for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC183A65A6 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:07:19 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1216692478!32435317!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 15176 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2008 02:07:58 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-3.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Jul 2008 02:07:58 -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 m6M27wit004490 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:07:58 -0700 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 m6M27oLp004461 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:07:51 -0700 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 m6M27oEF016336 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:07:50 -0500 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 m6M27i2b016313 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:07:44 -0500 Message-Id: <200807220207.m6M27i2b016313@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.32.28](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080722020743gw100l7oe9e>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:07:43 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:07:42 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <7.1.0.9.0.20080625223437.033b0d10@att.com> References: <20080626003001.A570F28C19C@core3.amsl.com> <7.1.0.9.0.20080625223437.033b0d10@att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PMOL] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Hi Daryl, At 10:48 PM 6/25/2008, Al Morton wrote: >This message begins a WG Last Call on the following: >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01.txt my comments as a pmol participant follow, Al (I have several editorial suggestions which I will pass to Daryl at the upcoming meeting.) The major comment is the same one I made for the ccamp GMPLS LSP metrics draft... >----------------- >There is a taxonomy of possible outcomes for set-up protocols. >Each set-up attempt will have one of the following outcomes: > >1. Success >2. Failure >3. Incorrect Set-up (wrong destination) > >The same basic outcomes apply to release attempts. >----------------- ...but here it can mostly be addressed by changing the names of a few metrics. In the current text, the set-up time metrics cover the Successful outcome and the Failure outcome, but attempt to do it with a *single* metric, AFAICT. For Registration, its RRD (Registration Request Delay, sec 4.1), and for Sessions, its SRD (Session Request Delay, in 4.2). I don't think that Successful Delay and Failure Delay values should be combined in the same distribution, and the draft seems to allow that with only one _RD for either Registration or Session. Later, the draft introduces the notion of an Ineffective Session Attempts (ISA) when defining another important metric, Session Establishment Rate (sec 4.6). IMO, the ISA should be introduced as an alternative to the Successful SRD. There should also be an Ineffective Registration Attempt (IRA). Here's how the outline might change to do all this: 4. SIP Performance Metrics 4.1. Registration Request Metrics 4.1.1. Successful REGISTER Delay (SRD) ends with 200 OK 4.1.2. Ineffective Registration Attempt (IRA) count attempts with with non-200 4.1.3. Failed REGISTER Delay (FRD) ends with non-200, (some are just Timer F?) 4.2. Session Request Metrics 4.2.1. Successful Session-Setup Delay (SSD) ends with 200 OK 4.1.2. Ineffective Session-Setup Attempt (ISA) count attempts with with non-200 4.2.3. Failed Session-Setup Delay (FSD) ends with non-200, (some are just Timer F?) 4.2.X. Instant Messaging (the possibilities here are similar to the above, I think IM may deserve its own section.) 4.3. Session Disconnect Delay 4.3.1. Successful Session Disconnect Delay (SDD) ends with 200 OK 4.3.2. Ineffective (Session) Disconnect Attempt (IDA) count attempts with with non-200 4.3.2. Failed-Disconnect Delay (SFD) ends with non-200, (some are just Timer F?) 4.4. Session Time (ST) (was Session Duration Time, SDT, the terms Duration and Time are Redundant, and the memo uses SD below) 4.4.1. Session Time with successful completion ST from 200 to BYE 4.4.2. Session Time with failed completion SFT ends with non-BYE, (just Timer F?) 4.5. Hops per Request (HpR) 4.6. Session Establishment Rate (SER) (IMO, this should be Ratio, and 1,$s /Rate/Ratio/g ) 4.6.1. Instant Messaging 4.7. Session Establishment Efficiency Rate (SEER) 4.8. Session Defects (SD) 4.9. Ineffective Session Attempts (ISA) (text moves to 4.2.2) 4.10. Session Disconnect Failures (SDF) (text moves to 4.3.2) Other comments: --------------- Section 2, Terminology, has the following definition: > End-to-End - This is described as two or more elements utilized for > initiating a request, receiving the request, and responding to the > request. It encompasses elements as necessary to be involved in a > session dialog between the originating user agent client (UAC), > destination user agent server (UAS), and any interim proxies (may > also include back-to-back user agent's (B2BUA's)). This may be > relative to a single operator's set of elements or extend to > encompass all elements (if beyond a single operator's network) > associated with a session. There are lots of definitions for "end-to-end" in standards, so we should try to be consistent with them, and clear about this particular context. I suggest: End-to-End - This phrase defines the scope of communications as the logical extremes, covering two or more elements utilized for initiating a request, receiving the request, and responding to the request. It encompasses elements necessarily involved in a session dialog between the originating user agent client (UAC), destination user agent server (UAS), and any interim proxies (may also include back-to-back user agents (B2BUA's)). End-to-End may denote a single operator's set of elements or extend to encompass all elements (if beyond a single operator's network) associated with a session dialog. ----------------------- Section 4. For all the relevant metrics, it strikes me that the length of the Request (INVITE) may affect the performance, especially if the Request message is fragmented. It seems like the Request message length and the MTU should be parameters for all relevant metrics. ----------------------- Section 4.7 Session Establishment Efficiency Rate (SEER) ... # of INVITE Requests w/ associated 200OK, 480, 486, or 600 SEER = -------------------------------------------------------------- (Total # of INVITE Requests)-(# of INVITE Requests w/ 'a' Response) This ratio has all the Requests that get a legitimate response divided by the total requests, reduced by the "abnormal" responses. I think I could understand this metric better if the denominator was not reduced by the "abnormal" responses. That way it would be the ratio of the legitimate responses to the total requests, and it would be a ratio of 1 when signaling goes as planned, despite the effects of the terminating UAS. The metric would have the following ratio: # of INVITE Requests w/ associated 200OK, 480, 486, or 600 SEER = -------------------------------------------------------------- (Total # of INVITE Requests) ---------------------- I might have some more comments, but don't want to hold this message up any longer. _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E657D28C332; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:51:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 27A2028C32A for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:51:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 zGSJ7RPzJTew for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C6F3A6B46 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:49:30 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1216061395!31913426!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 20399 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2008 18:49:55 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-3.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 14 Jul 2008 18:49:55 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m6EInsff018243 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:49:54 -0400 Received: from alph001.aldc.att.com (alph001.aldc.att.com [135.53.7.26]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m6EInq1Q018234 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:49:53 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m6EInqJ3026344 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:49:52 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m6EInlGp026251 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:49:49 -0400 Message-Id: <200807141849.m6EInlGp026251@alph001.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (martym.mt.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080714184946gw100l7oude>; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:49:46 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:49:46 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [PMOL] Agenda preparation for pmol session at IETF-72 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org PMOL WG, Our Dublin meeting is currently scheduled as follows: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 1520-1720 Afternoon Session II Room: Newcastle We will have at least three agenda items: 1. WG Status http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pmol/ 2. SIP Metrics Draft (resolve WGLC comments) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01 3. Framework and Guidelines Draft (please read and comment!) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00 If time allows, the co-chairs are willing to consider an additional agenda item on performance metric development covered by the PMOL framework and guidelines memo. Please contact the co-chairs directly with any proposals or comments relevant to the agenda. thanks, Alan and Al pmol co-chairs _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1453A6BDE; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:20:43 -0700 (PDT) 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 92F2F3A6B46; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:20:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368] 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 mvKVHsYzCFNd; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD0D3A69D8; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6EGL7JX006590; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:21:07 -0600 Received: from srvxchg3.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.25) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/511/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:21:07 -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: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:21:07 -0600 Message-ID: <160DE07A1C4F8E4AA2715DEC577DA491B1AA8A@srvxchg3.cablelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <200807141554.m6EFsGDJ019677@klph001.kcdc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Sipping] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01 Thread-Index: AcjlyeieL3cHyKhnTRuEnk0kQfApPAAAug8Q References: <200807141554.m6EFsGDJ019677@klph001.kcdc.att.com> From: "Daryl Malas" To: X-Approved: ondar Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [Sipping] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01 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, The major changes in this version include removing all of the "average" calculations, essentially allowing implementers to use the root algorithms as they see fit. The other major change is an addition, provided by Al Morton, of "Time Interval Measurement and Reporting" details. A few other nits and clean-up issues were also revised in this version. Thank you, Daryl ---------------- Daryl Malas CableLabs (o) +1 303 661 3302 (f) +1 303 661 9199 mailto:d.malas@cablelabs.com > -----Original Message----- > From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:54 AM > To: pmol@ietf.org > Cc: sipping@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Sipping] WG Last Call: > draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01 > > Reminder - WGLC ends July 25, 2008. > > PMOL WG, > cc SIPPING WG, > > This message begins a WG Last Call on the following: > > Title : SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics > Author(s) : D. Malas > Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01.txt > Pages : 29 > Date : 2008-6-25 > > This document defines a set of metrics and their usage to evaluate > the performance of end-to-end Session Initiation Protocol > (SIP) based > services in both production and testing environments. > The purpose of > this document is to combine a set of common metrics, allowing > interoperable performance measurements, easing the comparison of > industry implementations. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-m etrics-01.txt > > There has been discussion of this draft for 2 years, first in > the SIPPING WG, and then in the PMOL WG. The Author believes > he has addressed all comments to date. > > Please weigh-in on whether or not this Draft should be > forwarded to the Area Directors for publication as a > Standards Track RFC. > Send your comments to the PMOL list or the co-chairs. > > The Last Call will be open till July 25, 2008. > > thanks for your review and comments, > Alan and Al > co-chairs, PMOL WG > > _______________________________________________ > Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping > This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP > Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current > sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP > _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87473A6B1A; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:54:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 DC8D93A6AC9; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:54:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 hgQfhwPPHIF7; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.245.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35B63A69D8; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:54:01 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1216050865!2076977!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 18306 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2008 15:54:26 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-12.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 14 Jul 2008 15:54:26 -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 m6EFsPBt024682; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:54:25 -0700 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 m6EFsMq6024660; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:54:22 -0700 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 m6EFsMfU019766; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:54:22 -0500 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 m6EFsGDJ019677; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:54:17 -0500 Message-Id: <200807141554.m6EFsGDJ019677@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (martym.mt.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080714155416gw100l7oste>; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:54:16 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:54:16 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Reminder - WGLC ends July 25, 2008. PMOL WG, cc SIPPING WG, This message begins a WG Last Call on the following: Title : SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics Author(s) : D. Malas Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2008-6-25 This document defines a set of metrics and their usage to evaluate the performance of end-to-end Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based services in both production and testing environments. The purpose of this document is to combine a set of common metrics, allowing interoperable performance measurements, easing the comparison of industry implementations. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-01.txt There has been discussion of this draft for 2 years, first in the SIPPING WG, and then in the PMOL WG. The Author believes he has addressed all comments to date. Please weigh-in on whether or not this Draft should be forwarded to the Area Directors for publication as a Standards Track RFC. Send your comments to the PMOL list or the co-chairs. The Last Call will be open till July 25, 2008. thanks for your review and comments, Alan and Al co-chairs, PMOL WG _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B36E3A680F; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pmol@ietf.org Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 641553A6876; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080704194503.641553A6876@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:45:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 05:41:14 -0700 Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt 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: , Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Performance Metrics for Other Layers Working Group of the IETF. Title : Framework for Performance Metric Development Author(s) : A. Clark Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2008-07-04 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. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-07-04124424.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol --NextPart-- Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38293A6B9C; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:47:07 -0700 (PDT) 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 0C02F3A6B9B for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:47:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 p29dbTk+fUCT for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.cbeyond.com (mx.cbeyond.com [66.180.96.58]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DEF3A6BA7 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <6q25u6$2iqima@mx.cbeyond.com> X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEANcabkhINksB/2dsb2JhbAA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,304,1212379200"; d="scan'208";a="86854346" Received: from unknown (HELO TELWS143) ([72.54.75.1]) by mx.cbeyond.com with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2008 15:46:50 -0400 From: "Alan Clark" To: Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:46:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcjeDmGx030zm+JLSh2esleUjG1LuwAACsqg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Subject: [PMOL] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00 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 Apologies for the delay in getting the updated framework draft out, but here it is!! Alan -----Original Message----- From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 3:44 PM To: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00 A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt has been successfuly submitted by Alan Clark and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework Revision: 00 Title: Framework for Performance Metric Development Creation_date: 2008-07-04 WG ID: pmol 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. The IETF Secretariat. _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol