
Message-Id: <200810292122.m9TLMORV022064@klph001.kcdc.att.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:22:22 -0400
To: pmol@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <200810292109.m9TL9oeg028681@klph001.kcdc.att.com>
References: <200810292109.m9TL9oeg028681@klph001.kcdc.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PMOL] comments on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org

One additional point, this definition for the term Index:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-06#section-3.7
could move to the PMOL framework memo, it seems to be
a different sort of composition than the types we addressed in
IPPM draft.

At 05:09 PM 10/29/2008, you wrote:
>I was asked to look at section 3.3 in particular,
>to help sync it up with:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-07.txt
>
>comments below, as a participant,
>Al
>
>looks like [Ref ?] = draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-07.txt
>
>
>>3.3.  Composed Metrics
>>...
>>    Spatial Composition is defined as the composition of metrics of the
>>    same type with differing spatial domains [Ref ?].  For spatially
>>    composed metrics to be meaningful, the spatial domains should be non-
>>    overlapping and contiguous, and the composition operation should be
>>    mathematically appropriate for the type of metric.
>
>Although we've used terms "complete path", "sub-path", and"network" 
>in the IPPM reference, spatial domains seems to work fine here.
>
>>    Temporal Composition is defined as the composition of metrics of the
>>    same type with differing time spans [Ref ?].  For temporally composed
>>    metrics to be meaningful, the time spans should be non-overlapping
>>    and contiguous, and the composition operation should be
>>    mathematically appropriate for the type of metric.
>
>Time spans is fine, too. We've used time "Intervals" and "sub-intervals"
>in the IPPM draft, but both are clear.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>PMOL mailing list
>PMOL@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol

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


Return-Path: <pmol-bounces@ietf.org>
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 482653A6CB7; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:10:01 -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 A2C403A6B0A for <pmol@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.675
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.675 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, 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 I8p376VEvOM5 for <pmol@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.245.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A7E3A6CB7 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1225314595!12110210!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141]
Received: (qmail 1836 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2008 21:09:56 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-4.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 29 Oct 2008 21:09:56 -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 m9TL9tj1014690 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:09:55 -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 m9TL9rNP014685 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:09:54 -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 m9TL9rQk028721 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:09:53 -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 m9TL9oeg028681 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:09:50 -0500
Message-Id: <200810292109.m9TL9oeg028681@klph001.kcdc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (dyp004244dys.mt.att.com[135.16.251.219](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20081029210949gw1003sngje>; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:09:49 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:09:49 -0400
To: pmol@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: [PMOL] comments on 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 <pmol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/pmol>
List-Post: <mailto:pmol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=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

I was asked to look at section 3.3 in particular,
to help sync it up with:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-07.txt

comments below, as a participant,
Al

looks like [Ref ?] = draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-07.txt


>3.3.  Composed Metrics
>...
>    Spatial Composition is defined as the composition of metrics of the
>    same type with differing spatial domains [Ref ?].  For spatially
>    composed metrics to be meaningful, the spatial domains should be non-
>    overlapping and contiguous, and the composition operation should be
>    mathematically appropriate for the type of metric.

Although we've used terms "complete path", "sub-path", and"network" 
in the IPPM reference, spatial domains seems to work fine here.

>    Temporal Composition is defined as the composition of metrics of the
>    same type with differing time spans [Ref ?].  For temporally composed
>    metrics to be meaningful, the time spans should be non-overlapping
>    and contiguous, and the composition operation should be
>    mathematically appropriate for the type of metric.

Time spans is fine, too. We've used time "Intervals" and "sub-intervals"
in the IPPM draft, but both are clear.


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