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 CB4383A6852; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:37:18 -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 BF5493A6852 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:37:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 l+DUQriheJsc for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:37:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from panorama.Covad.COM (panorama.covad.com [66.134.72.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6AD13A6800 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:37:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from brightmail01.cc-ntd1.covad.com ([172.16.2.90]) by panorama.Covad.COM (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA27596 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:37:05 -0700 (GMT) X-AuditID: ac10025b-aaba4bb000000e6f-19-494803615b82 Received: from zanxmb00b.cc-ntd1.covad.com (zanxmb00b.cc-ntd1.covad.com [172.16.2.76]) by brightmail01.cc-ntd1.covad.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id E1AD117D7 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:37:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ZANEVS03.cc-ntd1.covad.com ([172.16.2.83]) by zanxmb00b.cc-ntd1.covad.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:37:32 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:37:24 -0800 Message-ID: <3BC5D44AB71A754FAE3CA68A7597EABE0F83C2D6@ZANEVS03.cc-ntd1.covad.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-01 Thread-Index: AclUkExFkl357zZAS8u+VB/GigASnAIB4chQAMdwlbA= From: "Fardid, Reza" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2008 19:37:32.0275 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD14DC30:01C95FB5] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [PMOL] [ippm] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-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 Hi, I have a number of comments on the PMOL framework draft: 1.1 Since RAQMON is mentioned, adding an Informative reference to its framework is appropriate. 3.3.2 Since Index is a derived metric, it is best to specify how its components contribute to its measurement beyond a function definition. An index composed of N orthogonal metrics all of which are measurable has more "usefulness" than an index whose measurement is based on a small subset of these N metrics. 3.4.2 (vi) Does measurement point define the measurement domain? If not, then measurement domain (intra-, inter-) is another factor to consider. Security restrictions may prevent inter-domain measurement of certain metrics. 3.4.3 Are both active and passive measurement types within scope? If so, then measurement type is another factor to consider. 3.5 Some metrics and their measurements may be affected by middleboxes. I can think of the following: 3.5.3 Middlebox presence Presence of a middlebox, e.g., proxy, NAT, redirect server, session border controller (SBC), and application layer gateway (ALG) may add variability to or restrict the scope of measurements of a metric. For example, an SBC that does not process RTP loopback packets may block or locally terminate this traffic rather then pass it through to its target. Thanks, Reza Fardid -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:11 AM To: pmol@ietf.org Cc: bmwg@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-01 PMOL WG, cc IPPM and BMWG WGs, This message begins a WG Last Call on the following draft: Title : Framework for Performance Metric Development Author(s) : A. Clark Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-01.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2008-11-02 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-01 .txt There has been discussion of this draft for over a year, mostly on the PMOL list and at meetings. 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 January 2, 2009. thanks for your review and comments, Al Morton co-chair, PMOL WG _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ 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 65E8D3A6914; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:43:43 -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 D96DD3A6918; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:49:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 f1LU-3lEoRoW; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:49:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from panorama.Covad.COM (panorama.covad.com [66.134.72.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE02E3A68E5; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from brightmail01.cc-ntd1.covad.com ([172.16.2.90]) by panorama.Covad.COM (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA07696; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:49:04 -0700 (GMT) X-AuditID: ac10025b-a9ba2bb000000e6f-cb-4946ecf08da4 Received: from zanxmb00a.cc-ntd1.covad.com (zanxmb00a.cc-ntd1.covad.com [172.16.2.75]) by brightmail01.cc-ntd1.covad.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 2402217CF; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:49:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ZANEVS03.cc-ntd1.covad.com ([172.16.2.83]) by zanxmb00a.cc-ntd1.covad.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:49:30 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:48:45 -0800 Message-ID: <3BC5D44AB71A754FAE3CA68A7597EABE0F83C2CF@ZANEVS03.cc-ntd1.covad.com> In-Reply-To: <200812021511.mB2FB1lX013688@alph001.aldc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-01 Thread-Index: AclUkExFkl357zZAS8u+VB/GigASnAIB4chQ References: <200812021511.mB2FB1lX013688@alph001.aldc.att.com> From: "Fardid, Reza" To: "Al Morton" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2008 23:49:30.0416 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5C85B00:01C95F0F] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:43:42 -0800 Cc: bmwg@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [ippm] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-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 Hi, I have a number of comments on the PMOL framework draft: 1.1 Since RAQMON is mentioned, adding an Informative reference to its framework is appropriate. 3.3.2 Since Index is a derived metric, it is best to specify how its components contribute to its measurement beyond a function definition. An index composed of N orthogonal metrics all of which are measurable has more "usefulness" than an index whose measurement is based on a small subset of these N metrics. 3.4.2 (vi) Does measurement point define the measurement domain? If not, then measurement domain (intra-, inter-) is another factor to consider. Security restrictions may prevent inter-domain measurement of certain metrics. 3.4.3 Are both active and passive measurement types within scope? If so, then measurement type is another factor to consider. 3.5 Some metrics and their measurements may be affected by middleboxes. I can think of the following: 3.5.3 Middlebox presence Presence of a middlebox, e.g., proxy, NAT, redirect server, session border controller (SBC), and application layer gateway (ALG) may add variability to or restrict the scope of measurements of a metric. For example, an SBC that does not process RTP loopback packets may block or locally terminate this traffic rather then pass it through to its target. Thanks, Reza Fardid -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:11 AM To: pmol@ietf.org Cc: bmwg@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-01 PMOL WG, cc IPPM and BMWG WGs, This message begins a WG Last Call on the following draft: Title : Framework for Performance Metric Development Author(s) : A. Clark Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-01.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2008-11-02 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-01 .txt There has been discussion of this draft for over a year, mostly on the PMOL list and at meetings. 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 January 2, 2009. thanks for your review and comments, Al Morton co-chair, PMOL WG _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ 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 485DF3A69BB; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:31:52 -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 73E583A6800 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:31:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.325 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24, URI_HEX=0.368, 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 mCNJH0mrUffa for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:31:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4913D3A6960 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:31:50 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1229063502!11732248!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 13018 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2008 06:31:42 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-14.tower-161.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Dec 2008 06:31:42 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mBC6Vgmk026498 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:31:42 -0500 Received: from alph001.aldc.att.com (alph001.aldc.att.com [135.53.7.26]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mBC6VcwN026463 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0500 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 mBC6Vc88018746 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0500 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 mBC6VXam018361 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:31:33 -0500 Message-Id: <200812120631.mBC6VXam018361@alph001.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-114-186.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.114.186](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20081212063131gw1000u615e>; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:31:32 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:31:29 -0500 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [PMOL] Fwd: RE: WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-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 Forwarded at Loki's request... >X-VirusChecked: Checked >X-Env-Sender: ljorgenson@apparentnetworks.com >X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1228755277!24935304!1 >X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- >X-Originating-IP: [209.139.228.52] >X-SpamReason: No, hits=0.5 required=7.0 tests=BODY_RANDOM_LONG >X-AuditID: ac108108-00000e4c00000774-d5-493d514d1d00 >Subject: RE: [PMOL] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-01 >Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:54:35 -0800 >X-MS-Has-Attach: >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >thread-topic: [PMOL] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-01 >thread-index: AclUuJeWbGY6AyloRw+sWjN4K8ltvABneGJgAL/HSyA= >From: "Loki Jorgenson" >To: "Al Morton" >X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== > >Al - any reason why my post to PMOL did not make it onto the list? > >Loki Jorgenson >Apparent Networks >t 604 433 2333 ext 105 >m 604 250-4642 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Loki Jorgenson >Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 16:49 >To: pmol@ietf.org >Cc: Alan Clark >Subject: RE: [PMOL] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-01 > >Pardon my late comments as I have been unavailable for PMOL >participation as of late. > >One request for clarification as well as some tidying of prose. > >1) Is there any value in defining the relationship of this framework to >active or passive measurement methodologies? > >Originally I had thought not. It appeared that this document was >intended to be high-level and agnostic to active or passive >methodologies, and therefore said nothing differentiate between the two. > > >However, there is a reference in Section 6 (Security Considerations) >that states that "security considerations that apply to any active >measurements of live networks are relevant here" with a pointer to >IPPM-developed RFC4656, OWAMP. IPPM thus far limits itself to active >methodologies. This very mildly suggests that this framework is >specific to active techniques. > >In Purpose and Scope, the reference is "for... metrics... that can be >used to characterize traffic on live networks and services" - which >sounds distinctly passive, insofar as "traffic" suggests applications >and not active probing. > >And, various cross-references to other IPPM drafts and RFCs have been >directly incorporated (e.g. compagg in at least Section 3.3). However, >examples to the Telchemy burst-loss algorithm and RFC 4546 may be >applied to either passive or active. > >Further, if passive is included, then security considerations specific >to passive should apply in Section 6 as well (e.g. anonymization). I >don't have a handy sample reference for that. > >Not to make more of it than necessary, but maybe it is worth addressing >explicitly. Perhaps a sentence or two within the Purpose and Scope >section declaring its applicability with regard to common measurement >methodologies. > >2) Awkward sentence: > >Section 3.4.2 (v) > >"Short intervals or frequent sampling provides a richer source of >information that can be helpful in assessing application performance >however can lead to excessive measurement data." > >It is comprehensible but somewhat awkward. Suggest a couple of changes: > >"A SHORT SAMPLING INTERVAL or frequent sampling provides a richer source >of information that MAY be helpful in assessing application performance >BUT MAY ALSO lead to excessive measurement data." > >(Capitals indicate changes, not use of capitals in the document - e.g. >MAY here is not the usual IETF directive convention) > >3) Ambiguous sentence: > >Section 3.4.2 (v) > >"Long measurement or sampling intervals reduce that amount of reported >and collected data however may be insufficient to truly understand >application performance or service quality if this varies with time." > >Semantically challenged although more or less readable. Suggest: > >"Long measurement or sampling intervals reduce THE amount of reported >and collected data SUCH THAT IT may be insufficient to ___ understand >application performance or service quality INSOFAR AS THE MEASURED >QUANTITY MAY vary SIGNIFICANTLY with time." > >4) Awkward sentence: > >Section 3.4.3 (iv) > >"For example, if the metric is a short term running average packet delay >variation (e.g. PPDV as defined in RFC3550) however this value is >reported at intervals of 6-10 seconds this results in a sampling model >which may have limited accuracy if packet delay variation is >non-stationary." > >A very long sentence with missing or awkward conjunction. Suggest: > >"For example, if the metric is a short term running average packet delay >variation (e.g. PPDV as defined in RFC3550) AND (YET) this value is >reported at intervals of 6-10 seconds, THE RESULTING MEASUREMENT may >have limited accuracy WHEN packet delay variation is non-stationary." > >5) Typographic error: > >Section 3.4.5 (Measurement Timing:) > >"... due to time-of-day load network load changes." > >Suggest: > >"... due to time-of-day changes in network load." > > >6) Inconsistent notation: > >Section 3.5.1 > >"... a 10 percent variation ..." (two instances) > >Could using number word and "percent" for all instances or numeric value >and '%'. Suggest: > >"... a 10% variation ..." (two instances) > > >End of Comments > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:11:00 -0500 >From: Al Morton >Subject: [PMOL] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-01 >To: pmol@ietf.org >Cc: bmwg@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org > >PMOL WG, >cc IPPM and BMWG WGs, > >This message begins a WG Last Call on the following draft: > > Title : Framework for Performance Metric Development > Author(s) : A. Clark > Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-01.txt > Pages : 14 > Date : 2008-11-02 > > _______________________________________________ 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 A850828C19B; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:23:42 -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 CC3273A6A3A; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:23:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.821 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.778, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 g5OeQavODDPC; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:23:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544DC3A6A6F; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:23:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LAihc-0005Kw-Vc; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:23:31 +0100 Received: from RIPE-NCC-101045.local (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97622F583; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:23:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4940EA1F.8010308@ripe.net> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:23:27 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <200812021511.mB2FB1lX013688@alph001.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <200812021511.mB2FB1lX013688@alph001.aldc.att.com> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d593a4e53cd119a038b8355985fd096d19 Cc: pmol@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [ippm] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-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 all, Detail (page 7): (b) the speech level of a telephone signal is commonly expressed in dBm0. If the user is presented with: Speech level = -7 dBm0 this is not intuitively understandable, unless the user is a telephony expert. If the metric definition explains that the typical range is -18 to -28 dBm0, a value higher than -18 means the signal may be too high (loud) and less than -28 means that the signal may be too low (quiet), it is much easier to interpret the metric. If the typical range is -18 to -28, then I still have a problem to interpret -7 (outside the range). I'd also add that this is a logarithmic scale. Other than that, yes, I've read this and read it again, it still looks fine. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) _______________________________________________ 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 57BFD3A68E5; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:01:15 -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 558743A6896 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:01:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.272 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.524, 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 iNxQlzJ8rOl6 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:01:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744803A6885 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:01:13 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1228658466!21995394!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 31936 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2008 14:01:07 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-4.tower-121.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Dec 2008 14:01:07 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mB7E168r013092 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:01:06 -0800 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mB7E11t8013046 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:01:01 -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 mB7E101M005725 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:01:00 -0600 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mB7E0tPC005673 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:00:56 -0600 Message-Id: <200812071400.mB7E0tPC005673@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.40.37](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20081207140055gw1000u60ne>; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:00:55 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:00:54 -0500 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [PMOL] Draft minutes from IETF-73 pmol session 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, the draft minutes are available here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/minutes/pmol.html Thanks to Juergen Quittek for taking notes at the meeting! One key Action Item for the entire working group is to continue the discussion of the "Future of PMOL". See the last page or so of the minutes and add your thoughts on the list. corrections, questions, or comments to the list please, by December 19th, 2008. 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 D5C9A3A6A48; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:11:23 -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 383983A68E3; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:11:22 -0800 (PST) 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 YRFY0hR1N3tY; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:11:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0B73A6817; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:11:20 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1228230674!33793729!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 26566 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2008 15:11:14 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Dec 2008 15:11:14 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mB2FBDPs010325; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:11:13 -0500 Received: from alph001.aldc.att.com (alph001.aldc.att.com [135.53.7.26]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mB2FB8sr010249; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:11:09 -0500 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 mB2FB6GL013806; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:11:08 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mB2FB1lX013688; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:11:01 -0500 Message-Id: <200812021511.mB2FB1lX013688@alph001.aldc.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 <20081202151101gw1000u64ue>; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:11:01 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:11:00 -0500 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: bmwg@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] WGLC on pmol-metrics-framework-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 PMOL WG, cc IPPM and BMWG WGs, This message begins a WG Last Call on the following draft: Title : Framework for Performance Metric Development Author(s) : A. Clark Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-01.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2008-11-02 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-01.txt There has been discussion of this draft for over a year, mostly on the PMOL list and at meetings. 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 January 2, 2009. thanks for your review and comments, Al Morton co-chair, 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 7B51B3A69DE; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:57:05 -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 E5B043A6868 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:55:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 jVdTKf2DtAsI for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:55:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mclniron01-ext.bah.com (mclniron01-ext.bah.com [156.80.1.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBC63A6B2C for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:55:42 -0800 (PST) x-SBRS: None X-REMOTE-IP: 156.80.7.152 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,695,1220241600"; d="scan'208,217";a="67270336" Received: from bahmail.bah.com (HELO mclnexbh02.resource.ds.bah.com) ([156.80.7.152]) by mclniron01-int.bah.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2008 10:55:38 -0500 Received: from MCLNEXVS12.resource.ds.bah.com ([156.80.7.217]) by mclnexbh02.resource.ds.bah.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:55:38 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:55:37 -0500 Message-ID: <46E7B21EF4A45749B2432ABDCDE6FEA103E8EAF5@MCLNEXVS12.resource.ds.bah.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: application performance metrics Thread-Index: AclTzUCIphU27aO9R6iQbwegGvGLSQ== From: "Christou, Christos [USA]" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2008 15:55:38.0596 (UTC) FILETIME=[41506A40:01C953CD] Subject: [PMOL] application 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1588372743==" Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1588372743== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C953CD.40FF1CD1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C953CD.40FF1CD1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, =20 Having reviewed the work of this working group and listening to the presentation at the Ops Area open meeting in Minneapolis, I would like to understand from WG participants whether there is interest in expanding the work of this WG to define performance metrics for different application types? =20 =20 In discussing this with Al and others, I wanted to see if participants think this is needed, if it is too difficult, out of scope for the IETF, if the appropriate metrics have already been defined, etc. For example, ITU-T SG 12 has definied G.1080 and G.1081 to define different "QoE" metrics--is this sufficient? =20 =20 It seems like there has been much work over the years on how to measure MOS. However, what is the parameter that is used for other applications? If this has previously been defined, please do include a pointer... =20 Thanks--just wanted to gauge the list's thoughts on this, =20 Chris ------_=_NextPart_001_01C953CD.40FF1CD1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
 
Having = reviewed the=20 work of this working group and listening to the presentation at the Ops = Area=20 open meeting in = Minneapolis, I would=20 like to understand from WG participants whether there is interest in = expanding=20 the work of this WG to define performance metrics for different = application=20 types? 
 
In = discussing this=20 with Al and others, I wanted to see if participants think this is = needed, if it=20 is too difficult, out of scope for the IETF, if the appropriate metrics = have=20 already been defined, etc.  For example, ITU-T SG 12 has definied = G.1080=20 and G.1081 to define different "QoE" metrics--is this sufficient? =20
 
It seems like=20 there has been much work over the years on how to measure MOS.  = However,=20 what is the parameter that is used for other applications?  If this = has=20 previously been defined, please do include a = pointer...
 
Thanks--just wanted=20 to gauge the list's thoughts on=20 this,
 
Chris
------_=_NextPart_001_01C953CD.40FF1CD1-- --===============1588372743== 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 --===============1588372743==--