From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Jan 3 02:58:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C033321F859D for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:58:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.32 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tLfN0xZ34x7X for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:58:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4102121F8530 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:58:19 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqsBAKreAk+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEggWaGpA9gQWBcgEBAQEDAQEBDx4KNBcEAgEIDQQEAQELBgwLAQYBJh8JCAEBBAESCBqHYJlvmnIEiyxjBJpxjEY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,449,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="322429973" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2012 05:58:18 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2012 05:45:24 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:58:16 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] PMOL Mail List Thread-Index: Acy+MMwKYae1tqccRa6kphIkjJ/yogL1V+7A References: From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "pmol mailing list" Subject: Re: [PMOL] PMOL Mail List X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:58:20 -0000 Hi,=20 It is now soon after the new year, and I am proceeding as announced with the changes in the list. The membership of the list is from now restricted to the members of the Performance Metrics Directorate. Those folks who are not members of the Directorate and would like to comment this decision and action, please write me directly.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 11:30 AM > To: pmol mailing list > Subject: [PMOL] PMOL Mail List >=20 > Hi, >=20 > As you must have seen in the announcement posted on Saturday the > Performance Metrics Directorate was formed as described by RFC 6390. >=20 > The mail list pmol@ietf.org will become the mail list of the > directorate. This means that it will be a closed list accessed by and > accessible only for the members of the directorate. If there are any > concerns with this course of action please share them in the next > couple > of weeks, otherwise I will change the properties of the list and the > membership soon after the new year. >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Jan 3 03:22:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A6A21F84BA for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 03:22:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.332 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WfHEAg2Ziuan for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 03:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22CC21F84B4 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 03:22:17 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AloQAFbkAk+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEggWqW4EFgXQBAQMSHgpRARUVBgwMB1cBBBsanTmEE5p2iyxjBJpxjEY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,449,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="284454892" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2012 06:22:16 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2012 06:09:20 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:22:14 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: PMOL list changes completed Thread-Index: AczKCfF4Os7JaVICTwGDguMeiPlzCA== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "pmol mailing list" Subject: [PMOL] PMOL list changes completed X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:22:18 -0000 Hi,=20 I have completed the announced changes that are transforming the PMOL mail list to the mail list to be used from now on by the Performance Metrics directorate. Or so I think. If you received this mail you should be a member of the said directorate. If you are not, please let me know. Regards, Dan From acmorton@att.com Mon Jan 16 06:47:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EABDB21F8609 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:47:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.067 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.067 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.729, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D5UUSPAI80x8 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:47:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CF521F8501 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:46:46 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1326725204!58820550!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 32178 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2012 14:46:44 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jan 2012 14:46:44 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0GElDqW010565 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:47:13 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0GEl9R2010460 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:47:10 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:46:31 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GEkV9f010815 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:46:31 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GEkPPo010569 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:46:25 -0500 Message-Id: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.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 <20120116144435gw100e4lfre>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:44:36 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:47:25 -0500 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:47:02 -0000 As this new year goes into full swing, I'd like to offer some thoughts on how we might operate as a Directorate and hear from others. As our web page says: "RFC 6390 is used as a reference for the technical and process issues." Have your copy handy when reviewing a draft. A lot of interactions may be streamlined by pointing the authors to 6390, and mentioning that it is a BCP. I feel that our reviews should be *early* in the draft development process, and that no performance-related draft should start IETF Last Call without previous review against 6390, unless it truly slipped by us and other folks who know about the Directorate. There are two ways we can collect drafts for review: - WG Chairs and ADs can/should suggest drafts to us - Directorate Members will see drafts, hear about drafts with performance work, etc. We are the eyes and ears of the Directorate. We all have friends working in other areas of IETF, let them know what we're looking for. I suggest to split the early review into two categories: 1. Quick Scan - If you find a draft, do a quick scan or suggest that others take a look with a message to pmol-list. Finding a draft does not mean that you will be designated to do a review (see below). 2. WG Candidate/Chartered Item - When a draft appears to have enough value and interest to become a WG item, or the WG Chairs involved recommend a Performance Metrics Directorate review on their own, then we do a more complete review against 6390. If these categories are useful, then I'd like to suggest that *two* reviewers are assigned to WG Candidate/Chartered drafts and they follow the draft after early review. This may mean looking at the draft again in WG or IETF Last Call, assuming it goes that far. I suggest 2 reviewers while we're all new at this, and to help ensure that one is still around years later when Last Calls are done. All drafts identified, quick scans, and reviews should be sent to the pmol-list and the authors (and possibly the relevant WG chairs) let us all know what you think, Al http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html From yaakov_s@rad.com Mon Jan 16 10:05:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D5421F86A8 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:05:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.398, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JVGs8g5xqAFz for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:05:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay01.rad.co.il [62.0.23.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0844021F86A0 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:05:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay01 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jan 2012 19:55:24 +0200 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:05:14 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: Al Morton , "pmol@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate Thread-Index: AQHM1F3BV/9SKCxGK0WCqQ/NRthgw5YPOadw Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:05:13 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB17E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.115.243.62] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:05:18 -0000 Al and all,=20 Perhaps I am the only one who didn't know about this work, but I just recently saw draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 . While it deals with packet loss and delay measurement, it doesn't reference any of the IPPM work. Indeed, there are no "Type-P" measurements (since individual packets are no= t identified),=20 and the measured values do not necessarily directly map to our usual defini= tions=20 (e.g., when color flips occurs every N packets, the averaging is per number= of packets, not periodic sampling). Please note IPR disclosure 1570 which cites European applications=20 EP-068189(2008) on packet loss and EP-067991(2009) on delay measurement,=20 but many other applications with the same assignee seem to be relevant, including the more recent EP-066955(2010) and EP-063010(2011). I think this is a good draft for early review, and would like to hear discussion in the IPPM WG (before it is possibly clo= sed down). Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al = Morton Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 16:47 To: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate As this new year goes into full swing, I'd like to offer some thoughts on how we might operate as a Directorate and hear from others. As our web page says: "RFC 6390 is used as a reference for the technical and process issues." Have your copy handy when reviewing a draft. A lot of interactions may be streamlined by pointing the authors to 6390, and mentioning that it is a BCP. I feel that our reviews should be *early* in the draft development process, and that no performance-related draft should start IETF Last Call without previous review against 6390, unless it truly slipped by us and other folks who know about the Directorate. There are two ways we can collect drafts for review: - WG Chairs and ADs can/should suggest drafts to us - Directorate Members will see drafts, hear about drafts with performance work, etc. We are the eyes and ears of the Directorate. We all have friend= s working in other areas of IETF, let them know what we're looking for. I suggest to split the early review into two categories: 1. Quick Scan - If you find a draft, do a quick scan or suggest that others take a look with a message to pmol-list. Finding a draft does not mean that you will be designated to do a review (see below). 2. WG Candidate/Chartered Item - When a draft appears to have enough value and interest to become a WG item, or the WG Chairs involved recommend a Performance Metrics Directorate review on their own, then we do a more complete review against 6390. If these categories are useful, then I'd like to suggest that *two* reviewers are assigned to WG Candidate/Chartered drafts and they follow the draft after early review. This may mean looking at the draft again in WG or IETF Last Call, assuming it goes that far. I suggest 2 reviewers while we're all new at this, and to help ensure that one is still around years later when Last Calls are done. All drafts identified, quick scans, and reviews should be sent to the pmol-list and the authors (and possibly the relevant WG chairs) let us all know what you think, Al http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From acmorton@att.com Mon Jan 16 11:05:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7172721F86CB for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:05:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.292, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mF1FPv8OCy8a for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:05:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E14A721F86C4 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:05:32 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1326740730!58873055!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 20647 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2012 19:05:31 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jan 2012 19:05:31 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0GJ60sk014148 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:06:00 -0500 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0GJ5vao014096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:05:57 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:05:13 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GJ5Cuc008154 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:05:12 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GJ55ji007595 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:05:05 -0500 Message-Id: <201201161905.q0GJ55ji007595@alpd052.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 <20120116190316gw100e4lh9e>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:03:16 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:06:04 -0500 To: Yaakov Stein , "pmol@ietf.org" From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB17E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co. il> References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB17E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: [PMOL] draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 [was: Thoughts on how we operate...] X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:05:33 -0000 Hi Yaakov, By jumping on the list with an early review, I'll assume you agree with suggested methods of operation - that's good. I agree this is a candidate for early review: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 In fact, I commented on a presentation of the 00 version in the opsawg session (in Prague last year, IIRC). I made some fairly serious comments at the mike, and it will be interesting to see if the latest version takes any of this into account. It looks as though the 01 draft adds delay and delay variation measurement details. The Title: "A packet-based method for passive performance monitoring" may explain why this ended up in opsawg last year. IPPM's charter has been limited to active measurement, and although there were suggestions to include passive during the previous re-chartering discussions, no one spoke-up at the critical point and passive measurement was excluded. It would also be good to know where this draft stands in opsawg. I'll inquire about that. Al At 01:05 PM 1/16/2012, Yaakov Stein wrote: >Al and all, > >Perhaps I am the only one who didn't know about this work, >but I just recently saw draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 . > >While it deals with packet loss and delay measurement, >it doesn't reference any of the IPPM work. >Indeed, there are no "Type-P" measurements (since individual packets >are not identified), >and the measured values do not necessarily directly map to our usual >definitions >(e.g., when color flips occurs every N packets, the averaging is per >number of packets, not periodic sampling). > >Please note IPR disclosure 1570 which cites European applications >EP-068189(2008) on packet loss and EP-067991(2009) on delay measurement, >but many other applications with the same assignee seem to be relevant, >including the more recent EP-066955(2010) and EP-063010(2011). > >I think this is a good draft for early review, >and would like to hear discussion in the IPPM WG (before it is >possibly closed down). > >Y(J)S From yaakov_s@rad.com Tue Jan 17 00:08:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CD021F855A for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:08:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p-ZbktqFx0VV for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:08:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay02.rad.co.il [62.0.23.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C8A21F854F for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:08:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay02 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 17 Jan 2012 10:02:06 +0200 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:08:14 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: Al Morton , "pmol@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 [was: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate...] Thread-Index: AQHM1IHdeekiSS27AESn4q43vSHM8JYQNBSQ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:08:13 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB5D8@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB17E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <201201161905.q0GJ556x007594@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201201161905.q0GJ556x007594@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.115.243.62] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PMOL] draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 [was: Thoughts on how we operate...] X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:08:19 -0000 Al I understand that it doesn't fit IPPM, being a passive measurement techniqu= e. However, I suggested IPPM to discuss it in order to understand the relation= ship between what is measures ("packet loss" "delay" "delay variation") and the careful definitions of the same terms that have been made by IPPM. I happen to like the basic idea of the technique, but am a bit worried about the IPR encumberments. And yes, I agree with your suggested modus operandi. Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com]=20 Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 21:06 To: Yaakov Stein; pmol@ietf.org Subject: draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 [was: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate= ...] Hi Yaakov, By jumping on the list with an early review, I'll assume you agree with suggested methods of operation - that's good. I agree this is a candidate for early review: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 In fact, I commented on a presentation of the 00 version in the opsawg session (in Prague last year, IIRC). I made some fairly serious comments at the mike, and it will be interesting to see if the latest version takes any of this into account. It looks as though the 01 draft adds delay and delay variation measurement details. The Title: "A packet-based method for passive performance monitoring" may explain why this ended up in opsawg last year. IPPM's charter has been limited to active measurement, and although there were suggestions to include passive during the previous re-chartering discussions, no one spoke-up at the critical point and passive measurement was excluded. It would also be good to know where this draft stands in opsawg. I'll inquire about that. Al At 01:05 PM 1/16/2012, Yaakov Stein wrote: >Al and all, > >Perhaps I am the only one who didn't know about this work, >but I just recently saw draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 . > >While it deals with packet loss and delay measurement, >it doesn't reference any of the IPPM work. >Indeed, there are no "Type-P" measurements (since individual packets=20 >are not identified), >and the measured values do not necessarily directly map to our usual=20 >definitions >(e.g., when color flips occurs every N packets, the averaging is per=20 >number of packets, not periodic sampling). > >Please note IPR disclosure 1570 which cites European applications >EP-068189(2008) on packet loss and EP-067991(2009) on delay measurement, >but many other applications with the same assignee seem to be relevant, >including the more recent EP-066955(2010) and EP-063010(2011). > >I think this is a good draft for early review, >and would like to hear discussion in the IPPM WG (before it is=20 >possibly closed down). > >Y(J)S From acmorton@att.com Tue Jan 17 05:53:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37CE21F84CD for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:53:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.943 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.943 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.605, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBIf2KGqAjGo for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:53:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2275121F84F9 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:53:29 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1326808407!10945855!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 11241 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2012 13:53:28 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-2.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 17 Jan 2012 13:53:28 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0HDrvkA025518 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:53:57 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0HDrtUL025489 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:53:55 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:53:19 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0HDrIvd020421 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:53:18 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0HDrCF1020275 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:53:12 -0500 Message-Id: <201201171353.q0HDrCF1020275@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-143-235.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.143.235](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120117135121gw100e4lkre>; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:51:21 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.143.235] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:54:10 -0500 To: Yaakov Stein , "pmol@ietf.org" From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB5D8@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co. il> References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB17E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <201201161905.q0GJ556x007594@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB5D8@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: Re: [PMOL] draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 [was: Thoughts on how we operate...] X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:53:30 -0000 At 03:08 AM 1/17/2012, Yaakov Stein wrote:
...I understand that it doesn't fit IPPM, being a passive measurement technique.
However, I suggested IPPM to discuss it in order to understand the relationship
between what is measures ("packet loss" "delay" "delay variation")
and the careful definitions of the same terms that have been made by IPPM.

I agree with that, in fact there are several passive methods in development
that I know about. There's a noticeable amount of metric standardization
projects around, and we (the Directorate) could help the IETF community by
suggesting ways to get it organized.

I happen to like the basic idea of the technique,
but am a bit worried about the IPR encumberments.
Sadly yes, we mostly avoided this for a long time in IETF measurements.
Many of us could have imposed IPR but didn't, preferring that everyone
measure the same way without worrying about rights, too.

still waiting for word from opsawg,
Al


From janovak@cisco.com Fri Jan 20 08:54:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8ACA21F867E for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:54:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCm71cYtSZKc for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:54:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AF821F863B for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:54:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=janovak@cisco.com; l=2894; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1327078457; x=1328288057; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=OvNy1xwb24ySBlQ6gOqn/MdQPtPJGyQvgGeC2isvh70=; b=VSOKAUXfilKhTXEGXZawTu55EV5vROnuLCgm/39r6Dhe6zHFsr5dlusv wg/ZADg/UoCTDeRF1nLBjKlnr6EAGcpFsaHMyleZdw/KswEdjfzRizWvM J3KNEKgeOk3QPh53oHqK5bW2JiFI2XTMEmjkKqYDcz7QnfijVhSmes5j8 c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAM6bGU+Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABDrgmBBYFyAQEBBAEBAQ8BHQo0FwQCAQgOAwQBAQsGFwEGASYfCQgBAQQBEggBGYdimhQBnjyLQ2MEp2U X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,543,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="64208169" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2012 16:54:15 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0KGsEiM011834; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:54:14 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-212.cisco.com ([144.254.75.23]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:54:14 +0100 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:54:13 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate Thread-Index: AczUXb+G1s9io2RFSv2tR2UqAmvJKQDNjRfg References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> From: "Jan Novak (janovak)" To: "Al Morton" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2012 16:54:14.0698 (UTC) FILETIME=[240EC0A0:01CCD794] Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:54:21 -0000 Al, There is not much to add to your "mode of operation" Just how to capture the incoming drafts - being on ietf-announce I see the file names but unless there is already performance there, I wouldn't notice ... Jan The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young ....=20 and the strong envy them. Dr. Johnson -----Original Message----- From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton Sent: 16 January 2012 14:47 To: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate As this new year goes into full swing, I'd like to offer some thoughts on how we might operate as a Directorate and hear from others. As our web page says: "RFC 6390 is used as a reference for the technical and process issues." Have your copy handy when reviewing a draft. A lot of interactions may be streamlined by pointing the authors to 6390, and mentioning that it is a BCP. I feel that our reviews should be *early* in the draft development process, and that no performance-related draft should start IETF Last Call without previous review against 6390, unless it truly slipped by us and other folks who know about the Directorate. There are two ways we can collect drafts for review: - WG Chairs and ADs can/should suggest drafts to us - Directorate Members will see drafts, hear about drafts with performance work, etc. We are the eyes and ears of the Directorate. We all have friends working in other areas of IETF, let them know what we're looking for. I suggest to split the early review into two categories: 1. Quick Scan - If you find a draft, do a quick scan or suggest that others take a look with a message to pmol-list. Finding a draft does not mean that you will be designated to do a review (see below). 2. WG Candidate/Chartered Item - When a draft appears to have enough value and interest to become a WG item, or the WG Chairs involved recommend a Performance Metrics Directorate review on their own, then we do a more complete review against 6390. If these categories are useful, then I'd like to suggest that *two* reviewers are assigned to WG Candidate/Chartered drafts and they follow the draft after early review. This may mean looking at the draft again in WG or IETF Last Call, assuming it goes that far. I suggest 2 reviewers while we're all new at this, and to help ensure that one is still around years later when Last Calls are done. All drafts identified, quick scans, and reviews should be sent to the pmol-list and the authors (and possibly the relevant WG chairs) let us all know what you think, Al http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Jan 23 07:49:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D7C21F871E for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:49:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.329 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ATKsWxSEAcBw for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD3621F8718 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:49:30 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFABiBHU/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABDrieBBYFyAQEBAQMBAQEPHgo0FwQCAQgNBAQBAQsGDAsBBgEmHwkIAQEEARIIARmHYp0Zmw+LQ2MEmxKMVg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,556,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="325966222" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2012 10:49:29 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2012 10:44:26 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:49:26 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate Thread-Index: AczUXb+G1s9io2RFSv2tR2UqAmvJKQDNjRfgAJSbqiA= References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Jan Novak (janovak)" , "Al Morton" , Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:49:31 -0000 Probably going beyond the name of the document is desirable - looking into the content for strings like 'performance metrics', 'performance monitoring', etc. could reveal things that are missed by just scanning the titles.=20 Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Jan Novak (janovak) > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:54 PM > To: Al Morton; pmol@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate >=20 > Al, >=20 > There is not much to add to your "mode of operation" > Just how to capture the incoming drafts - being on > ietf-announce I see the file names but unless there is > already performance there, I wouldn't notice ... >=20 > Jan >=20 > The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young .... > and the strong envy them. > Dr. Johnson >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Al Morton > Sent: 16 January 2012 14:47 > To: pmol@ietf.org > Subject: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate >=20 > As this new year goes into full swing, I'd like to offer some > thoughts on how we might operate as a Directorate and > hear from others. >=20 > As our web page says: "RFC 6390 is used as a reference for the > technical > and process issues." Have your copy handy when reviewing a draft. > A lot of interactions may be streamlined by pointing the authors to > 6390, > and mentioning that it is a BCP. >=20 > I feel that our reviews should be *early* in the draft development > process, and that no performance-related draft should start IETF Last > Call > without previous review against 6390, unless it truly slipped by us > and other folks who know about the Directorate. >=20 > There are two ways we can collect drafts for review: >=20 > - WG Chairs and ADs can/should suggest drafts to us >=20 > - Directorate Members will see drafts, hear about drafts with > performance > work, etc. We are the eyes and ears of the Directorate. We all have > friends > working in other areas of IETF, let them know what we're looking for. >=20 > I suggest to split the early review into two categories: >=20 > 1. Quick Scan - If you find a draft, do a quick scan or suggest that > others take a look with a message to pmol-list. Finding a draft does > not mean that you will be designated to do a review (see below). >=20 > 2. WG Candidate/Chartered Item - When a draft appears to have enough > value > and interest to become a WG item, or the WG Chairs involved recommend a > Performance Metrics Directorate review on their own, then we do a more > complete review against 6390. >=20 > If these categories are useful, then I'd like to suggest that *two* > reviewers are assigned to WG Candidate/Chartered drafts and they follow > the draft after early review. This may mean looking at the draft again > in WG or IETF Last Call, assuming it goes that far. I suggest 2 > reviewers > while we're all new at this, and to help ensure that one is still > around > years later when Last Calls are done. >=20 > All drafts identified, quick scans, and reviews should be sent to the > pmol-list and the authors (and possibly the relevant WG chairs) >=20 > let us all know what you think, > Al > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 From acmorton@att.com Mon Jan 23 09:15:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722E521F8664 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:15:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.407 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.025, BAYES_40=-0.185, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NLxyV+15fDE9 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:15:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010FF21F865F for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:15:28 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1327338927!59988326!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 19839 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2012 17:15:28 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 23 Jan 2012 17:15:28 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0NHFva3031366 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:15:57 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0NHFsPH031283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:15:54 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:15:08 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0NHF7un025573 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:15:08 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0NHF0gJ025234 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:15:01 -0500 Message-Id: <201201231715.q0NHF0gJ025234@alpd052.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 <20120123171305gw100e4ljoe>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:13:06 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:16:00 -0500 To: Yaakov Stein , "pmol@ietf.org" From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <201201171353.q0HDrCF1020275@alpd052.aldc.att.com> References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB17E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <201201161905.q0GJ556x007594@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042CB5D8@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <201201171353.q0HDrCF1020275@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Subject: Re: [PMOL] draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-01 [was: Thoughts on how we operate...] X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:15:29 -0000 At 08:54 AM 1/17/2012, Al Morton wrote: >...still waiting for word from opsawg, >Al I just heard from Melinda Shore, the draft has not been active recently (01 update was not mentioned on the list). If the authors re-appear (because we're meeting in Europe next time?) they'll let us know. Al