From owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Aug 09 11:50:19 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E2WMt-0006h1-Pb for psamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:50:19 -0400 Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17013 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:50:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1E2WHl-000E6A-Mn for psamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:45:01 +0000 Received: from [195.101.245.15] (helo=p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1E2WHj-000E5S-AK for psamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:44:59 +0000 Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:43:24 +0200 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: RE: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:43:22 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt Thread-Index: AcWc8kzDKzyG2iUXRVe1/4S9jdOj7gAAgk2w From: "STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN" To: "Al Morton" Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2005 15:43:24.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[13A8B360:01C59CF9] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on psg.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Sender: owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Al, How do we arrange the way the contribution to the composition draft ? As a first step, to prepare the version 01 of the draft I propose to = send you my definitions of composition metrics.=20 Regarding passive metrics, I will propose a definition of a passive one = way delay metric based on the Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Stream = defined in draft-stephan-ippm-multimetrics-01.txt. Regards Emile > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part = de > Maurizio Molina > Envoy=E9=A0: mardi 9 ao=FBt 2005 16:53 > =C0=A0: ippm@ietf.org > Objet=A0: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt >=20 > Hi Al, > some comments on your draft: >=20 > - sec 3.1: > ...This means that the complete path metric may be composed from: >=20 > + the same metric for each sub-path >=20 > + multiple metrics for each sub-path (possibly one that is the = same >=20 > as the complete path metric) >=20 > + a single sub-path metrics that is different from the complete >=20 > path metric >=20 > =3D>Comment: I understand the first example, not the other two. = Shouldn't > we stick, for simplicity, to the first case? >=20 > - sec. 3.2: > For each metric, the applicable circumstances are defined, in terms of > whether the composition: > Requires the same test packets to traverse all sub-paths, or may use > similar packets sent and collected separately in each sub-path. >=20 > =3D> Comment: I think the sentence brings some confusion, mixing > de-composition and composition. The draft should focus on composition > only, and should say it explicitly. Also, by mentioning test packets = you > seem to limit to active measurements, whereas in other parts of the > draft you leave the door open to passive measurement as well. >=20 > - Sec. 4: > One-way Delay Composition Metrics and Statistics >=20 > =3D> Comment: Shouldn't it read "Composition of One-way Delay Metrics = and > Statistics"? >=20 > - Sec. 4.1.8 > "...Therefore, the sub-path measurements may differ from the = performance > experienced by packets on the complete path. Measurements employing > sufficient sub-path address pairs mightproduce bounds on the extent of > this error." >=20 > =3D> Comment: Not sure what you mean by "sufficient sub-path address > pairs". I think this is however a delicate point and Lei's concerns, = if > I understood well, were also about this. Could you clarify? >=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Maurizio >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm -- to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: From owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Aug 16 16:36:26 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E58Ab-0003uX-Ti for psamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:36:26 -0400 Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11350 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1E583V-00008o-HB for psamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:29:05 +0000 Received: from [216.82.255.211] (helo=mail120.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1E57V1-000Mmp-FC for psamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:53:27 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1124221994!5481834!6 X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.15; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [192.128.167.132] Received: (qmail 21873 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2005 19:53:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO attrh2i.attrh.att.com) (192.128.167.132) by server-6.tower-120.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2005 19:53:26 -0000 Received: from custsla.mt.att.com (135.21.14.109) by attrh2i.attrh.att.com (7.2.052) id 42EFDDE1009C69AB; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:53:26 -0400 Received: from acmt.att.com (acmt.mt.att.com [135.16.251.85]) by custsla.mt.att.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id j7GJrPZ20474; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20050816153734.05e9bcb0@custsla.mt.att.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:47:52 -0400 To: "STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN" From: Al Morton Subject: RE: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt Cc: , In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on psg.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Sender: owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi Emile, At 11:43 AM 8/9/2005, STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN wrote: >How do we arrange the way the contribution to the composition draft ? >As a first step, to prepare the version 01 of the draft I propose to send >you my definitions of composition metrics. Let's try that. If you can follow the outline I used for the example that is already in the draft, that would be good. >Regarding passive metrics, I will propose a definition of a passive one >way delay metric based on the Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Stream defined >in draft-stephan-ippm-multimetrics-01.txt. OK. Al -- to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: From owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org Sun Aug 21 18:51:32 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E6yf3-0004lo-AE for psamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:51:32 -0400 Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24070 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1E6yZY-000LpU-8j for psamp-data@psg.com; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:45:48 +0000 Received: from [216.82.255.211] (helo=mail120.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1E6rLT-000Ihs-8s for psamp@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:02:47 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1124636537!5750181!4 X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.15; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [192.128.167.132] Received: (qmail 19567 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2005 15:02:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO attrh2i.attrh.att.com) (192.128.167.132) by server-4.tower-120.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2005 15:02:45 -0000 Received: from custsla.mt.att.com (135.21.14.109) by attrh2i.attrh.att.com (7.2.052) id 42EFDDE101068B03; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:02:45 -0400 Received: from acmt.att.com (acmt.research.att.com [135.70.114.146] (may be forged)) by custsla.mt.att.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id j7LF2hZ22307; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:02:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20050821102607.02220d00@custsla.mt.att.com > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:02:42 -0400 To: roman.krzanowski@verizon.com From: Al Morton Subject: RE: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt Cc: ippm@ietf.org, psamp@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on psg.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_EUDORA, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Sender: owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Roman, Thanks for your comments, see initial responses below: At 06:32 PM 8/17/2005, roman.krzanowski@verizon.com wrote: >Al > >My few thoughts: > >(1) regarding the delay variation metric >would we follow the ITU proposal or 2 point IPPM definition .. what would >be our preference? >My initial take on the ITU delay variation proposal is negative. It is >different from MEF and from what we already use >as well as it is not very practical - my view.. >can we have a discussion on it? We've had some good discussions comparing these metrics on ippm-list (my guess is that the 2001 archive has most of the exchange). It's worthwhile pointing out that when one of the selected packets in the pair (as in RFC3393) is always the packet with the minimum delay, the IPPM and ITU definitions are equivalent. I don't know if the same flexibility exists in the MEF definition. In any case, we have the freedom to consider both in this effort, and I suggest we do just that. Personally, I think we may have more success with compositions of the ITU-T delay histogram. The traditional version of IPPM's adjacent packet pair metric depends on packet spacing, and that may make compositions more challenging, somewhat like reordering. >(2) I can draft the availability and packet loss metric section , is this >OK with you. I am not sure how far you are on it I have some material on Loss already, so start with availability. (I'll send you a template to make things easier.) What IPPM (or ITU) metric will you start with to compose availability? >(3) We need some generic definition of the composite metric itself - my >view: Thanks, I'll look at working these ideas into the draft. Clearly we need a new section containing definitions. I also like some of the definitions composed by Andreas =C5kre Solberg. This topic really seems to be of wide interest... Al -- to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: From owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Aug 24 17:33:34 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E82sI-0002ll-B5 for psamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:33:34 -0400 Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22889 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1E82nE-000O70-5K for psamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:28:20 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1E7zJK-0007xU-Dz for psamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:45:14 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Aug 2005 10:45:14 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,138,1122879600"; d="scan'208"; a="335390584:sNHT149994886" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j7OHiuQW025723; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xmb-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.13]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:45:10 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:45:06 -0400 Message-ID: <9EF3C46DC5D14D44B218FD5E93786CA29BA7E9@xmb-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt Thread-Index: AcWmYf8j95NjJT80Q+yppBv9VATPFgCcLmXg From: "Robert Holley \(rholley\)" To: "Al Morton" , Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2005 17:45:10.0114 (UTC) FILETIME=[929B3C20:01C5A8D3] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on psg.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Sender: owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Al, Roman, I've been (rather passively) monitoring the list's discussions on this = subject. However, I didn't see any responses on the availability metric mentioned = below. Have I missed it, or am I just jumping ahead? Regards Bob=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Al Morton > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:03 AM > To: roman.krzanowski@verizon.com > Cc: psamp@ops.ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt >=20 > Hi Roman, >=20 > Thanks for your comments, see initial responses below: >=20 > At 06:32 PM 8/17/2005, roman.krzanowski@verizon.com wrote: > >Al > > > >My few thoughts: > > > >(1) regarding the delay variation metric > >would we follow the ITU proposal or 2 point IPPM definition=20 > .. what would > >be our preference? > >My initial take on the ITU delay variation proposal is=20 > negative. It is > >different from MEF and from what we already use > >as well as it is not very practical - my view.. > >can we have a discussion on it? >=20 > We've had some good discussions comparing these metrics on ippm-list > (my guess is that the 2001 archive has most of the exchange). > It's worthwhile pointing out that when one of the selected packets in > the pair (as in RFC3393) is always the packet with the minimum delay, > the IPPM and ITU definitions are equivalent. I don't know if the same > flexibility exists in the MEF definition. In any case, we have the > freedom to consider both in this effort, and I suggest we do=20 > just that. >=20 > Personally, I think we may have more success with compositions of the > ITU-T delay histogram. The traditional version of IPPM's > adjacent packet pair metric depends on packet spacing, and > that may make compositions more challenging, somewhat like reordering. >=20 >=20 > >(2) I can draft the availability and packet loss metric=20 > section , is this > >OK with you. I am not sure how far you are on it >=20 > I have some material on Loss already, so start with availability. > (I'll send you a template to make things easier.) > What IPPM (or ITU) metric will you start with to compose availability? >=20 >=20 > >(3) We need some generic definition of the composite metric=20 > itself - my > >view: >=20 > Thanks, I'll look at working these ideas into the draft. =20 > Clearly we need > a new section containing definitions. I also like some of the > definitions composed by Andreas =C5kre Solberg. This topic really = seems > to be of wide interest... >=20 > Al >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org=20 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >=20 -- to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: