Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INy60-0000q1-6Y; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:50:36 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1INy5y-0000pw-QV for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:50:34 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INy5t-0000p1-RD for pmol@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:50:29 -0400 Received: from mail40.messagelabs.com ([216.82.245.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INy5t-0004BP-Cr for pmol@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:50:29 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: daryl@level3.net X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-40.messagelabs.com!1187819420!41144408!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [209.245.18.106] Received: (qmail 24046 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2007 21:50:21 -0000 Received: from unknown.level3.net (HELO f10bb8-10) (209.245.18.106) by server-8.tower-40.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 2007 21:50:21 -0000 Received: from montag.eng.level3.com (montag.eng.l3.com [10.1.68.57]) by f10bb8-10 (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC47C4C89 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:50:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PMOL] What new work? From: Daryl Malas To: pmol@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1186498878.1297.171.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> References: <1186498878.1297.171.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:54:31 -0600 Message-Id: <1187819671.1297.201.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 (2.6.0-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Based on no responses to the list, I think we may have our answer. --Daryl On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 09:01 -0600, Daryl Malas wrote: > This question has come up a few times. For the sake of understanding a > potential charter of the working group, what valid problems exist in the > industry today that require this potential WG to address? > > Before any solution can be written, a problem must be identified. If we > can understand what problems we think exist, perhaps we can argue > whether we think they are truly problems or not. In addition, we can > post the problems to the actual protocol WG groups as well. > > For example... > > (This is not a REAL example, I just made it up...any actual correlation > to a real problem is coincidental.) > > HTTP Performance Metrics > > The problem is no HTTP metrics exist today, so individuals are faced > with best effort expectations. Also, no hosting companies have the > ability to understand how well their web applications are performing > based on the number of requests. > > Okay....pretty simple....Draft idea and simple problem statement. > > --Daryl > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQz5-0006Ve-E2; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:28:35 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQz3-0006VA-Oh for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:28:33 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQz3-0006V0-Dh for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:28:33 -0400 Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com ([216.82.245.131]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQz3-00049f-1K for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:28:33 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1186500511!7170660!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 17848 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2007 15:28:32 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-6.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Aug 2007 15:28:32 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l77FSVRf010224 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:28:31 -0400 Received: from mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com [144.155.224.139]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l77FSSp4010198 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:28:29 -0400 Received: from sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l77FSSnm011239 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:28:28 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l77FSMi5010662 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:28:22 -0400 Message-Id: <200708071528.l77FSMi5010662@mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (acmt.mt.att.com[135.16.251.73](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20070807152822gw10010gd1e>; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:28:22 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:27:36 -0400 To: Daryl Malas , pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Subject: Re: [PMOL] What new work? In-Reply-To: <1186498878.1297.171.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> References: <1186498878.1297.171.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Cc: X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org At 11:01 AM 8/7/2007, Daryl Malas wrote: >This question has come up a few times. For the sake of understanding a >potential charter of the working group, what valid problems exist in the >industry today that require this potential WG to address? > >Before any solution can be written, a problem must be identified. If we >can understand what problems we think exist, perhaps we can argue >whether we think they are truly problems or not. In addition, we can >post the problems to the actual protocol WG groups as well. Right. Also, to deal with the question on practical applicability, the description of the problem should specify *who* will use the performance metrics, and what they will use them for. The question of "Who is the Audience?" was raised last Summer for the SIP PM draft, and again at the BOF for PMs in general. The vetted problem statement, scope, motivation and applicability might be captured in the early sections of the draft itself. This is the typical approach in some PM WGs now. Al _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQhf-0007XU-K9; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:10:35 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQhc-0007VA-3s for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:10:32 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQhb-0007Tw-Fi for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:10:31 -0400 Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.195]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQhb-0003LR-2i for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:10:31 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1186499427!17872276!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 22188 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2007 15:10:27 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-6.tower-121.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Aug 2007 15:10:27 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l77FARZs015372 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:10:27 -0400 Received: from mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com [144.155.224.139]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l77FAOrb014913 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:10:24 -0400 Received: from sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l77FAObu007614 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:10:24 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l77FAKwl007099 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:10:21 -0400 Message-Id: <200708071510.l77FAKwl007099@mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (acmt.mt.att.com[135.16.251.73](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20070807151020gw10010gcpe>; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:10:20 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:09:34 -0400 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "Daryl Malas" From: Al Morton Subject: RE: [PMOL] What is a Directorate? In-Reply-To: References: <1186437589.1297.117.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org At 10:00 AM 8/7/2007, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >You may be correct, especially taking into account your own experience >with the sip-performance metrics draft. However here is a concern on the >other side of the argument that was expressed by some of the IAB members >who participated in the BOF. Would not a permanent Working Group lower >the threshold of approval of new work and encourage the apparition of a >number of RFCs without immediate practical applicability? This is a valid point of concern for any WG, but we should recognize that the performance community is a tough audience, at least that's my IETF experience. > ...The point is >that whatever format this work will take we should be careful to >establish firm criteria to start new work, that include starting new >work only in coordination or even only at the request of the working >group that is responsible upon the technology or protocol to be >measured. I too was worried that additional formalized performance work might prompt an onslaught of proposals. So, the WG description in the BOF proposal anticipated this problem and dealt with it head-on: "...The WG would partner with a specific protocol development WG whenever possible, to take advantage of willing experts and ensure that the metrics developed are both appropriate and relevant. Last, the WG would create a BCP document that would provide guidance for development of IETF APM metrics documents, including the requirement to include relevant protocol experts in the development. The BCP may also define the process to adopt new work in the APM WG, where a unique feature could be that proposals would be vetted in the relevant protocol WG before reaching the APM WG. The APM WG would avoid overlap with existing SDOs, and seek IESG approval for each new Metric RFC before the WG spends any resources on it." I've since learned that the memo we called a "BCP" may be more appropriately categorized as a Framework for Performance Metrics Development. In any case, I think we've anticipated this problem. Al _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQVg-0004g8-SM; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:58:12 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQVf-0004fk-Lw for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:58:11 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQVf-0004fb-CL for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:58:11 -0400 Received: from hme1.july.broomfield1.level3.net ([209.245.18.8] helo=f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQVe-0006cT-5R for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:58:11 -0400 Received: from montag.eng.level3.com (montag.eng.l3.com [10.1.68.57]) by f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l77Ew7RI025420 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:58:07 GMT Subject: [PMOL] What new work? From: Daryl Malas To: pmol@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:01:18 -0600 Message-Id: <1186498878.1297.171.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 (2.6.0-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org This question has come up a few times. For the sake of understanding a potential charter of the working group, what valid problems exist in the industry today that require this potential WG to address? Before any solution can be written, a problem must be identified. If we can understand what problems we think exist, perhaps we can argue whether we think they are truly problems or not. In addition, we can post the problems to the actual protocol WG groups as well. For example... (This is not a REAL example, I just made it up...any actual correlation to a real problem is coincidental.) HTTP Performance Metrics The problem is no HTTP metrics exist today, so individuals are faced with best effort expectations. Also, no hosting companies have the ability to understand how well their web applications are performing based on the number of requests. Okay....pretty simple....Draft idea and simple problem statement. --Daryl _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQMS-00089k-E9; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:48:40 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQMQ-000881-Tn for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:48:38 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQMQ-00087F-EN for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:48:38 -0400 Received: from hme1.july.broomfield1.level3.net ([209.245.18.8] helo=f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQMO-0006Fe-NV for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:48:38 -0400 Received: from montag.eng.level3.com (montag.eng.l3.com [10.1.68.57]) by f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l77EmVRI023236; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:48:32 GMT Subject: RE: [PMOL] What is a Directorate? From: Daryl Malas To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" In-Reply-To: References: <1186437589.1297.117.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:51:42 -0600 Message-Id: <1186498303.1297.160.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 (2.6.0-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org I find 100% validity in the concern, and it should be carefully considered prior to the establishment of any working group...including this one. In many ways, I think it is a catch 22. There are risks and advantages to both sides. I think I would then spend time investigating the potential scope of work, and then validating it's need in the industry. Perhaps then, we can establish better perspective on what to do; however, how long will that take?! Perhaps another option would be to immediately establish a Directorate, while further investigation occurs to determine if a WG is warranted. --Daryl On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 16:00 +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > You may be correct, especially taking into account your own experience > with the sip-performance metrics draft. However here is a concern on the > other side of the argument that was expressed by some of the IAB members > who participated in the BOF. Would not a permanent Working Group lower > the threshold of approval of new work and encourage the apparition of a > number of RFCs without immediate practical applicability? The point is > that whatever format this work will take we should be careful to > establish firm criteria to start new work, that include starting new > work only in coordination or even only at the request of the working > group that is responsible upon the technology or protocol to be > measured. > > Dan > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daryl Malas [mailto:daryl@level3.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:00 AM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Cc: pmol@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [PMOL] What is a Directorate? > > > > Dan, > > > > Thanks for this additional perspective. My concern with the > > Directorate is purely the requirement for agenda time to > > fully hash out this type of work in other WG's. Their > > agenda's and charter's are already very full in some cases, > > so the drafts would not receive the attention or priority to > > supersede protocol enhancements or bug fixes. > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, this may only be my perception. > > > > --Daryl > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIPcO-0000gU-8p; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:01:04 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IIPcM-0000gO-QZ for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:01:02 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIPcM-0000gF-GO for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:01:02 -0400 Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.71.100]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIPcL-0007Ga-Ul for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:01:02 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2007 10:01:01 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.19,229,1183348800"; d="scan'208"; a="45395118:sNHT7740516" 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 Subject: RE: [PMOL] What is a Directorate? Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:00:14 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1186437589.1297.117.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] What is a Directorate? Thread-Index: AcfYdNXF7DXqi8fcSpm/kDnxYbC80AAhMEtw References: <1186437589.1297.117.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Daryl Malas" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org You may be correct, especially taking into account your own experience with the sip-performance metrics draft. However here is a concern on the other side of the argument that was expressed by some of the IAB members who participated in the BOF. Would not a permanent Working Group lower the threshold of approval of new work and encourage the apparition of a number of RFCs without immediate practical applicability? The point is that whatever format this work will take we should be careful to establish firm criteria to start new work, that include starting new work only in coordination or even only at the request of the working group that is responsible upon the technology or protocol to be measured.=20 Dan =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Daryl Malas [mailto:daryl@level3.net]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:00 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: pmol@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PMOL] What is a Directorate? >=20 > Dan, >=20 > Thanks for this additional perspective. My concern with the=20 > Directorate is purely the requirement for agenda time to=20 > fully hash out this type of work in other WG's. Their=20 > agenda's and charter's are already very full in some cases,=20 > so the drafts would not receive the attention or priority to=20 > supersede protocol enhancements or bug fixes. >=20 > Correct me if I am wrong, this may only be my perception. >=20 > --Daryl >=20 _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIPPq-0001Eb-RF; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:48:06 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IIPPp-0001ER-DP for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:48:05 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIPPl-0001Dy-Ni for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:48:01 -0400 Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100] helo=nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIPPk-00025v-D9 for pmol@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:48:01 -0400 Received: from 12.140.64.135.in-addr.arpa (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2007 09:47:59 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.19,229,1183348800"; d="scan'208"; a="46539505:sNHT7363920" 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 Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group... Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:47:54 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1186439645.1297.151.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Should establish working group... Thread-Index: AcfYeXhPra48Jdh+TvaclsFsy+fxagAf5qrw References: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> <1186439645.1297.151.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Daryl Malas" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Thanks.=20 On a separate note (or not) I also believe that this is useful work and I plan to push it ahead together with Cullen as AD-sponsored if no framework is created in the near future.=20 Dan =20 =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Daryl Malas [mailto:daryl@level3.net]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:34 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: pmol@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group... >=20 > Some background and context regarding my draft... >=20 _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIB6M-00036U-Sp; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:31:02 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IIB6L-00036P-TF for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:31:01 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIB6L-00036B-I3 for pmol@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:31:01 -0400 Received: from hme1.july.broomfield1.level3.net ([209.245.18.8] helo=f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIB6K-0007ef-Sn for pmol@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:31:01 -0400 Received: from montag.eng.level3.com (montag.eng.l3.com [10.1.68.57]) by f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l76MUuRI027875; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 22:30:57 GMT Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group... From: Daryl Malas To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" In-Reply-To: References: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:34:05 -0600 Message-Id: <1186439645.1297.151.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 (2.6.0-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Some background and context regarding my draft... I introduced the draft to the SIPPING WG a year ago. It received good feedback on the mailing list; however, more feedback through direct email. I requested agenda time to review it with the SIPPING WG last summer. After I introduced it, the WG chairs took a hum as to the interest in it. There was overwhelming interest in the topic, but the WG chair lamented there was a very long queue of WG items; and, this was not likely to make the list any time soon. Also, there were questions over where the draft should truly live, options included IPPM, BMWG, and SIPPING. I narrowed the scope and separated the work from what was going on in the BMWG group (SIP Benchmarking). It, then, fell outside of it's charter and that of IPPM (back to SIPPING). I continued to make revisions and presented on those updates at the SIPPING WG. Over and over again, there was overwhelming interest and discussions at the microphone. In Prague, a couple of people came to the microphone and expressed concern over when this draft would move forward as a WG item. A number of people have voiced the desire for this draft to become an RFC; however, there was concern the SIPPING WG did not have the level of expertise to review it. I simply asked the question if the SIPPING WG wanted me to continue to update the draft. I was told yes, and also asked to continue with it by the AD (Area Director). At this point, Cullen Jennnings, RAI co-AD, expressed he would conference with WG chairs from various groups and determine where the draft would ultimately reside. It was at this point, the idea of a new WG or Directorate came to light. After discussing it, Cullen decided he would submit the draft as an AD sponsored draft. I updated the draft with the latest set of feedback and sent it to him and the SIPPING WG. The draft then stalled again, because the idea of this BOF was resurrected or created. Still, the draft sits awaiting the outcome of this. An additional note, after the BOF several people came up and again voiced concern of WHEN this draft would move forward. Hopefully, this provides some additional context. Thanks...--Daryl On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:31 +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Thanks Daryl for being the first to trigger the discussions on the new > list. > > If possible I would suggest you and other folks who may express support > for the formation of a working group to also make clear which of the two > options discussed in the BOF you would support: > - permanent WG for definition of Performance Metrics at Other Layers, > modeled on the IPPM WG > - short-lived WG to define a framework ('how to start, write, and review > PMOL documents in the IETF') document and a couple of test cases > > Also, it would be very useful if you can make a short history of your > tribulations with draft-malas-performance-metrics, maybe in a separate > mail. Many participants in the list may not be aware about the sinuous > and yet uncompleted history of this document which was one of the test > cases that let to the BOF. > > Dan > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daryl Malas [mailto:daryl@level3.net] > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 4:57 PM > > To: pmol@ietf.org > > Subject: [PMOL] Should establish working group... > > > > Okay, after taking a break from the BOF and talking with > > others about this. I have become further convinced a working > > group should be established to handle this type of work. If > > we only move forward with a Directorate, the work will have a > > very high unlikelihood of ever making the appropriate agenda > > time in the existing working groups to be fully developed and > > prioritized. > > > > In the BOF, it was overwhelmingly decided this type of work > > is absolutely valuable to the members of the IETF. > > Furthermore, it was overwhelmingly decided many will commit > > their time to this work. Those two decisions indicate this > > work will receive the necessary review, input, and expertise > > necessary to make it valuable to the members of the IETF and > > the industry as a whole. > > > > Summary...establish a working group for APM, PMOL, or > > whatever we want to call it. > > > > My two cents... > > > > --Daryl > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PMOL mailing list > > PMOL@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol > > _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIAZD-0008Io-L5; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:56:47 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IIAZC-0008H7-Rp for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:56:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIAZC-0008GR-7B for pmol@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:56:46 -0400 Received: from hme1.july.broomfield1.level3.net ([209.245.18.8] helo=f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIAZB-00048O-0p for pmol@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:56:46 -0400 Received: from montag.eng.level3.com (montag.eng.l3.com [10.1.68.57]) by f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l76LueRI020771; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 21:56:40 GMT Subject: Re: [PMOL] What is a Directorate? From: Daryl Malas To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:59:49 -0600 Message-Id: <1186437589.1297.117.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 (2.6.0-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Dan, Thanks for this additional perspective. My concern with the Directorate is purely the requirement for agenda time to fully hash out this type of work in other WG's. Their agenda's and charter's are already very full in some cases, so the drafts would not receive the attention or priority to supersede protocol enhancements or bug fixes. Correct me if I am wrong, this may only be my perception. --Daryl _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHy0s-00087R-NC; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:32:30 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IHy0r-00087M-AB for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:32:29 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHy0n-00087D-4O for pmol@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:32:25 -0400 Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.100] helo=co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHy0m-0001hh-HB for pmol@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:32:25 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2007 04:32:23 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.19,224,1183348800"; d="scan'208"; a="50466034:sNHT9150672" 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, 6 Aug 2007 10:31:47 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: What is a Directorate? Thread-Index: AcfYBDosku710WLsQUWtS8QClY3bew== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 31247fb3be228bb596db9127becad0bc Subject: [PMOL] What is a Directorate? X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org The discussions in Chicago and on the list show that there is a consistent sense of the community that the IETF should do something to provide a framework for performance metrics definition at other layers than IP. Many participants in the discussion expressed a preference for a Working Group format.=20 In order to make sure that we have a full picture of all the options at hand I would suggest that we look also at the cross-area directorate alternative and understand what this option means and why it was suggested as a starting point of the discussion.=20 Directorates are defined in RFC 2418: In many areas, the Area Directors have formed an advisory group or directorate. These comprise experienced members of the IETF and the technical community represented by the area. The specific name and the details of the role for each group differ from area to area, but the primary intent is that these groups assist the Area Director(s), e.g., with the review of specifications produced in the area. The Area Directors often employ directorates and review teams for assistance in tasks such as=20 - Document reviews as a part of their AD or IESG reviews, or to solicit architectural input when the document is in its early stages.=20 - Discussion forum to talk about topics associated with a particular technology.=20 - Help in forming an opinion about a rechartering or WG approval decision.=20 - Tracking discussion and efforts related to a particular topic.=20 These teams can be created at the request of the Area Directors. Typically both ADs for an area decide to create a team, but sometimes the teams are more focused on one AD's topics, or even serve multiple areas. The teams comprise experienced members of the IETF and the technical community. The ADs are responsible for the selection of the team members.=20 For efficient management, the teams typically need a chair. This could be one of the ADs or one of the team members. Experience tells us that review teams need to have an active person responsible for the assignment and tracking of review tasks. The nature of the team determines how large it can be. Most directorates are of size that can easily meet for dinner at an IETF, while review teams can have a large pool of reviewers. It is the AD's task to ensure that the membership of the team is up to date and active. It is typically easy to get members and have them perform initial work, but sometimes some members drop out of active work in the directorate, or even the entire directorate grows old and tired.=20 The current list of directorates and review teams can be found from http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/directorates.html. Example directorate charter and description can be found in http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/mobdir.html.=20 When we discussed in the IESG how to support APM (now PMOL) it was the idea of a cross-area directorate that came up first. The directorate would be composed of individuals with experience in the field of performance metrics definition, review and implementation at various layers, who can volunteer to dedicate a slice of their time for this activity. The directorate would be chartered for the following tasks:=20 - define a set of criteria and procedures to engage in IETF performance metrics definition at other layers than IP - support and advice working groups in the IETF that engage in work on performance metrics definition - including advice on chartering and early architectural advice - coordinate between work items in the IETF and in other SDO in order to identify and avoid duplication of efforts - review documents that define performance metrics that have reached IESG review phases As you can see the directorate charter is not significantly different than the possible charter of a PMOL WG. The difference is that a Working Group would be specifically chartered with the creation of the framework document for criteria and procedures and would possibly take a number of performance metrics documents as work items. The directorate option clearly favors doing all performance metrics definition in the respective technology working groups and tries to encourage and accelerate this process which did not work very well lately by providing a framework and expert advice.=20 Dan _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHcSe-0005up-Vy; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 05:31:44 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IH8hl-0000Ix-M9 for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:45:21 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH8hl-0000Ip-8x for pmol@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:45:21 -0400 Received: from relay.jaalam.net ([209.139.228.35]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH8hk-00043i-Lq for pmol@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:45:21 -0400 Received: from jsrvr8.jaalam.net ([172.16.128.105]) by relay.jaalam.net (SMSSMTP 4.1.0.19) with SMTP id M2007080318451620962 for ; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:45:16 -0700 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, 3 Aug 2007 18:45:17 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Substance of PMOL work Thread-Index: AcfWORu5BAupqMyXReyyytufZ0fX7w== From: "Loki Jorgenson" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 05:31:43 -0400 Subject: [PMOL] Substance of PMOL work X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org I would suggest that a reasonable rule-of-thumb could be established for routinely distinguishing between work that belongs primarily in the proposed PMOL WG and work that arises in others and should remain there. It seems given that there may always be a need to call on the expertise of another WG in the process - it seems likely from the discussions to date that there will be an integral cross-disciplinary nature to this WG. For example, following Daryl's comments, if a given draft can be described by a series of attributes (e.g. SIP, performance metric) and they can be ordered as to their significance, they might be compared to the charter of the respective WGs. In this case, it would seem to me that the malas draft is primarily about performance metrics and SIP is a qualifier (rather than the other way around). The core competency then should be performance-focused. > On Thu, 2007-08-03 at 12:52 -0400, Daryl Malas wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with keeping your drafts in AVT. I have not read > your drafts yet, but if they are "performance metrics" based drafts; > they should be in this new WG. As with my SIP metrics draft, the > SIPPING WG has provided a good forum to receive feedback; however, the > draft is not truly within the charter of the group. Many drafts that > exist between other WG's are given an opportunity to be reviewed by > other WG's in order to make sure the appropriate expertise is able to > evaluate it. For example, the ICE draft developed in the MMUSIC WG has > been reviewed several times in the SIPPING and/or SIP WG's. Although it > is an MMUSIC WG item, it has required expertise review in these other > WG's. I see a similar process occurring with this proposed WG. The > metrics drafts will be introduced, developed, and reviewed in this > draft; however, along the way, they need to be presented in other WG's > such as AVT and SIPPING in order to gain the additional expertise > perspective. > > > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 11:26 -0400, Alan Clark wrote: > > for example it may make sense for the current work > > on voice/video/audio metrics to stay within AVT due to the domain knowledge > > required. =20 -- Loki=20 _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH2Hk-00025A-U0; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:54:04 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IH2Hj-00024T-AT for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:54:03 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH2Hj-00024J-0G for pmol@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:54:03 -0400 Received: from hme1.july.broomfield1.level3.net ([209.245.18.8] helo=f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH2Hi-00049u-HE for pmol@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:54:02 -0400 Received: from montag.eng.level3.com (montag.eng.l3.com [10.1.68.57]) by f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l73IrwRI016474; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:53:59 GMT Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group... From: Daryl Malas To: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> References: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F020EBF3D@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:56:55 -0600 Message-Id: <1186167415.1297.103.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 (2.6.0-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org This clarification is helpful. I am okay with the idea of establishing a WG with a Framework objective and also identify an existing set of drafts as determined by the group to move forward on in the initial charter. Once that concludes, I think it will become very apparent whether or not the value of the WG extends forward or ceases to exist at that point. Even if the WG concludes, I think a Directorate at that point should be an option in case future performance type work warrants it. --Daryl On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 11:05 -0400, Al Morton wrote: > Responding to Dan's question for clarification, > and Bob's response... > > At 10:44 AM 8/2/2007, Natale, Bob wrote: > > > >I favor a "permanent" WG for this work -- i.e., for the lifetime of the > >milestones (to be) identified in the charter. > > > >Cheers, > >BobN > > I think the main difference between a long-lived and short-lived > Working Group is the number and breadth of milestones on the charter > when the WG is created. Other factors influence the actual lifetime, > such as the ability to complete the initial set of milestones. > > I like the idea, suggested by Leslie Nagle at the mic, of a > Working Group that prepares a "How to" Framework and a small > number of Performance Metrics RFCs (~2). A successful outcome of this > work would be the proof that this is an area of interest in IETF, > and the charter could then be revisited/expanded. > > willing to start small, > Al > > > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH2Dj-0007Ie-Fo; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:49:55 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IH2Di-0007IY-Hc for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:49:54 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH2Di-0007IQ-6o for pmol@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:49:54 -0400 Received: from hme1.july.broomfield1.level3.net ([209.245.18.8] helo=f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH2Dh-00043Q-N8 for pmol@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:49:54 -0400 Received: from montag.eng.level3.com (montag.eng.l3.com [10.1.68.57]) by f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l73InYRI015243; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:49:35 GMT Subject: Re: [PMOL] Should establish working group From: Daryl Malas To: Alan Clark In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:52:31 -0600 Message-Id: <1186167151.1297.101.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 (2.6.0-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org I'm not sure I agree with keeping your drafts in AVT. I have not read your drafts yet, but if they are "performance metrics" based drafts; they should be in this new WG. As with my SIP metrics draft, the SIPPING WG has provided a good forum to receive feedback; however, the draft is not truly within the charter of the group. Many drafts that exist between other WG's are given an opportunity to be reviewed by other WG's in order to make sure the appropriate expertise is able to evaluate it. For example, the ICE draft developed in the MMUSIC WG has been reviewed several times in the SIPPING and/or SIP WG's. Although it is an MMUSIC WG item, it has required expertise review in these other WG's. I see a similar process occurring with this proposed WG. The metrics drafts will be introduced, developed, and reviewed in this draft; however, along the way, they need to be presented in other WG's such as AVT and SIPPING in order to gain the additional expertise perspective. --Daryl On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 11:26 -0400, Alan Clark wrote: > My opinion is that a new working group should be established. > > Initial work would be a framework RFC, potentially Daryl Malas' draft and > other items. Work would only be transferred from other WG's with the > agreement of both the WG and Area Directors (key criteria would be that the > required expertise lay within the APM/PMOL WG rather than the WG currently > progressing the draft); for example it may make sense for the current work > on voice/video/audio metrics to stay within AVT due to the domain knowledge > required. > > The issue of whether this is long-lived vs short-lived would appear to be a > charter question - as WG's generally expire when they meet their charter > (?). If the charter initially had two deliverables and the WG was able to > review new I-D's and request amendments to the charter to address > appropriate new work items - then presumably the WG would either complete > its work within a short timeframe or the charter would be extended and it > would continue for a longer period? > > Alan > > > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH1CE-0000bL-SJ; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:44:18 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IH1CE-0000Yh-6y for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:44:18 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH1CD-0000UO-P9 for pmol@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:44:17 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH1CD-0001l0-Cd for pmol@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:44:17 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IH1C7-0007Fe-A6; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:44:16 +0000 Message-ID: <46B3695D.60208@psg.com> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:43:57 +0200 From: dimitri papadimitriou User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton Subject: Re: [PMOL] Should establish working group... References: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F020EBF3D@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -104.4 (---------------------------------------------------) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: dpapadimitriou@psg.com, dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org al - i support this idea - this will serve as proof case. noticing however that the milestones/timing would constraint the initial work (indeed, it could some important topics would require a longer duration then what could be reasonably considered) -d. Al Morton wrote: > Responding to Dan's question for clarification, > and Bob's response... > > At 10:44 AM 8/2/2007, Natale, Bob wrote: >> >> I favor a "permanent" WG for this work -- i.e., for the lifetime of the >> milestones (to be) identified in the charter. >> >> Cheers, >> BobN > > I think the main difference between a long-lived and short-lived > Working Group is the number and breadth of milestones on the charter > when the WG is created. Other factors influence the actual lifetime, > such as the ability to complete the initial set of milestones. > > I like the idea, suggested by Leslie Nagle at the mic, of a > Working Group that prepares a "How to" Framework and a small > number of Performance Metrics RFCs (~2). A successful outcome of this > work would be the proof that this is an area of interest in IETF, > and the charter could then be revisited/expanded. > > willing to start small, > Al > > > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol > > . > _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGrLO-0005bN-Oh; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:13:06 -0400 Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IGrLN-0005bI-M4 for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:13:05 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGrLK-0005b6-16 for pmol@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:13:02 -0400 Received: from postboy.ripe.net ([193.0.19.3]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGrLJ-00086w-HB for pmol@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:13:01 -0400 Received: by postboy.ripe.net (Postfix, from userid 4008) id AB4346A06D; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:13:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from herring.ripe.net (herring.ripe.net [193.0.1.203]) by postboy.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CAF6A06D; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:12:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.10.10.35] (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CCC2F5E6; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:12:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46B2BE66.7010906@ripe.net> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:34:30 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Macintosh/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton Subject: Re: [PMOL] Should establish working group... References: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F020EBF3D@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Spam-Level: X-RIPE-Spam-Tests: ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 X-RIPE-Spam-Status: N 0.069690 / -4.4 X-RIPE-Signature: 7c22fa2effed8478a2cb9b8a3245f045 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org All, > I like the idea, suggested by Leslie Nagle at the mic, of a > Working Group that prepares a "How to" Framework and a small > number of Performance Metrics RFCs (~2). A successful outcome of this > work would be the proof that this is an area of interest in IETF, > and the charter could then be revisited/expanded. I fully agree with this proposal. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGdbp-0007qn-TH; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:33:09 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGdbo-0007mZ-Ia for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:33:08 -0400 Received: from web27804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.146.182.9]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGdbn-0005vN-QV for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:33:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 36519 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Aug 2007 16:33:07 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.de; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=i4hSXMllweAg74ZOG+/7k0xlH7mE1cQhkJJMrFJrsOJqEzKgO0KZJFmAia644knqa9gSnjmeG4Ad3U9IUU9DChjZEsMZgRG05iU51hNGL9yRhf38l3cVRedsRxrf6vlZQWtD/bCFB0jrppiDG2CUbP1ssmcz9MzMKkXeZAamc5w=; X-YMail-OSG: GMhHTScVM1kkmhsw4jSVJUYlspJfNYcQuRT2fxelLGoCdZAJ9g4RPJxyEzYUEculHRKqTgs0D96kthVCSgg7YSLN.NHfb9wXL2aOhFRlGafMqPeVm7kyKzFAupA- Received: from [192.35.17.15] by web27804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:33:07 GMT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/651.41 YahooMailWebService/0.7.119 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:33:07 +0000 (GMT) From: Mehmet Ersue Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group To: pmol@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <48987.36480.qm@web27804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1901092701==" Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org --===============1901092701== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-458994479-1186072387=:36480" --0-458994479-1186072387=:36480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0AA WG runs as long as it developes WG items, then it gets =0Arechartered = or conludes. A directorate could be long-living =0Abut I believe a director= ate wouldn't be very useful today. =0A=0AAs Al says, let us start small and= define the framework first =0A(metric types, test cases, BCP, etc.). =0A= =0AAs somebody stated in the BOF session we need to use also =0Athe work wh= ich already exists (e.g. RAQMON).=0A=0ARegards, =0AMehmet =0A=0A=0A> -----O= riginal Message-----=0A> From: ext Alan Clark [mailto:alan.d.clark@telchemy= .com] =0A> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 5:27 PM=0A> To: pmol@ietf.org=0A= > Subject: [PMOL] Should establish working group=0A> =0A> =0A> My opinion = is that a new working group should be established. =0A> =0A> Initial work = would be a framework RFC, potentially Daryl =0A> Malas' draft and=0A> other= items. Work would only be transferred from other WG's with the=0A> agreeme= nt of both the WG and Area Directors (key criteria =0A> would be that the= =0A> required expertise lay within the APM/PMOL WG rather than the =0A> WG = currently=0A> progressing the draft); for example it may make sense for the= =0A> current work=0A> on voice/video/audio metrics to stay within AVT due = to the =0A> domain knowledge=0A> required. =0A> =0A> The issue of whether = this is long-lived vs short-lived would =0A> appear to be a=0A> charter que= stion - as WG's generally expire when they meet =0A> their charter=0A> (?).= If the charter initially had two deliverables and the =0A> WG was able to= =0A> review new I-D's and request amendments to the charter to address=0A> = appropriate new work items - then presumably the WG would =0A> either comp= lete=0A> its work within a short timeframe or the charter would be =0A> ext= ended and it=0A> would continue for a longer period?=0A> =0A> Alan=0A> =0A>= =0A> _______________________________________________=0A> PMOL mailing list= =0A> PMOL@ietf.org=0A> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol=0A> =0A= =0A=0A=0A=0A __________________________________ Die etwas anderen Inf= os rund um das Thema Reisen. BE A BETTER WELTENBUMMLER! www.yahoo.de/cleve= r --0-458994479-1186072387=:36480 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A WG runs as long as it developes WG items, then it gets
re= chartered or conludes. A directorate could be long-living
but I believe= a directorate wouldn't be very useful today.

As Al says, let us st= art small and define the framework first
(metric types, test cases, BCP= , etc.).

As somebody stated in the BOF session we need to use also =
the work which already exists (e.g. RAQMON).

Regards,
Mehmet=


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Alan Clark [= mailto:alan.d.clark@telchemy.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 = 5:27 PM
> To: pmol@ietf.org
> Subject: [PMOL] Should establish = working group
>
> 
> My opinion is that a new work= ing group should be established. 
>
> Initial work would be a framework RFC, potentially Daryl
> Malas' draft and
&= gt; other items. Work would only be transferred from other WG's with the> agreement of both the WG and Area Directors (key criteria
> wo= uld be that the
> required expertise lay within the APM/PMOL WG rathe= r than the
> WG currently
> progressing the draft); for exampl= e it may make sense for the
> current work
> on voice/video/au= dio metrics to stay within AVT due to the
> domain knowledge
>= required. 
>
> The issue of whether this is long-lived = vs short-lived would
> appear to be a
> charter question - as = WG's generally expire when they meet
> their charter
> (?).&nb= sp; If the charter initially had two deliverables and the
> WG was a= ble to
> review new I-D's and request amendments to the charter to ad= dress
> appropriate new work items -  then presumably the WG would
> either complete
> its work within a short timefram= e or the charter would be
> extended and it
> would continue f= or a longer period?
>
> Alan
>
>
> _______= ________________________________________
> PMOL mailing list
> = PMOL@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol<= /span>
>

=0A
=0AAlles was der = Gesundheit und Entspannung dient.=0A=0ABE A BETTER MEDIZINMANN! --0-458994479-1186072387=:36480-- --===============1901092701== 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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol --===============1901092701==-- Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGdSn-0008QH-Kn; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:23:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGdSm-0008Q5-F5 for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:23:48 -0400 Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([135.245.0.33]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGdSl-0004Mm-4s for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:23:48 -0400 Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-61.lucent.com [135.3.40.61]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id l72GNiEd013261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:23:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [135.222.134.98] (huilanlu-c1.mh.lucent.com [135.222.134.98]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id l72GNc9P028887; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:23:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <46B2050A.4040100@alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:23:38 -0400 From: "Lu, Hui-Lan (Huilan)" Organization: Alcatel Lucent User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton Subject: Re: [PMOL] Should establish working group... References: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F020EBF3D@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Cc: pmol@ietf.org X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Al Morton wrote: > I like the idea, suggested by Leslie Nagle at the mic, of a > Working Group that prepares a "How to" Framework and a small > number of Performance Metrics RFCs (~2). A successful outcome of this > work would be the proof that this is an area of interest in IETF, > and the charter could then be revisited/expanded. I like the idea too. Hui-Lan _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcut-0008FE-O2; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:48:47 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcur-0008F8-Vj for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:48:46 -0400 Received: from expint.psytechnics.com ([217.33.106.234]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcur-0004tT-Kl for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:48:45 -0400 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal Priority: normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:50:40 +0100 Message-ID: <257B18BFF522214E92EB52F3478B014E094731@psy01exch.intra.psytechnics.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: What will we be doing? thread-index: AcfVDNf4DAcZ6wYQS6eGyoAM/vf7ZwAA/7uQAAClaLAAANVEIA== From: "Ravi Raviraj" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Subject: [PMOL] What will we be doing? X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org I do favor a separate WG. However, it would be helpful to understand the kind of work we will be doing in that group. I have heard of at least two different versions of it. Any chance of some sort of early wording for charter? Ravi. This email and attachment are confidential. If you have received this = message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the = message from your computer. Psytechnics Ltd has taken steps to ensure = that this email is virus free but the recipient should take necessary = steps to make certain. Company Name : Psytechnics Ltd Registered Number : 4110724 Registered Office : Fraser House, 23 Museum St, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP1 = 1HN, UK Registration : England and Wales _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcb5-0004ZY-71; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:28:19 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcb4-0004W3-GV for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:28:18 -0400 Received: from mx.cbeyond.com ([66.180.96.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcb3-0002nU-7M for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:28:18 -0400 Received: from [72.54.75.1] (port=2123 helo=TELCHADCPC) by mx.cbeyond.com with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IGcb2-0007BG-ND for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:28:16 -0400 From: "Alan Clark" To: Subject: [PMOL] Should establish working group Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:26:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 In-Reply-To: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> thread-index: AcfVDMveU2KM3m6BQp223L5QWDi6TAACWtFw X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Message-Id: My opinion is that a new working group should be established. Initial work would be a framework RFC, potentially Daryl Malas' draft and other items. Work would only be transferred from other WG's with the agreement of both the WG and Area Directors (key criteria would be that the required expertise lay within the APM/PMOL WG rather than the WG currently progressing the draft); for example it may make sense for the current work on voice/video/audio metrics to stay within AVT due to the domain knowledge required. The issue of whether this is long-lived vs short-lived would appear to be a charter question - as WG's generally expire when they meet their charter (?). If the charter initially had two deliverables and the WG was able to review new I-D's and request amendments to the charter to address appropriate new work items - then presumably the WG would either complete its work within a short timeframe or the charter would be extended and it would continue for a longer period? Alan _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcQ4-0005Ks-Qf; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:16:56 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcQ4-0005Kh-Hw for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:16:56 -0400 Received: from smtpproxy2.mitre.org ([192.80.55.71] helo=smtp-mclean.mitre.org) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcQ4-0004CF-5a for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:16:56 -0400 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id l72FGrA8000754 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:16:53 -0400 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF034F8DA for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:16:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imcfe2.MITRE.ORG (imcfe2.mitre.org [129.83.29.4]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l72FGmHX000353 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:16:53 -0400 Received: from IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.164]) by imcfe2.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:16:48 -0400 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 Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group... Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:16:51 -0400 Message-ID: <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F020EBF58@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> In-Reply-To: <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Should establish working group... thread-index: AcfVFr1b52USWOySTY+MuctdsY974AAAK9aA References: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com><4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F020EBF3D@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> From: "Natale, Bob" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2007 15:16:48.0677 (UTC) FILETIME=[2566BD50:01C7D518] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org =20 Al's approach is fine with me (and I appreciate the clarification of what differentiates long- and short-lived WGs) -- mileage may vary for individuals depending upon the target content of the selected "small number of Performance Metrics RFCs". Cheers, BobN -----Original Message----- From: Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 11:06 AM To: pmol@ietf.org Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group... Responding to Dan's question for clarification, and Bob's response... At 10:44 AM 8/2/2007, Natale, Bob wrote: > >I favor a "permanent" WG for this work -- i.e., for the lifetime of the >milestones (to be) identified in the charter. > >Cheers, >BobN I think the main difference between a long-lived and short-lived Working Group is the number and breadth of milestones on the charter when the WG is created. Other factors influence the actual lifetime, such as the ability to complete the initial set of milestones. I like the idea, suggested by Leslie Nagle at the mic, of a Working Group that prepares a "How to" Framework and a small number of Performance Metrics RFCs (~2). A successful outcome of this work would be the proof that this is an area of interest in IETF, and the charter could then be revisited/expanded. willing to start small, Al _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcG5-0000zH-Vq; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:06:37 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcG5-0000zC-2h for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:06:37 -0400 Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com ([216.82.250.83]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGcG4-0003qX-KO for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:06:36 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1186067190!22339887!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.149] Received: (qmail 24335 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2007 15:06:30 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.149) by server-3.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Aug 2007 15:06:30 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l72F6U5f023888 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:06:30 -0700 Received: from flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (flph023.ffdc.sbc.com [150.234.117.36]) by flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l72F6POJ023862 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:06:25 -0700 Received: from ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l72F6PZh006644 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:06:25 -0700 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l72F6I0a006442 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:06:18 -0700 Message-Id: <200708021506.l72F6I0a006442@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (acmt.mt.att.com[135.16.251.73](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20070802150617gw10010gffe>; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:06:17 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:05:43 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group... In-Reply-To: <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F020EBF3D@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG > References: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F020EBF3D@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Responding to Dan's question for clarification, and Bob's response... At 10:44 AM 8/2/2007, Natale, Bob wrote: > >I favor a "permanent" WG for this work -- i.e., for the lifetime of the >milestones (to be) identified in the charter. > >Cheers, >BobN I think the main difference between a long-lived and short-lived Working Group is the number and breadth of milestones on the charter when the WG is created. Other factors influence the actual lifetime, such as the ability to complete the initial set of milestones. I like the idea, suggested by Leslie Nagle at the mic, of a Working Group that prepares a "How to" Framework and a small number of Performance Metrics RFCs (~2). A successful outcome of this work would be the proof that this is an area of interest in IETF, and the charter could then be revisited/expanded. willing to start small, Al _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGbur-00053O-MC; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:44:41 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGbur-00053I-1F for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:44:41 -0400 Received: from smtpproxy2.mitre.org ([192.80.55.71] helo=smtp-mclean.mitre.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGbup-0001co-Rj for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:44:41 -0400 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id l72EidCc018787 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:44:39 -0400 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EFE4F8D7 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imcfe2.MITRE.ORG (imcfe2.mitre.org [129.83.29.4]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l72Eid04018758 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:44:39 -0400 Received: from IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.164]) by imcfe2.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:44:39 -0400 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 Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group... Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:44:38 -0400 Message-ID: <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F020EBF3D@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Should establish working group... thread-index: AcfVDNf4DAcZ6wYQS6eGyoAM/vf7ZwAA/7uQAAClaLA= References: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> From: "Natale, Bob" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2007 14:44:39.0045 (UTC) FILETIME=[A7404350:01C7D513] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org =20 I favor a "permanent" WG for this work -- i.e., for the lifetime of the milestones (to be) identified in the charter. Cheers, BobN -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:32 AM To: Daryl Malas; pmol@ietf.org Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group... Thanks Daryl for being the first to trigger the discussions on the new list.=20 If possible I would suggest you and other folks who may express support for the formation of a working group to also make clear which of the two options discussed in the BOF you would support:=20 - permanent WG for definition of Performance Metrics at Other Layers, modeled on the IPPM WG=20 - short-lived WG to define a framework ('how to start, write, and review PMOL documents in the IETF') document and a couple of test cases Also, it would be very useful if you can make a short history of your tribulations with draft-malas-performance-metrics, maybe in a separate mail. Many participants in the list may not be aware about the sinuous and yet uncompleted history of this document which was one of the test cases that let to the BOF.=20 Dan =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Daryl Malas [mailto:daryl@level3.net]=20 > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 4:57 PM > To: pmol@ietf.org > Subject: [PMOL] Should establish working group... >=20 > Okay, after taking a break from the BOF and talking with=20 > others about this. I have become further convinced a working=20 > group should be established to handle this type of work. If=20 > we only move forward with a Directorate, the work will have a=20 > very high unlikelihood of ever making the appropriate agenda=20 > time in the existing working groups to be fully developed and=20 > prioritized. >=20 > In the BOF, it was overwhelmingly decided this type of work=20 > is absolutely valuable to the members of the IETF. =20 > Furthermore, it was overwhelmingly decided many will commit=20 > their time to this work. Those two decisions indicate this=20 > work will receive the necessary review, input, and expertise=20 > necessary to make it valuable to the members of the IETF and=20 > the industry as a whole. >=20 > Summary...establish a working group for APM, PMOL, or=20 > whatever we want to call it. >=20 > My two cents... >=20 > --Daryl >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol >=20 _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGbj3-0004w7-4J; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:32:29 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGbj1-0004w2-5N for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:32:27 -0400 Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.100] helo=co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGbiz-0001Jl-72 for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:32:27 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2007 10:32:24 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.19,213,1183348800"; d="scan'208"; a="49259953:sNHT8132898" 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 Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group... Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:31:43 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Should establish working group... Thread-Index: AcfVDNf4DAcZ6wYQS6eGyoAM/vf7ZwAA/7uQ References: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Daryl Malas" , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Cc: X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Thanks Daryl for being the first to trigger the discussions on the new list.=20 If possible I would suggest you and other folks who may express support for the formation of a working group to also make clear which of the two options discussed in the BOF you would support:=20 - permanent WG for definition of Performance Metrics at Other Layers, modeled on the IPPM WG=20 - short-lived WG to define a framework ('how to start, write, and review PMOL documents in the IETF') document and a couple of test cases Also, it would be very useful if you can make a short history of your tribulations with draft-malas-performance-metrics, maybe in a separate mail. Many participants in the list may not be aware about the sinuous and yet uncompleted history of this document which was one of the test cases that let to the BOF.=20 Dan =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Daryl Malas [mailto:daryl@level3.net]=20 > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 4:57 PM > To: pmol@ietf.org > Subject: [PMOL] Should establish working group... >=20 > Okay, after taking a break from the BOF and talking with=20 > others about this. I have become further convinced a working=20 > group should be established to handle this type of work. If=20 > we only move forward with a Directorate, the work will have a=20 > very high unlikelihood of ever making the appropriate agenda=20 > time in the existing working groups to be fully developed and=20 > prioritized. >=20 > In the BOF, it was overwhelmingly decided this type of work=20 > is absolutely valuable to the members of the IETF. =20 > Furthermore, it was overwhelmingly decided many will commit=20 > their time to this work. Those two decisions indicate this=20 > work will receive the necessary review, input, and expertise=20 > necessary to make it valuable to the members of the IETF and=20 > the industry as a whole. >=20 > Summary...establish a working group for APM, PMOL, or=20 > whatever we want to call it. >=20 > My two cents... >=20 > --Daryl >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol >=20 _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGb9H-0000NY-3w; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:55:31 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGb8E-0008AR-EC for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:54:26 -0400 Received: from hme1.july.broomfield1.level3.net ([209.245.18.8] helo=f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGb8E-0001yE-0b for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:54:26 -0400 Received: from montag.eng.level3.com (montag.eng.l3.com [10.1.68.57]) by f4bb49-05.idc1.level3.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l72DsNRI000373 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:54:23 GMT Subject: [PMOL] Should establish working group... From: Daryl Malas To: pmol@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:57:14 -0600 Message-Id: <1186063035.1297.88.camel@montag.eng.level3.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 (2.6.0-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:55:30 -0400 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Okay, after taking a break from the BOF and talking with others about this. I have become further convinced a working group should be established to handle this type of work. If we only move forward with a Directorate, the work will have a very high unlikelihood of ever making the appropriate agenda time in the existing working groups to be fully developed and prioritized. In the BOF, it was overwhelmingly decided this type of work is absolutely valuable to the members of the IETF. Furthermore, it was overwhelmingly decided many will commit their time to this work. Those two decisions indicate this work will receive the necessary review, input, and expertise necessary to make it valuable to the members of the IETF and the industry as a whole. Summary...establish a working group for APM, PMOL, or whatever we want to call it. My two cents... --Daryl _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol