From nobody Sun May  4 14:06:36 2014
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A991A0096 for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun,  4 May 2014 14:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.552
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3DDe5ELaQ9mk for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun,  4 May 2014 14:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8871A012B for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun,  4 May 2014 14:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s44L6RKu007567 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 May 2014 23:06:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (sweet-brew-5.cisco.com [144.254.10.206]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s44L6Alg019596 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 May 2014 23:06:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id s44L6AdN020909 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 4 May 2014 23:06:10 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 23:06:10 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: pm-dir@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140504210610.GA20907@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/EH7Qph36ETKMfj4bpkyEXOJoBNc
Subject: [pm-dir] Performance metrics doctors generated email
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 21:06:35 -0000

Dear all,

This is an automatically generated email.  
It lists the IETF internet-drafts that reference the PMOL RFC 6390, as a normative or informative reference.
It also lists all the IETF internet-drafts that contain "performance metric".

Regards, Benoit

===========================================================

Normative References
--------------------
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-02In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
    
Informative References
----------------------
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active-00                Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive-00               Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-02In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-12        In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-03Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03    Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-17                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-09     In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	

drafts containing performance metric
------------------------------------
draft-ietf-alto-deployments-09                    Active	
draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-09                 Active	
draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-02Active	
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-00                       Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04                    In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <In Last Call>	
draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-02                      Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-02            Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-05                   Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active-00                Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive-00               Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-lmap-framework-04                      Active	
draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-03                      Active	
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-01           Active	
draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-05                      In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed>	
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-16                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04              Active	
draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03          Active	
draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-09                  In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <AD Evaluation>	
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-13                    Active	
draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-03                    Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-02In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-12        In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-03Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03    Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-17                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-09     In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
 
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
Diffs from Last Time -=old, +=new
--------------------
No differences encountered


From nobody Sun May 11 14:06:40 2014
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DDC1A0375 for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 May 2014 14:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.552
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3jAD5IR9hfDK for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 May 2014 14:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE2331A0362 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 May 2014 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4BL6T1H000652 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 May 2014 23:06:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (sweet-brew-5.cisco.com [144.254.10.206]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4BL6BrU027137 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 May 2014 23:06:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id s4BL6B7a028521 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 11 May 2014 23:06:11 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 23:06:11 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: pm-dir@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140511210611.GA28519@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/zhmQRBI-fj_Wayq5WPTpYDxkmiw
Subject: [pm-dir] Performance metrics doctors generated email
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 21:06:38 -0000

Dear all,

This is an automatically generated email.  
It lists the IETF internet-drafts that reference the PMOL RFC 6390, as a normative or informative reference.
It also lists all the IETF internet-drafts that contain "performance metric".

Regards, Benoit

===========================================================

Normative References
--------------------
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-02In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
    
Informative References
----------------------
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active-00                Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive-00               Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-02In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-12        In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-03Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03    Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-17                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-09     In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	

drafts containing performance metric
------------------------------------
draft-ietf-alto-deployments-09                    Active	
draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-09                 Active	
draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-02Active	
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-00                       Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04                    In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <In Last Call>	
draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-02                      Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-02            Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-05                   Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active-00                Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive-00               Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-lmap-framework-04                      Active	
draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-03                      Active	
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-01           Active	
draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-05                      In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed>	
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-16                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04              Active	
draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03          Active	
draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-09                  In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <AD Evaluation>	
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-13                    Active	
draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-03                    Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-02In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-12        In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-03Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03    Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-17                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-09     In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
 
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
Diffs from Last Time -=old, +=new
--------------------
No differences encountered


From nobody Sun May 18 14:06:45 2014
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45851A01EB for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2014 14:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.552
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z8ARCJVPhwBb for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2014 14:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72E271A02DD for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 May 2014 14:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4IL6eYC011576 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 May 2014 23:06:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (sweet-brew-5.cisco.com [144.254.10.206]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4IL680x022571 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 May 2014 23:06:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id s4IL68AL007010 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 18 May 2014 23:06:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 23:06:08 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: pm-dir@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140518210608.GA7008@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/exvLDL0DrfzKKv5UrXPeXb8gB4o
Subject: [pm-dir] Performance metrics doctors generated email
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 21:06:43 -0000

Dear all,

This is an automatically generated email.  
It lists the IETF internet-drafts that reference the PMOL RFC 6390, as a normative or informative reference.
It also lists all the IETF internet-drafts that contain "performance metric".

Regards, Benoit

===========================================================

Normative References
--------------------
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
    
Informative References
----------------------
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active-00                Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive-00               Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-12        In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-03Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03    Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-17                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	

drafts containing performance metric
------------------------------------
draft-ietf-alto-deployments-09                    Active	
draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-09                 Active	
draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-02Active	
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-00                       Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04                    In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed>	
draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-02                      Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-02            Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-05                   Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active-00                Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive-00               Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-lmap-framework-05                      Active	
draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-03                      Active	
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-01           Active	
draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-05                      In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed>	
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-16                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04              Active	
draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03          Active	
draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-09                  In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <AD Evaluation>	
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-14                    Active	
draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-03                    Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-12        In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-03Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03    Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-17                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
 
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
Diffs from Last Time -=old, +=new
--------------------
-draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04                    In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <In Last Call>	
+draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04                    In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed>	
-draft-ietf-lmap-framework-04                      Active	
+draft-ietf-lmap-framework-05                      Active	
-draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-13                    Active	
+draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-14                    Active	
-draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-02In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
-draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-09     In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	


From nobody Fri May 23 13:18:29 2014
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75551A0041; Fri, 23 May 2014 13:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.56
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jiNSh2u1Z57t; Fri, 23 May 2014 13:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85F791A0031; Fri, 23 May 2014 13:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4105; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1400876297; x=1402085897; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ldrc+BAD0jxa3TmnofxCr7Rtqn9ogFwb2qHNlKaa68Q=; b=LU61c+Fjs9RWD+UlCLac50hDVIXgVULsLTtzEjdiz8OeO7uIWkAxjTs6 9gXOCY/cR/EMWLoQlpczxOKTan5DUZACCcGaMMcnnoRqj1jIzh2EdZCRu DFNOTCSlLcdqkPIVknrcxYE64IKDfFsMSlDuS+oxaxVk1TWTNmfDTKtFr A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtsJANCrf1OtJA2K/2dsb2JhbABbJ4JgUsUDAYEIFnSCJQEBAQQ4QA0ELBYPCQMCAQIBOwoGAQwGAgEBiCkDEQ3YJRMEi0N5gh2EQASKIY9RhmuMPIF4gWAdMA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,895,1392163200"; d="scan'208";a="327446479"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2014 20:18:16 +0000
Received: from [10.21.115.81] (sjc-vpn2-849.cisco.com [10.21.115.81]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4NKICjP032432; Fri, 23 May 2014 20:18:13 GMT
Message-ID: <537F7D5D.8080100@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 09:54:53 -0700
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "aaa-doctors@ietf.org" <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>, IETF DNS Directorate <dns-dir@ietf.org>
References: <20140522225006.13486.44271.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140522225006.13486.44271.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20140522225006.13486.44271.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/c-3QTVeWkk-ZbyayQLWEUGeZGK4
Subject: [pm-dir] Fwd: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] Summarized Agenda for the 2014-05-29 IESG Teleconference
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 20:18:20 -0000

Dear all,

Please find below the agenda of the May 29th IESG telechat.
Please send your questions, comments and concerns before May 28th COB.

Thanks and Regards, Benoit.


-------- Original Message --------

INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Summarized Agenda for the 2014-05-29 IESG Teleconference

This agenda was generated at 2014-05-22 15:44:11 PDT
Up-to-date web version of this agenda can be found at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/


2. Protocol Actions
2.1 WG Submissions
2.1.1 New Items
     
   o draft-ietf-bfd-mib-20  - IETF stream
     BFD Management Information Base (Proposed Standard)
     Token: Adrian Farrel
     IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed
     Consensus: Yes

   o draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-08  - IETF stream
     Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional
     Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management (Proposed Standard)
     Token: Adrian Farrel
     IANA Review: Version Changed - Review Needed
     Consensus: Yes

   o draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-01  - IETF stream
     Policy Qualifiers in RPKI Certificates (Proposed Standard)
     Token: Alia Atlas
     IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
     Consensus: Yes

   o draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-07  - IETF stream
     Reservation of Last Autonomous System (AS) Numbers (Best Current
     Practice)
     Token: Alia Atlas
     IANA Review: Version Changed - Review Needed
     Consensus: Yes

   o draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-rfc5996bis-03  - IETF stream
     Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) (Internet Standard)
     Token: Kathleen Moriarty
     IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed
     Consensus: Yes

2.1.2 Returning Items
     
   o draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-16  - IETF stream
     A YANG Data Model for System Management (Proposed Standard)
     Token: Benoit Claise
     IANA Review: Version Changed - Review Needed
     Consensus: Yes

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Items

   NONE

2.2.2 Returning Items

   NONE

2.3 Status Changes
2.3.1 New Items

   NONE

2.3.2 Returning Items

   NONE

3. Document Actions
3.1 WG Submissions
3.1.1 New Items
     
   o draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-09  - IETF stream
     Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires over
     MPLS Packet Switched Networks  (Informational)
     Note: Andrew Malis (andrew.g.malis@verizon.com) is the document
     shepherd.
     Token: Adrian Farrel
     IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
     Consensus: Yes

   o draft-ietf-mmusic-latching-05  - IETF stream
     Latching: Hosted NAT Traversal (HNT) for Media in Real-Time
     Communication (Informational)
     Token: Alissa Cooper
     IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
     Consensus: Unknown
     Last call expires: 2014-05-28

3.1.2 Returning Items

   NONE

3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
3.2.1 New Items
     
   o draft-pal-eidr-urn-02  - IETF stream
     Entertainment Identifier Registry (EIDR) URN Namespace Definition
     (Informational)
     Token: Barry Leiba
     IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed
     Consensus: Yes

3.2.2 Returning Items

   NONE

3.3 Status Changes
3.3.1 New Items

   NONE

3.3.2 Returning Items

   NONE

3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission Stream Documents
3.4.1 New Items

   NONE

3.4.2 Returning Items

   NONE

3.4.3 For Action

   o conflict-review-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00
     IETF conflict review for draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan
       draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-09
       VXLAN: A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks
     over Layer 3 Networks (ISE: Informational)
     Token: Jari Arkko

4. Working Group Actions
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review

   o TCP Increased Security (tcpinc)

4.1.2 Proposed for Approval

   NONE

4.2 WG Rechartering
4.2.1 Under Evaluation for IETF Review

   o Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg)

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval

   o Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)



From nobody Sun May 25 14:06:49 2014
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40F21A03F1 for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 May 2014 14:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.552
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dyQPEFChQLFR for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 May 2014 14:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9FF61A03E6 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 May 2014 14:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4PL6dKm013417 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 May 2014 23:06:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (sweet-brew-5.cisco.com [144.254.10.206]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4PL68N4019431 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 May 2014 23:06:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id s4PL68gE018082 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 25 May 2014 23:06:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 23:06:08 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: pm-dir@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140525210608.GA18080@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/dW6q249jEB5mYYhUkG4UXzxetMk
Subject: [pm-dir] Performance metrics doctors generated email
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 21:06:47 -0000

Dear all,

This is an automatically generated email.  
It lists the IETF internet-drafts that reference the PMOL RFC 6390, as a normative or informative reference.
It also lists all the IETF internet-drafts that contain "performance metric".

Regards, Benoit

===========================================================

Normative References
--------------------
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
    
Informative References
----------------------
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active-00                Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive-00               Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-12        In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-03Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03    In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <Publication Requested>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-17                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	

drafts containing performance metric
------------------------------------
draft-ietf-alto-deployments-09                    Active	
draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-09                 Active	
draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-02Active	
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-00                       Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04                    In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed>	
draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-02                      Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-02            Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-05                   Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active-00                Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive-00               Active	
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05               In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-lmap-framework-05                      Active	
draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-03                      Active	
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-01           Active	
draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06                      In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <In Last Call>	
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-16                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04              Active	
draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03          Active	
draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-09                  In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <AD Evaluation>	
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-14                    Active	
draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-03                    Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-12        In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-03Active	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03    In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <Publication Requested>	
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-17                 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
 
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
Diffs from Last Time -=old, +=new
--------------------
-draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-05                      In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed>	
+draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06                      In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <In Last Call>	
-draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03    Active	
+draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03    In IESG processing - ID Tracker state <Publication Requested>	


From nobody Wed May 28 05:56:10 2014
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739701A0979; Wed, 28 May 2014 05:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RseAmGGwhOPD; Wed, 28 May 2014 05:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C46A71A0383; Wed, 28 May 2014 05:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AugFAIzbhVOHCzIm/2dsb2JhbABZgkIjIlJYqgkBAQEBAQEGmA0BgQkWdIInAQEDEhtMEgEVFVYmAQQODRMHiCABpzCvExeFVYhMMYMygRUElXOLFowTgziCLw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.98,928,1392181200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="65680869"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast-smtpauth.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.38]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 28 May 2014 08:56:02 -0400
X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 28 May 2014 08:53:54 -0400
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.12]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 28 May 2014 14:56:00 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt
Thread-Index: Ac96dCxQ7OAlmfDXT02hcVeTz06jFw==
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:56:00 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F328F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F328FAZFFEXMB04globa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/eTpJycKONTTK495xU1nlSQ_BY44
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: [pm-dir] PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:56:09 -0000

--_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F328FAZFFEXMB04globa_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is the PM-DIR review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt. I am the as=
signed PM-DIR reviewer for this I-D. This review refers only to performance=
 metrics aspects

This I-D defines a framework for Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3) and=
 a reference model along with logical components required to design a NVO3 =
solution.


The I-D does not define performance metrics, so a RFC 6390 review does not =
apply.

Performance metrics are mentioned in one place in the document, in section =
5.2.6 which deals with the interaction between overlays and underlays and t=
he need to exchange information about performance in order to ensure that t=
he overlays requirements can be met by the underlay paths. The metrics that=
 are mentioned as examples belong to the IP metrics category (throughput, d=
elay, loss, jitter). Mentioning the IPPM framework and even the relevant RF=
Cs would have helped, especially as there is a need for standard and stable=
 definitions and methods of measurement in order to allow for an exchange o=
f information between layers.


'Performance' is mentioned a few more times in the document, with no refere=
nce to performance metrics. For example in section 3.3 there is talk about =
'adequate performance to VM applications'.  It is not clear what this exact=
ly means - what are the metrics for measuring performance of VM application=
s and how are they determined as 'adequate' (or not).



Clarifying these issues would be very useful IMO, because the overall funct=
ionality of the overlays networks depends among other on the sufficient all=
ocation of resources in the underlays. The metrics and methods of measuring=
 performance need to be clearly articulated for this purpose.



Regards,



Dan



--_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F328FAZFFEXMB04globa_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
	margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
pre
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
	margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
span.PlainTextChar
	{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
	{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
	font-family:"Courier New";}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">This is the PM-DIR review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framew=
ork-06.txt. I am the assigned PM-DIR reviewer for this I-D. This review ref=
ers only to performance metrics aspects
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">This I-D defines a framework for Network Virtualizat=
ion Overlays (NVO3) and a reference model along with logical components req=
uired to design a NVO3 solution.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoPlainText">The I-D does not define performance metrics, so a=
 RFC 6390 review does not apply.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Performance metrics are mentioned in one place in th=
e document, in section 5.2.6 which deals with the interaction between overl=
ays and underlays and the need to exchange information about performance in=
 order to ensure that the overlays
 requirements can be met by the underlay paths. The metrics that are mentio=
ned as examples belong to the IP metrics category (throughput, delay, loss,=
 jitter). Mentioning the IPPM framework and even the relevant RFCs would ha=
ve helped, especially as there is
 a need for standard and stable definitions and methods of measurement in o=
rder to allow for an exchange of information between layers.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;">&#8216;Performance&#8217; is mentioned a few more times i=
n the document, with no reference to performance metrics. For example in se=
ction 3.3 there is talk about &#8216;adequate performance to VM application=
s&#8217;. &nbsp;It is not clear what this exactly means &#8211; what are th=
e metrics for measuring performance of VM applications and how are they det=
ermined as &#8216;adequate&#8217; (or not). <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;">Clarifying these issues would be very useful IMO, because=
 the overall functionality of the overlays networks depends among other on =
the sufficient allocation of resources in the underlays. The metrics and me=
thods of measuring performance need to be clearly articulated for this purp=
ose. <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;">Dan<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;"> <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F328FAZFFEXMB04globa_--


From nobody Wed May 28 07:39:41 2014
Return-Path: <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412691A0064 for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 05:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gwPSLNLLbhSv for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 05:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC98C1A0928 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 05:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1172FD9304 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 14:39:36 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1kr2gPGAd0I5 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 14:39:35 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from pb-10243.ethz.ch (pb-10243.ethz.ch [82.130.102.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7C20D9302 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 14:39:35 +0200 (MEST)
From: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_496037BE-9D5B-4E3B-9E23-A64A0BBDD70B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Message-Id: <9BA27AE3-7469-41DF-9A41-8B7A92968F45@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 14:39:36 +0200
To: pm-dir@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/A0gaYU604c7vVbFiKsMDEme7NOI
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 28 May 2014 07:39:31 -0700
Subject: [pm-dir] Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:39:44 -0000

--Apple-Mail=_496037BE-9D5B-4E3B-9E23-A64A0BBDD70B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

Greetings, all,

I've reviewed draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability for 6390 =
compliance.

The document defines the MPEG2 TS PSI Decodability Metrics Block, which =
creates an XRBLOCK for reporting error counters. The description of the =
events defined in an external document (ETSI TR 101 290, "Digital Video =
Broadcasting (DVB); Measurement guidelines for DVB systems"). The =
definitions of the error counters seem to be specific enough to be =
implementable, especially within the context of this external reference.

As they pertain to the reporting of raw error counters, these are not =
metrics per se, and the 6390 template would not appear to apply. The =
block may be misnamed (as in 6390 terminology, these aren't Decodability =
Metrics, rather Decode Error Counters); it's not clear to me if this =
name for the XRBLOCK was chosen for historical reasons.

Best regards,

Brian

--Apple-Mail=_496037BE-9D5B-4E3B-9E23-A64A0BBDD70B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJThdkJAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcqeUH/idt4LpbPIcQgLHoDPK1HUbd
uXy3OHoCPffRsVerrwerptHaVetDEu42w7hb/ejHAGSvW9UEINq2eTj2kZrdSE75
jLGAe6W+3zWImlS4YlH6cHT0GlkKW4jQTPxsl4iTIJrF9n/kUGjnb9uiundu647N
fQLJH9whQxq0EpgH8+sL3ruVRjOXx2i6LNOG4l42ageh5aSd6CIZWsM8sIu4R0ZL
BLxMwK1RKb5fMVSxambvqu0vbLQTgz0YiRjImVwEmjxvcom3oRDmf+mLS3qUPBed
vfhvuLoOkcuntf10s0vUsohi6UbOL81AuvF1q+SRLMEDLc1OhcVCmWzIGJ4ui4A=
=yqVn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_496037BE-9D5B-4E3B-9E23-A64A0BBDD70B--


From nobody Wed May 28 07:43:51 2014
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1411A09BA for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 07:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.852
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F8syFE0odO3T for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 07:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F2B1A09B0 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 07:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63801203D1; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:45:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from njfpsrvexg8.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.255.243]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CACE2B06; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:43:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG8.research.att.com ([fe80::cdea:b3f6:3efa:1841]) by njfpsrvexg8.research.att.com ([fe80::cdea:b3f6:3efa:1841%13]) with mapi; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:43:40 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 10:43:39 -0400
Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability
Thread-Index: Ac96gqz6aHwr7NA3S/CRpHgxKwXBFAAAD2Bg
Message-ID: <2845723087023D4CB5114223779FA9C8017992C4E3@njfpsrvexg8.research.att.com>
References: <9BA27AE3-7469-41DF-9A41-8B7A92968F45@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <9BA27AE3-7469-41DF-9A41-8B7A92968F45@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/b38u-JKsA5h9cA6iw5T20UVCdkc
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability@tools.ietf.org>, "alissa@cooperw.in" <alissa@cooperw.in>
Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 14:43:48 -0000

Thanks Brian. Forwarding to authors and ADs,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pm-dir [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 8:40 AM
> To: pm-dir@ietf.org
> Subject: [pm-dir] Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability
>=20
> Greetings, all,
>=20
> I've reviewed draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability for 6390
> compliance.
>=20
> The document defines the MPEG2 TS PSI Decodability Metrics Block, which
> creates an XRBLOCK for reporting error counters. The description of the
> events defined in an external document (ETSI TR 101 290, "Digital Video
> Broadcasting (DVB); Measurement guidelines for DVB systems"). The
> definitions of the error counters seem to be specific enough to be
> implementable, especially within the context of this external reference.
>=20
> As they pertain to the reporting of raw error counters, these are not
> metrics per se, and the 6390 template would not appear to apply. The bloc=
k
> may be misnamed (as in 6390 terminology, these aren't Decodability
> Metrics, rather Decode Error Counters); it's not clear to me if this name
> for the XRBLOCK was chosen for historical reasons.
>=20
> Best regards,
>=20
> Brian


From nobody Wed May 28 18:48:50 2014
Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2B51A6F34 for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 18:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.437
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UgSxI3RXBAg7 for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 18:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5E821A02CB for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 18:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEQ59301; Thu, 29 May 2014 01:48:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 29 May 2014 02:48:06 +0100
Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 29 May 2014 02:48:39 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.193]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 29 May 2014 09:48:32 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>, Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability
Thread-Index: AQHPeoK76W7dLRgwM0S2lDcYRMMdZptVi0uAgAE8LPA=
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:48:32 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84546131@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <9BA27AE3-7469-41DF-9A41-8B7A92968F45@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <2845723087023D4CB5114223779FA9C8017992C4E3@njfpsrvexg8.research.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <2845723087023D4CB5114223779FA9C8017992C4E3@njfpsrvexg8.research.att.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.131]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/A_-rOcm_yPuTYIzIrZWdCb3hSM4
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability@tools.ietf.org>, "alissa@cooperw.in" <alissa@cooperw.in>
Subject: [pm-dir] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFJldmlldyBvZiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXhyYmxv?= =?gb2312?b?Y2stcnRjcC14ci1wc2ktZGVjb2RhYmlsaXR5?=
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:48:50 -0000
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From nobody Fri May 30 03:29:30 2014
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58F41A06F7; Fri, 30 May 2014 03:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.25
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r_8LKGvmKY-M; Fri, 30 May 2014 03:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6740A1A0028; Fri, 30 May 2014 03:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmUGAIRciFOHCzIm/2dsb2JhbABZgkIjIlJYqhUBAQEBAQEGmBkBgQkWdIIlAQEBAQMSG0wQAgEIDQQEAQELHQcyFAkIAQEEAQ0FCBMHiCABp0OvOBeFVYhMMQYBgyuBFQSVd4sZjBaDOIIv
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.98,940,1392181200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="65551653"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast-smtpauth.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.38]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2014 06:29:19 -0400
X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.14]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 30 May 2014 06:27:09 -0400
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.14]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 30 May 2014 12:29:18 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)" <marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt
Thread-Index: Ac96dCxQ7OAlmfDXT02hcVeTz06jFwBZ4PlgAAVlGoA=
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:29:17 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F5467@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F328F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <B30152B129674240ADF67727A967301408C6A1@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <B30152B129674240ADF67727A967301408C6A1@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F5467AZFFEXMB04globa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/FbvlYpL0JPus-WCYlmn-AJxro04
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pm-dir] PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:29:28 -0000

--_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F5467AZFFEXMB04globa_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

Thank you for the response and for addressing my comments.

See in-line.

Regards,

Dan


From: LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) [mailto:marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 11:21 AM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); nvo3@ietf.org
Cc: Benoit Claise; pm-dir@ietf.org
Subject: RE: PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your feedback.
See my comments below.

Marc

________________________________
From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:56 PM
To: nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
Cc: Benoit Claise; pm-dir@ietf.org<mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: [nvo3] PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt
This is the PM-DIR review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt. I am the as=
signed PM-DIR reviewer for this I-D. This review refers only to performance=
 metrics aspects

This I-D defines a framework for Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3) and=
 a reference model along with logical components required to design a NVO3 =
solution.


The I-D does not define performance metrics, so a RFC 6390 review does not =
apply.

Performance metrics are mentioned in one place in the document, in section =
5.2.6 which deals with the interaction between overlays and underlays and t=
he need to exchange information about performance in order to ensure that t=
he overlays requirements can be met by the underlay paths. The metrics that=
 are mentioned as examples belong to the IP metrics category (throughput, d=
elay, loss, jitter). Mentioning the IPPM framework and even the relevant RF=
Cs would have helped, especially as there is a need for standard and stable=
 definitions and methods of measurement in order to allow for an exchange o=
f information between layers.
Agreed. I suggest adding a reference to RFC2330 in the last sentence of sec=
tion 4.2.6:

 "such as defined in [RFC2330]."

Yes, this is useful.


'Performance' is mentioned a few more times in the document, with no refere=
nce to performance metrics. For example in section 3.3 there is talk about =
'adequate performance to VM applications'.  It is not clear what this exact=
ly means - what are the metrics for measuring performance of VM application=
s and how are they determined as 'adequate' (or not).

Would "the expected Quality of Service" instead of "adequate performance" b=
e acceptable?

A further reference to RFC6390 could also be provided.



QoS is better than performance. The reference to 6390 is not necessary IMO,=
 but maybe it would help to clarify that 'adequate QoS' means in the contex=
t of services measuring the performance parameters and making sure that the=
y are within the limits defined by the SLA specific to the service.



In the other instances, the word 'performance"  is used in its general mean=
ing.



Clarifying these issues would be very useful IMO, because the overall funct=
ionality of the overlays networks depends among other on the sufficient all=
ocation of resources in the underlays. The metrics and methods of measuring=
 performance need to be clearly articulated for this purpose.



Regards,



Dan



--_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F5467AZFFEXMB04globa_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
	margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
pre
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
	margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
	margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:8.0pt;
	font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
	{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
	font-family:"Courier New";}
span.PlainTextChar
	{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle21
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
span.BalloonTextChar
	{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
	font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle24
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">Hi,<o:p></o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">Thank you for the resp=
onse and for addressing my comments.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">See in-line. <o:p></o:=
p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">Regards,<o:p></o:p></s=
pan></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">Dan<o:p></o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm =
0cm 0cm">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot=
;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-s=
ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"> LASSERRE=
, MARC (MARC) [mailto:marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 30, 2014 11:21 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Romascanu, Dan (Dan); nvo3@ietf.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Benoit Claise; pm-dir@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt<o:p>=
</o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ar=
ial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:blue">Hi&nbsp;Dan,</span><span style=
=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&qu=
ot;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ti=
mes New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ar=
ial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:blue">Thanks for your feedback.</spa=
n><span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&=
quot;serif&quot;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ar=
ial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:blue">See my comments below.</span><=
span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quo=
t;serif&quot;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ti=
mes New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ar=
ial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:blue">Marc</span><span style=3D"font=
-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><o:=
p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0=
cm 0cm 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bo=
ttom:5.0pt">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ti=
mes New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<div class=3D"MsoNormal" align=3D"center" style=3D"text-align:center"><span=
 style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;se=
rif&quot;">
<hr size=3D"2" width=3D"100%" align=3D"center">
</span></div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style=3D"fon=
t-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:<=
/span></b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&q=
uot;sans-serif&quot;"> nvo3 [<a href=3D"mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org">mailt=
o:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Romascanu, Dan (Dan)<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:nvo3@ietf.org">nvo3@ietf.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Benoit Claise; <a href=3D"mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org">pm-dir@ietf.or=
g</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [nvo3] PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt</=
span><span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot=
;,&quot;serif&quot;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">This is the PM-DIR review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framew=
ork-06.txt. I am the assigned PM-DIR reviewer for this I-D. This review ref=
ers only to performance metrics aspects
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">This I-D defines a framework for Network Virtualizat=
ion Overlays (NVO3) and a reference model along with logical components req=
uired to design a NVO3 solution.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoPlainText">The I-D does not define performance metrics, so a=
 RFC 6390 review does not apply.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Performance metrics are mentioned in one place in th=
e document, in section 5.2.6 which deals with the interaction between overl=
ays and underlays and the need to exchange information about performance in=
 order to ensure that the overlays
 requirements can be met by the underlay paths. The metrics that are mentio=
ned as examples belong to the IP metrics category (throughput, delay, loss,=
 jitter). Mentioning the IPPM framework and even the relevant RFCs would ha=
ve helped, especially as there is
 a need for standard and stable definitions and methods of measurement in o=
rder to allow for an exchange of information between layers.&nbsp;<span sty=
le=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;=
;color:blue">&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ar=
ial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:blue">Agreed. I suggest adding&nbsp;=
a reference to RFC2330 in the last sentence of section 4.2.6:</span><o:p></=
o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp;<span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&q=
uot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:blue">&quot;such as defined in=
 [RFC2330].&quot;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D">Yes, this is useful.<o=
:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0=
cm 0cm 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bo=
ttom:5.0pt">
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;">&#8216;Performance&#8217; is mentioned a few more times i=
n the document, with no reference to performance metrics. For example in se=
ction 3.3 there is talk about &#8216;adequate performance to VM application=
s&#8217;. &nbsp;It is not clear what this exactly means &#8211; what are th=
e metrics for measuring performance of VM applications and how are they det=
ermined as &#8216;adequate&#8217; (or not). </span><span style=3D"font-fami=
ly:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:blue">&nbsp;</span><o:p><=
/o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><span style=3D"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;co=
lor:blue">Would &quot;the expected Quality of Service&quot; instead of &quo=
t;adequate performance&quot; be acceptable?</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;co=
lor:blue">A further reference to RFC6390 could also be provided.</span><o:p=
></o:p></pre>
<pre>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">QoS is better than performance. The referen=
ce to 6390 is not necessary IMO, but maybe it would help to clarify that &#=
8216;adequate QoS&#8217; means in the context of services measuring the per=
formance parameters and making sure that they are within the limits defined=
 by the SLA specific to the service. <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;co=
lor:blue">In the other instances, the word 'performance&quot;&nbsp; is used=
 in its general meaning.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0=
cm 0cm 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bo=
ttom:5.0pt">
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;">Clarifying these issues would be very useful IMO, because=
 the overall functionality of the overlays networks depends among other on =
the sufficient allocation of resources in the underlays. The metrics and me=
thods of measuring performance need to be clearly articulated for this purp=
ose. <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;">Dan<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;=
sans-serif&quot;"> <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F5467AZFFEXMB04globa_--


From nobody Fri May 30 04:39:47 2014
Return-Path: <marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E50F1A6EF8; Fri, 30 May 2014 01:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tv46FPfiksT7; Fri, 30 May 2014 01:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoemail2.alcatel.com (hoemail2.alcatel.com [192.160.6.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9711C1A026D; Fri, 30 May 2014 01:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by hoemail2.alcatel.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s4U8Kg4Q005853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 30 May 2014 03:20:43 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s4U8KgEQ000582 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 May 2014 10:20:42 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.131]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:20:42 +0200
From: "LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)" <marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt
Thread-Index: Ac96dCxQ7OAlmfDXT02hcVeTz06jFwBZ4Plg
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 08:20:42 +0000
Message-ID: <B30152B129674240ADF67727A967301408C6A1@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F328F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F328F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B30152B129674240ADF67727A967301408C6A1FR711WXCHMBA03zeu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/jyrEPYl0o0-b_aSOFjtLczzVams
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 30 May 2014 04:39:44 -0700
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pm-dir] PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 08:20:57 -0000

--_000_B30152B129674240ADF67727A967301408C6A1FR711WXCHMBA03zeu_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your feedback.
See my comments below.

Marc

________________________________
From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:56 PM
To: nvo3@ietf.org
Cc: Benoit Claise; pm-dir@ietf.org
Subject: [nvo3] PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt

This is the PM-DIR review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt. I am the as=
signed PM-DIR reviewer for this I-D. This review refers only to performance=
 metrics aspects

This I-D defines a framework for Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3) and=
 a reference model along with logical components required to design a NVO3 =
solution.


The I-D does not define performance metrics, so a RFC 6390 review does not =
apply.

Performance metrics are mentioned in one place in the document, in section =
5.2.6 which deals with the interaction between overlays and underlays and t=
he need to exchange information about performance in order to ensure that t=
he overlays requirements can be met by the underlay paths. The metrics that=
 are mentioned as examples belong to the IP metrics category (throughput, d=
elay, loss, jitter). Mentioning the IPPM framework and even the relevant RF=
Cs would have helped, especially as there is a need for standard and stable=
 definitions and methods of measurement in order to allow for an exchange o=
f information between layers.
Agreed. I suggest adding a reference to RFC2330 in the last sentence of sec=
tion 4.2.6:

 "such as defined in [RFC2330]."



'Performance' is mentioned a few more times in the document, with no refere=
nce to performance metrics. For example in section 3.3 there is talk about =
'adequate performance to VM applications'.  It is not clear what this exact=
ly means - what are the metrics for measuring performance of VM application=
s and how are they determined as 'adequate' (or not).

Would "the expected Quality of Service" instead of "adequate performance" b=
e acceptable?

A further reference to RFC6390 could also be provided.



In the other instances, the word 'performance"  is used in its general mean=
ing.



Clarifying these issues would be very useful IMO, because the overall funct=
ionality of the overlays networks depends among other on the sufficient all=
ocation of resources in the underlays. The metrics and methods of measuring=
 performance need to be clearly articulated for this purpose.



Regards,



Dan



--_000_B30152B129674240ADF67727A967301408C6A1FR711WXCHMBA03zeu_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=
=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.micros=
oft.com/office/2004/12/omml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"GENERATOR" content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<style>@font-face {
	font-family: Calibri;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 612.0pt 792.0pt; margin: 72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.=
0pt; }
P.MsoNormal {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
A:link {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
P.MsoPlainText {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt;=
 mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Plain Text Char"
}
LI.MsoPlainText {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt;=
 mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Plain Text Char"
}
DIV.MsoPlainText {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt;=
 mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Plain Text Char"
}
PRE {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-styl=
e-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted Char"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
	FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: windowtext; mso-style-type: pe=
rsonal-compose
}
SPAN.PlainTextChar {
	FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-lin=
k: "Plain Text"; mso-style-name: "Plain Text Char"
}
SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar {
	FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML =
Preformatted"; mso-style-name: "HTML Preformatted Char"
}
.MsoChpDefault {
	FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.WordSection1 {
	page: WordSection1
}
</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"=
Arial"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014">Hi&nbsp;Dan,</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"=
Arial"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014"></span></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"=
Arial"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014">Thanks for your feedback.</span><=
/font></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"=
Arial"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014">See my comments below.</span></fo=
nt></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"=
Arial"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014"></span></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"=
Arial"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014">Marc</span></font></div>
<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MAR=
GIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=3D"ltr">
<div dir=3D"ltr" lang=3D"en-us" class=3D"OutlookMessageHeader" align=3D"lef=
t">
<hr tabindex=3D"-1">
<font size=3D"2" face=3D"Tahoma"><b>From:</b> nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@iet=
f.org] <b>
On Behalf Of </b>Romascanu, Dan (Dan)<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> nvo3@ietf.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Benoit Claise; pm-dir@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [nvo3] PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt<b=
r>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">This is the PM-DIR review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framew=
ork-06.txt. I am the assigned PM-DIR reviewer for this I-D. This review ref=
ers only to performance metrics aspects
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">This I-D defines a framework for Network Virtualizat=
ion Overlays (NVO3) and a reference model along with logical components req=
uired to design a NVO3 solution.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoPlainText">The I-D does not define performance metrics, so a=
 RFC 6390 review does not apply.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Performance metrics are mentioned in one place in th=
e document, in section 5.2.6 which deals with the interaction between overl=
ays and underlays and the need to exchange information about performance in=
 order to ensure that the overlays
 requirements can be met by the underlay paths. The metrics that are mentio=
ned as examples belong to the IP metrics category (throughput, delay, loss,=
 jitter). Mentioning the IPPM framework and even the relevant RFCs would ha=
ve helped, especially as there is
 a need for standard and stable definitions and methods of measurement in o=
rder to allow for an exchange of information between layers.&nbsp;<span cla=
ss=3D"156304907-30052014"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"=
>&nbsp;</font></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014"><font=
 color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">Agreed. I suggest adding&nbsp;=
a reference to RFC2330 in the last sentence of section 4.2.6:</font></span>=
</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014"><font=
 color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"></font></span>&nbsp;</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014">&nbsp=
;<font face=3D"Arial"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2">&quot;such as defi=
ned in [RFC2330].&quot;</font></font></span></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014"><font=
 color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"></font></span>&nbsp;</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MAR=
GIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=3D"ltr">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<pre><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">&=
#8216;Performance&#8217; is mentioned a few more times in the document, wit=
h no reference to performance metrics. For example in section 3.3 there is =
talk about &#8216;adequate performance to VM applications&#8217;. &nbsp;It =
is not clear what this exactly means &#8211; what are the metrics for measu=
ring performance of VM applications and how are they determined as &#8216;a=
dequate&#8217; (or not). <span class=3D"156304907-30052014"><font color=3D"=
#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">&nbsp;</font></span></span></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-S=
IZE: 11pt"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=
=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">Would &quot;the expected Quality of Service&quot; ins=
tead of &quot;adequate performance&quot; be acceptable?</font></span></span=
></pre>
<pre dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-S=
IZE: 11pt"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=
=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">A further reference to RFC6390 could also be provided=
.</font></span></span></pre>
<pre dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-S=
IZE: 11pt"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014"></span></span>&nbsp;</pre>
<pre dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-S=
IZE: 11pt"><span class=3D"156304907-30052014"><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=
=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">In the other instances, the word 'performance&quot;  =
is used in its general meaning.</font></span></span></pre>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MAR=
GIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=3D"ltr">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<pre><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><=
o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></pre>
</div>
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<pre><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">C=
larifying these issues would be very useful IMO, because the overall functi=
onality of the overlays networks depends among other on the sufficient allo=
cation of resources in the underlays. The metrics and methods of measuring =
performance need to be clearly articulated for this purpose. <o:p></o:p></s=
pan></pre>
</div>
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<pre><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><=
o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></pre>
</div>
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<pre><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">R=
egards,<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
</div>
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<pre><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><=
o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></pre>
</div>
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<pre><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">D=
an<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
</div>
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<pre><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> =
<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--_000_B30152B129674240ADF67727A967301408C6A1FR711WXCHMBA03zeu_--