Subject: [ippm] Revised list of milestones for the group

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 03:11:18 +0100 (CET)

IPPM group,

During Tuesday's meeting, we discussed the list of open milestones for
the group and made suggestions on how to either finish them or drop them
due to a lack of interest.  The full list of milestones is at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ippm-charter.html, here is the list of
open items with their new, proposed, due date:

Aug 04   Create initial draft on the definitions of link bandwidth capacity.
         Comment: a potential author has been identified and will be
         contacted by the chairs.

Remove   Create initial draft on a sensitivity analysis of one-way delay
         and loss metric parameters (companion to the AS).
         Comment: there is no interest in this anymore.

Aug 04   Create draft on a One-Way Active Measurement Protocol that satisfies
         the requirements document.
         Comment: see next mail.

Remove   Create initial draft on comparing ITU and IETF IP performance metrics.
         Comment: the person who expressed interest in this has disappeared,
         it has also been argued hat this document is no longer necessary.

Dec 04   Submit link bandwidth capacity definitions draft to the IESG,
         for consideration as an Informational RFC.

Remove   Submit draft on bulk transfer capacity metric based on the bulk
         transfer framework (CAP) to the IESG for Proposed Standard.
         Comment: Interest from the authors has disappeared, the draft
         expired.

Dec 04   Submit recommendation to the IESG on whether to advance, recycle,
         or deprecate RFCs 2678, 2679, 2680, and 2681 (connectivity, loss, &
         delay).

         Replace by: collect implementation reports for RFCs 2678-2681.
         See next mail for details.

Oct 04   Submit draft on a packet reordering metric to the IESG for Proposed
         Standard
         Comment:  This document exists but needs more readers.

Remove   Submit AS for one-way delay and loss to the IESG for PS

Remove   Submit sensitivity analysis of one-way delay and loss, for
         consideration as an Informational RFC.

Dec 04?  Submit draft on a MIB for reporting IPPM metrics.
         Comment: this is under discussion, a mail will follow later.

Aug 04   Submit draft on the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol to the
         IESG for consideration as a PS

If you were the author of any of the dropped items and still plan to work on
them, please contact us with a new ETA.  Also contact us if you feel that
a work item should not be dropped _and_ you have time to work on it.

Please comment on this proposal by March 16 (2 weeks from today),

Matt & Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit
and wisdom to do their job properly.                          (David Brent).

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: "Robert Holley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 07:28:01 -0500

Henk,

I've been monitoring this wg list some quite some time now. Even
periodically submitted a comment or two over the years.

One thing I noticed on you proposed agenda that caught my eye. That is the
removal of the "Comparision of ITU-T and IETF IP Metrics". Your rational was
that the resources were no longer available and that it was argued that is
was no longer necessary.

Before completely removing this work item, I would like to understand the
comments that it is no longer neccessary. I was not able to attend the
meeting in person, so perhaps you could provide a pointer for further
discussion on this subject.

thanks in advance
============================================
Robert Holley
Network Consulting Engineer
Global Solutions Engineering

Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone:  +1 919-392-2359
Pager:   +1 800-796-7363 pin 100-9187
============================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Henk
> Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 9:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ippm] Revised list of milestones for the group
>
>
> IPPM group,
>
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

---

From: "Robert Holley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 07:28:01 -0500

Henk,

thanks in advance

Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road.

---

From: Matthew J Zekauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:34:40 -0500

> discussion on this subject.

I don't think it's ever been discussed in detail on the list,
which is a fault of Chairs past (partially me), and the reason
why it's in Henk's list.  However, it has been in the meeting
minutes posted to the list for the last few physical meetings.
[Killing the milestone is not a foregone conclusion -- it could
still happen if someone steps up to do the work.]

In particular, Al Morton, who attended both ITU meetings and IPPM
meetings recommended at IETF56 in San Francisco (and before)
that it be dropped - for example, see item 1 in

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/226.htm

(although there is not much detail there).
Al, maybe you could summarize your position?

We have had a few people indicate interest in the past,
but have never had an internet draft submitted.

--Matt

---

From: Matthew J Zekauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:34:40 -0500

--Matt

---

From: "Robert Holley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:43:23 -0500

Matt,

thanks for the information.

I'll follow up with Al Morton to understand the reasoning.

regards

Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road.

> From: Matthew J Zekauskas [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 8:35 AM
> To: Robert Holley
> Cc: [email-masked]; Al Morton
> Subject: RE: [ippm] Revised list of milestones for the group
> 
>

---

From: "Robert Holley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:43:23 -0500

Matt,

regards

Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road.

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:58:15 -0500

>Al, maybe you could summarize your position?

Sure.  I think that when Will Leland first analyzed the
differences (in a talk at IETF-44?), there were a few
dingers, such as attributing infinite delay to lost packets,
and the two different approaches to assessing delay variation.

When the comparison draft was discussed in Minneapolis a few
years later, I said that IPPM should avoid taking up this work
while there were moving targets. Delay variation was work in
progress in both bodies, and we ended up with pretty-good agreement.
For example, it's possible to make an ITU-T PDV measurement within
the options of IPPM's IPDV.

So, at IETF-55, I recommended that we continue to spend
our time minimizing the differences, rather than writing about them
(and I repeat this sentence whenever the topic comes-up).

hope this helps,
Al

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:58:15 -0500

hope this helps,
Al

---

From: "Robert Holley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:49:15 -0500

Al,

Seems like a very practical approach (e.g. to do it rather than write about
it).

I agree that is an effective method within the workgroup to get things done.
One caveat though is for external groups.

For example, I know T1A1 is looking at some approaches to outage/reliability
reporting. Rather than develop their own metrics, they will probably select
something from either the IETF or ITU. A first step would be a comparison.
Of course one could argue that if T1A1 needs the information, then they
should develop the paper.

Rather than have an external group make observations, imho it seems like a
comparison authored by the IETF and a comparison authored by the ITU (or
perhaps jointly developed) would be more effective.

In any case, I would hope that one would be a super-set of the other.

regards
Bob

Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road.

> From: Al Morton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:58 PM
> To: Matthew J Zekauskas; Robert Holley
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert Holley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:49:15 -0500

Al,

regards
Bob

Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road.

---

From: Petre Dini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:07:51 -0800

At 08:49 AM 3/10/2004 -0500, Robert Holley wrote:
>reporting.

ATIS and T1A1 has already several documents proposing metrics and 
methodologies for computing/reporting outages; references to IETF and ITU 
are made.
ATIS:           http://www.atis.org/
T1A1.2:        http://www.t1.org/t1a1/_a12-hom.htm

>Rather than develop their own metrics, they will probably select

---

From: Petre Dini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:07:51 -0800

---

From: "Robert Holley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:39:29 -0500

Petre,

Excellent observation.

T1A1 is working in this area as I implied in the previous post (in fact I've
worked on one of the papers).

However, I don't believe T1A1 has reached a conclusion on this subject. Work
is continuing.

regards
Bob

> From: Petre Dini [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:08 AM
> To: Robert Holley
> Cc: Al Morton; Matthew J Zekauskas; [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert Holley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:39:29 -0500

Petre,

Excellent observation.

regards
Bob

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:34:02 +0100 (CET)

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Robert Holley wrote:

> T1A1 is working in this area as I implied in the previous post (in fact
> I've worked on one of the papers). However, I don't believe T1A1 has
> reached a conclusion on this subject. Work is continuing.

Just to be 100% clear:  The fact that this item is removed from the
milestones means that the group doesn't see a need for a document
comparing the IPPM metrics with something else TODAY. If this changes
anytime in the future, then it can always put back on the list.

Henk

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:34:02 +0100 (CET)

Henk

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:54:52 +0100 (CET)

IPPM group,

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) wrote:

> due to a lack of interest.

[...]

> Please comment on this proposal by March 16 (2 weeks from today),

That's today, if there are no further comments, then we'll declare this
list final.

Henk

> The full list of milestones is at

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:54:52 +0100 (CET)

IPPM group,

[...]

Henk