Subject: Re: [ippm] traceroute as WG work item?

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:57:47 -0400

I am late (as usual), sorry.

> Therefore I propose that this becomes an IPPM WG work item.
> Any comment, pro or con, is very welcome.

I don't see this as work that the IETF needs to be worried about.  It is
certainly important for your project (data warehouse) that everyone
understands the input and output formats for traceroute (etc.)
measurements.  And, so you need to write it down.  But, I don't see it
as necessitating an internet standard of some sort.  It's just a data
format.  We don't make an internet standard out of ppt even though lots
of us exchange that.  Or, of excel --- which we do use to store / share
data.  Or, libpcap.  Or, ...  It just seems to me like something that
the IETF doesn't need to get its fingers all over.  In any case ... it
would probably be much better done if a half-dozen people just did
something reasonable in an afternoon (and then wrote a few easy tools
that they could share) rather than an IETF WG taking a couple years to
haggle over it.

But, then again my sense of what the IETF should be doing isn't really
in alignment with the rest of the world's sense these days.  So, YMMV.

allman

-- 
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

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

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:00:41 +0200

>I am late (as usual), sorry.

As the WG chair:  No, comments on this topic are still welcome,
until 29/4.

>as necessitating an internet standard of some sort.

Speaking as myself.  I've spend more time than I care to remember
writing scripts to convert the data from one set into the format used
by another, in order to merge results.  It often happened that the data
in one set was collected in a slightly different way than the other,
leading to interesting side effects.  So, I do think that writing down
what we should record from a traceroute measurement is a good idea.  I
do not think that it should be an internet standard, but OTOH, it
should be a document in a well known place.  An informational RFC might
just be the right thing.

>   It's just a data

I'd favor this approach: collect input for a few months, write it
down, publish by the summer.

If we cannot do this in a short timeframe, we've failed.

Henk

>in alignment with the rest of the world's sense these days.  So, YMMV.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look here junior, don't you be so happy.
And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad.                 (Tom Verlaine)

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:42:25 +0200

Hi Mark,

--On 4/16/2005 7:57 PM +0200 Mark Allman wrote:

> I don't see this as work that the IETF needs to be worried about.

In March (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg00553.html)
you stated that you would not be against such work. You just wondered
about why doing it right now.  Can you tell what made you change your
mind since then?

> It is
> format.

No, it is also an information model.  A draft of it is already
contained in the current version while the data format is still
a rather open issue.

> We don't make an internet standard out of ppt even though lots
> data.

Please consider that it is not just about data formats.
Yes, you can easily write tools for converting measurement results
stored in on data format to another one, say, excel sheet to a PPT.
But as soon as you want to interpret numbers or compare them,
you need to have a clear and shared semantics for the numbers you
are dealing with.  This would be provided by the information model.

> Or, libpcap.  Or, ...  It just seems to me like something that

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:41:34 -0400

> In March
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg00553.html) you
> stated that you would not be against such work. You just wondered

Well, I was never really compelled.  I looked over the draft and thought
about it more I just don't think we need to do it.  At the end of the
day it wouldn't be harmful to do this draft - but I don't find it really
needed or even hugely desireable.  (A further hesitation I'd have is
that not many folks seem to have indicated interested and so I'd wonder
about energy.)

> Please consider that it is not just about data formats.  Yes, you can
> easily write tools for converting measurement results stored in on
> data format to another one, say, excel sheet to a PPT.  But as soon as
> you want to interpret numbers or compare them, you need to have a
> clear and shared semantics for the numbers you are dealing with.  This
> would be provided by the information model.

Three line internet-draft:
 
    date > traceroute-data 2>&1
    uname -a >> traceroute-data 2>&1
    traceroute somehost >> traceroute-data 2>&1

What are you suggesting beyond that, except specifying a stock format?
Maybe I just don't follow.

Thanks,
allman

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:08:08 +0200

Hi Mark,

> that not many folks seem to have indicated interested and so I'd wonder

I share this concern.  Is there nobody else interested?

> Maybe I just don't follow.

In <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg00548.html>
you argured strongly for using XML, so you should extend your I-D:

    echo "<traceroute-data>" > traceroute-data
    date > traceroute-data 2>&1
    uname -a >> traceroute-data 2>&1
    traceroute somehost >> traceroute-data 2>&1
    echo "</tracerouter-data>" > traceroute-data

When you start parsing it, you might think about structuring the content
some more and might finally end up with a schema that comes close to what
is the information model in the current draft.

Thanks,

    Juergen

---

From: Tanja Zseby <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:25:48 +0200

Hi all,

we also spend some time on converting traces from one format to another 
or design tools in a way that they are able to read different formats. 
Fortunately for packet traces often libpcap format is used, but there 
are still many traces in different formats. I assume if the libpcap 
format would be the standard for storing packet traces even more people 
would use this.
For traceroute data it seems that there is nothing like a commonly used 
format (as libpcap for packet traces) so I think it is even more of 
benefit if people agree on a format. In my opinion this is what 
standardization is for. If it is simple to write it down, even better. 
 From the mails on the list it seems that there are at least a few 
things that need to be discussed . There exists a first draft and 
authors that commited themself to do work on this. So there is interest 
and there are people who will work on this. Why not giving them a home 
within the IPPM group to make their work more valuable for all of us ?
So I think the IETF is the right place to discuss this and for me it 
would be of benefit to have such a standard format.

Regards
Tanja

Henk Uijterwaal wrote:

> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Tanja Zseby			    	      	
Fraunhofer Institute FOKUS			Email: [email-masked]	
Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31			Phone: +49-30-3463-7153
D-10589 Berlin, Germany				Fax:   +49-30-3463-8153
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
"Living on earth is expensive but it includes a free trip around the sun." (Anonymous)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:05:24 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Quittek" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ippm] traceroute as WG work item?

> I share this concern.  Is there nobody else interested?

My concern too; a technically valid topic but not one that I can generate much
energy for at present.  It does not solve any issues that are bugging me.

Tom Petch