Subject: [ippm] Draft minutes IPPM meeting in Vancouver

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:19:42 +0100

IPPM group,

Please find below the draft minutes from last week's meeting.  Thanks to
Jay Karthik for producing them.   Comments to the list or the chairs please,

Henk

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Minutes from IPPM meeting.
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:21:56 -0500
From: Jay Karthik (jakarthi) <[email-masked]>
To: Matthew J Zekauskas <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
CC: Al Morton <[email-masked]>

Agenda Bashing by - Chair Persons  (Matthew Zekauskas & Henk Uijterwaal)

Chair person then went over administrative requirements.

Jay agreed to take minutes

----------------------------------------
TWAMP By Kaynam Heyadat

TWAMP version 6 is needed and planned to be released.

Al: 6) Section 3.5 - Does the server being contacted with an unknown
command and always responding create a security risk?

Chair person Matt said since it is on top of TCP it cannot be a big risk

----------------------------------------
Al's Framework for Metric Composition and spatial composition of
Metrics.

Presented his slides. Slide 2 - version of spatial-composition should
have been 5.

Explained types of composition.

None objected Al's response for comments from Alan Clark.

- Waiting for deadline hurts. No one reads the drafts.

- In response to Rexa Fardid's comments Al agreed to some of them.
Al: Since we added the term "index" in this version, it was a source of
concern for both Reza and Loki (and others mentioned this off-line).
Loki's concern regards the explicit scope, clearly this was an attempt
to expand the scope of the draft and make it useful beyond IPPM.
We need to carefully consider this course, and get feedback from the WG

Al wanted to say "no" to referencing RFC editor submissions - typo
there.

More comments from Reza. Al agreed. Al would respond to more comments on
the list.

Al would address more of Loki's comments.

Loki envisions a case where some sub-path metrics are not standardized,
they might be proprietary, or may be covered by IPR. What is the
implication on the composed metric, if proprietary and or IPR-encumbered
metrics are used to compose a standard metric?

Al further added that it is besides the point and worth further
discussion since Loki deals with these issues in particular.

Al wanted more comments on Framework and needs volunteers for reviewing
spatial composition as well.

Chairperson - Henk is pulling a list of volunteers. He asked that Al
sends mail to the folks who volunteered seeking comments. Chairperson
thanked folks who commented.

---------------------------------------
Al presented status of the multimetrics draft.

Al gave a good editorial read-through. Encouraged the audience to read.

Joe Kopena From Drexel university - Wanted to know if the draft could be
split into 2 since it is so huge. Most contents would not be
overlapping.

Al mentioned he did a similar approach with p2p and p2mp with some other
work and agreed with this comment.

Al agreed it is getting long - especially according to the Joe Kopena
that when spatial jitter metric is added.

Al said this point is well taken and asked if any other wanted to see
the draft split. No one raised their hands. Al mentioned he will figure
this out. Al wanted to have WGLC on version 06 by mid January.

Henk commented that there was not much point in the split and Al added
that someone with interest in one part of a draft can just read and
comment on that part.

Also has other comments he would send the list but 1 comment in section
4 - indicating a loss and ..... Statement is not clear. It is not
obvious that it is possible. Al agreed. Need some clarification there.
Al agreed If loss and delay was not part of the vector it would have
been simpler.

----------------------------------------
Delay variation Applicability statement By Al

Beat Benoit Claise on a nightly basis to evolve this draft.

Al described 2 methods to create delay metrics.

Described inter packet delay var.

Section 3.2 has de-jitter buffer size - clarified that section further.

Got some comment on Appendixes but need more.

Requested audience to look at the recent version to figure out if their
comments were addressed.

Al summarized Loki'S comments.

What is done in the draft is within the scope of this WG.

Section 8.6 reference is important according to Loki and Al incorporated
this amongst other comments.

Al requested audience to point any ambiguity in the text. Al then
acknowledged Carsten for his comments and discussed the comments.

There was just 1 TBD from Bob Holley's comments.

Al asked "Do we rely on delay variation for path change ? "

Al asked if someone disagrees with the comparison table since that could
be discussed.

Al summarized that IPDV and PDV have their strengths and weaknesses.

Suggestion for additional tasks and circumstances - if any should be
sent soon.

Chairperson - Henk suggested that the list of unresolved comments should
be sent to the list. Al agreed.

----------------------------------------
Reporting IP Performance Metrics to Users Draft by Martin Swany

Swany mentioned he took over as the editor of the ID. Talked about the
renamed Metrics. Also went over other changes to the recent version.

There are a couple of open issues and Swany requested comments on these.

Swany asked if there was more clarifications than the naming issues.

No question from audience ? Chairperson then mentioned there is a
related draft by Al who was requested to present.

----------------------------------------
Reporting Metrics : Different point of view By Al Morton.

In a humorous note - Al mentioned Steve Konish commented on Thanksgiving
day and that he responded same day.

Al: Average Delay Variation:  a lot of people report this, but it
doesn't relate to something useful for application design.
Better to report the range or Pseudo range.

Matt and Henk said they read this ID. Al indicated that this has been
out for a while and solicited comments.

No comments from audience. Al and chairpersons decided to ask the list.

Steve Pratt, Loki and Jay Karthik volunteered to review this.

----------------------------------------
Duplicate Drafts - Henk

Asked for comments and if this can be moved to WGLC.

Al mentioned that it is in good shape for a near future - WGLC.

----------------------------------------
ITU-T SG 12 Performance Metrics Liaison - Al.

Al mentioned that IPv6 is considered and raised a point that IPv6 needs
to be looked at work done at IPPM.

Henk clarified that none of the drafts are specific to IP versions.

Matt suggested Al to let him know if something was explicit. Al gave an
example of how TTL is now Hop Count.

Consent is the term that ITU-T uses to indicate that the text is about
to begin their Accelerated Approval process (AAP). If there are
comments, then the text may still change.

Al asked for comments on the G.chirp draft text from Q13. No question
from audience.

----------------------------------------
Future of the WG.

Henk mentioned that we are nearing the end of our task list and
solicited comments/questions on this. Any opinions ?

Al asked if there were any new proposal ? Henk mentioned not much.

Lars Eggert mentioned 1 remaining item missing was definition of
statistical equivalence in order to verify that multiple implementations
implement the same metric correctly. This is needed to progress metrics
along standards track. A implementation report is needed on this as well
including details on whether the results generated for the same scenario
are statistically equivalent.

Al further mentioned - Test Plans - How are we making comparison - what
is the threshold - How do deal with _____ - need to decide what is
equivalent.

Lars asked if there was a metric that the group was interested in a
specific metric to be used as a test case for this process. (The process
he mentioned earlier)

Henk mentioned - interop was done for delay metrics. Henk took an action
item to do dig up the old work from 2000.

Matt agreed and gave an instance of this being done in the past.

Al - slide will not produce the color green with Henk's work

Saverio - like to have extension of the traceroute measurement draft
taking into account additional measurement like ping etc.

Matt - reluctant to open a can of worms. Yet he did open. :) Wanted to
have clean separation between loss and delay measurements. Maybe they
need to ride solo with clear procedures. Random thought.

Joe Kopena From Drexel university - That would be useful - worthwhile in
collecting it in a central way - Joe mentioned that this is a serious
problem for MANETs. On mobile adhoc networks packet loss is significant
and it complicates measurement.

- Al agreed. He started characterizing them in the applicability
statement. Kind of implementers guide for those 2 metrics.

- Lars - What he heard thus far - Suggested ideas that were thrown were
all close to the scope of the current charter. If folks are interested
in further work from the charter, they need to prepare for a BOF.

Matt clarified that by asking if the Charter needs a change the idea
should be thrown on the list.

Henk suggested we discuss this on the list as well.

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

Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
                                       Alan Greenspan on the next elections

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