Subject: [ippm] comments on draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-07

From: "Loki Jorgenson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:23:24 -0700

Section 3.1 - The term "measurement point" is never used subsequently -
it should be removed - unless changes are made to utilize it (no
suggestions where).
 
Section 3.4 - The term "complete time interval" is never used
subsequently - it should be removed - unless, changes are made to
utilize it in sections (e.g. 6.1.1)
 
Section 3.7 - The tem "index" is never used subsequently - should be
removed - given its relevance to PMOL, it probably should not be
introduced.
 
Section 4.5 (second paragraph) "The seconds step..." --> "The second
step...."
 
Section 5 - for clarity, I would suggest making the last paragraph
regarding IPR into section 5.1

Has there been any substantial discussion regarding applicability to
capacity (available or total) and reordering measures?  It is not clear
to me why this framework should not include either - except that there
are no IPPM RFC definitions/metrics to refer to.
 
Is there any need to keep and expand the meaning of "index"?  Or is it
sufficient to push it off to PMOL as a discussion point within the
metric framework?  I would recommend that it be pushed to PMOL and the
existing cross-referencing be reinforced.
 
These last two points MAY be brought up at the meeting.

Loki Jorgenson
Chief Scientist
Apparent Networks
The Hudson House
Suite 400 - 321 Water Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6B 1B8

e   [email-masked]
t   604 433 2333 ext 105
f   604 433 2311
m   604 250-4642
w   www.ApparentNetworks.com

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:35:45 -0400

Hi Loki,

Thanks for your comments, see below.

Al

At 07:23 PM 3/13/2009, Loki Jorgenson wrote:

Section 3.1 - The term
"measurement point" is never used subsequently - it should be
removed - unless changes are made to utilize it (no suggestions
where).

But this is a Framework, providing the core definitions for other
drafts.

We use this term in the spatial composition draft. (e.g., 4.1.7)

Section 3.4 - The term
"complete time interval" is never used subsequently - it should
be removed - unless, changes are made to utilize it in sections (e.g.
6.1.1)

That's a good suggestion, and I expect that this term

will be used in a future draft on temporal aggregation.

Section 3.7 - The tem
"index" is never used subsequently - should be removed - given
its relevance to PMOL, it probably should not be
introduced.

I think we agreed to do pull it into the PMOL framework at the

last PMOL meeting (the ippm document was not revised since
then).

Section 4.5 (second paragraph)
"The seconds step..." --> "The second
step...."

Section 5 - for clarity, I would
suggest making the last paragraph regarding IPR into section 5.1

Has there been any substantial
discussion regarding applicability to capacity (available or total) and
reordering measures?  It is not clear to me why this framework
should not include either - except that there are no IPPM RFC
definitions/metrics to refer to.

Yes, we discussed reordering at the outset of the project,

and excluded it because it didn't appear to conform to the

assumption of independent performance between segments,

and because reordering in one segment might be completely undone

in another, or made worse - hard to predict.

We didn't discuss Capacity specifically, but we didn't have

the RFC definitions yet, either.

Is there any need to keep and expand
the meaning of "index"?  Or is it sufficient to push it
off to PMOL as a discussion point within the metric framework?  I
would recommend that it be pushed to PMOL and the existing
cross-referencing be reinforced.

I prefer to move it cleanly (delete in the "composition"
framework),

as it's not a critical part of this topic, AFAICT.