Subject: [ippm] Draft Minutes

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:20:26 +0100

IPPM group,

Please find below the draft minutes of last week's meeting.  They
are a merger of notes submitted by Erik and Matt (thanks, gentlemen),
all errors are probably mine :-)  (I'm pretty bad at making minutes).

Comments welcome,

Henk

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

IPPM-WG @ IETF 76
=================

Chair:   Henk Uijterwaal
Scribes: Erik Burger
          Matt Zekauskas (remote participant)

1. Administrativia.
    The Chair opened the meeting with the usual stuff.  The co-chair
    could not make the meeting and sent his apologies.  Erik Burger
    voluntered as scribe.  The agenda was approved without changes,
    the speakers for items 4 through 8 will all present through WebEx.

2. Status of drafts and milestones
    The chair gave an overview of drafts not discussed today:

    * draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-03.txt: published as RFC5618
    * draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-13.txt: RFC5644
    * draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-04.txt: this draft passed WGLC,
      it is now on the chair's desk and will be passed to the IESG
      shortly.
    * draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-08.txt: Ready for WGLC right
      after this meeting.

3. Reporting drafts. (Al Morton)
    a. draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-04.txt: see previous item.
    b. draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-00
       This draft became a WG item, comments received on the individual
       submission version have been included in the -00 version.  The
       author is looking for more readers.

4. Metrics composition drafts status. (Al Morton)
    * draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg
    * draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition

    Looking for WGLC on framework draft, Henk says this will be done soon.

    Spatial composition updated based on what agreed to.  Resolved a comment
    on an early session.  Resolved a case to compute e2e performance for
    multiple segments of a path even if e2e routing is not working.  This
    case is now mentioned.

    Ruediger Geib said he had some comments that he will post to the list.

5. TWAMP features
    a. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-03 (Morton, Ciavattone)
       Al briefly outlined the proposed changes that the draft makes
       to the protocol.  It is essentially ready to go to WGLC but the
       readership has been small.   As this makes significant changes
       to the protocol, a review would be good.  Unfortunately, the
       folks active in the initial version have all moved to other
       things.  The chairs will discuss this further.
    b. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-02  (Morton, Chiba)
       This draft is ready to go to WGLC.

6. Advancing Metrics along the standards path (Geib, 20')
    http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-geib-ippm-metrictest-01.txt

    Ruediger presented this draft.  Comments from the floor:

    Matt Mathis: How aggregated was path measurement taken from?  It is on the
    backbone of a major provider, thus heavily aggregated.  MM said we need a
    statistician to understand what happens when temporal resolution taken to
    low values.

    Focus was on delay, just a little on packet loss and jitter. Al: ideally
    think about test plans for validation while developing the metrics on
    throughput.

    Is there interest in the work group for this draft? Al, Reza, Rudi, Gerard
    have been working on the draft.  At the SF meeting, 4 others expressed
    interest but they haven't commented.  Henk will chase them.

    Ruediger is interested in doing live testing, but then sees issue with
    shipping equipment around the world.  There are some possibilities though,
    to be investigated.

7. TCP Throughput Testing (Barry Constantine, 20')
    http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt

    This is potential new work, presented to see if there is interest.
    Barry gave an overview of the draft.

    Comments: Reudiger: It is OK to standardize methods and metrics, but
    probably not pass/fail metrics. He does not like idea of putting
    monitoring system on that constantly loads network.  Barry: Intention is for
    this to be internal, turn-up testing. Not targeted for constant monitoring.

    Take to list for interest as a WG item.

8. Burst Loss Metrics/Dick Duffield (20')
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01.txt

    This draft was presented by Nick.  Comments.

    Matt Mathis: Has not read draft; however, it sounds like the assumption is
    the narrowest link is the link likely to be lossy. That may not be true.

    Nick will do another draft. Submit to WG for consideration.

9. AOB
    No other business came up.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
                                                                  H.L.Mencken

---

From: "DUFFIELD, NICHOLAS G (NICK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:44:41 -0500

>     the narrowest link is the link likely to be lossy. That may not be

A comment on Matt's comment: in the draft there's no assumption about where loss occurs. I guess Matt has in mind probing with back-to-back packet pairs (or trains) and measuring the stretch or compression in order to estimate bandwidth. 

The draft methodology is different; the separation between the packets in a pair is the temporal resolution at which different loss episodes are to be distinguished.

>     Nick will do another draft. Submit to WG for consideration.

We'll clarify the difference in the next draft.

Nick