From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu Dec 1 06:47:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D35511E83ED; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 06:47:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.322 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VpWXzIjMhp+I; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 06:47:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB7A11E80A6; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 06:47:44 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64 Message-ID: <20111201144744.30975.72020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 06:47:44 -0800 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Last Call: (IPPM standard advancement testing) to BCP X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:47:45 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'IPPM standard advancement testing' as a BCP The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-12-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. This document includes a normative reference to RFC 2330, which is an Informational RFC, however, RFC 2330 has been used as a normative reference in several other IPPM working group documents, though some predate the requirement to split normative and informative references. One example of an existing normative reference to RFC 2330 is found in RFC 6049. The IESG is particularly interested in determining whether the community considers RFC 2330 sufficiently mature to serve as a normative reference for standards track and BCP publications. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From wes@mti-systems.com Thu Dec 1 08:33:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C4611E8238 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:33:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h3nSYSIlu-FH for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from omr4.networksolutionsemail.com (omr4.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D022211E8130 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-omr2 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr4.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pB1GWv4J001166 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:33:00 -0500 Authentication-Results: cm-omr2 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com Received: from [173.108.38.153] ([173.108.38.153:47543] helo=[68.245.171.115]) by cm-omr2 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id BE/C7-29388-83CA7DE4; Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:32:57 -0500 Message-ID: <4ED7AC3B.9080309@mti-systems.com> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:32:59 -0500 From: Wesley Eddy Organization: MTI Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <20111201144744.30975.72020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20111201144744.30975.72020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20111201144744.30975.72020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Last Call: (IPPM standard advancement testing) to BCP X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:33:05 -0000 I should explain to the working group what the 2nd IETF LC for this document is about. During the IESG evaluation on the document, it was determined that this really needed to be a BCP since it's about process. Also, it was pointed out that the normative reference to RFC 2330 needs to be pointed out in the IETF LC since 2330 is Informational. Once this has been done, it can be added to the down-ref registry, if the IETF doesn't express any issue with that (and it shouldn't since 2330 has been cited this way before). Thanks for bearing with the 2nd IETF LC on this! -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ippm] Last Call: (IPPM standard advancement testing) to BCP Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 06:47:44 -0800 From: The IESG Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce CC: ippm@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'IPPM standard advancement testing' as a BCP The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-12-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. This document includes a normative reference to RFC 2330, which is an Informational RFC, however, RFC 2330 has been used as a normative reference in several other IPPM working group documents, though some predate the requirement to split normative and informative references. One example of an existing normative reference to RFC 2330 is found in RFC 6049. The IESG is particularly interested in determining whether the community considers RFC 2330 sufficiently mature to serve as a normative reference for standards track and BCP publications. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From rakeshkumar.patel@us.fujitsu.com Fri Dec 2 10:45:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C786211E80E7 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:45:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sEvhNAesGNFK for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:45:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from fncnmp04.fnc.fujitsu.com (fncnmp04.fnc.fujitsu.com [168.127.0.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507DD11E80B5 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:45:34 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,285,1320645600"; d="scan'208";a="488625028" Received: from unknown (HELO bali.ny.fnc.fujitsu.com) ([167.254.240.129]) by fncnmp02.fnc.fujitsu.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 02 Dec 2011 12:45:33 -0600 Received: from [167.254.240.186] by bali.ny.fnc.fujitsu.com (8.14.4+Sun) id pB2IjWgc015878; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 13:45:32 -0500 (EST) From: Rakeshkumar Patel To: ippm@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:45:32 -0500 Message-Id: <1322851532.7831.49.camel@pearl186> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-19.el5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [ippm] TWAMP in layer 2 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:48:54 -0000 What's the TWAMP application in layer 2 network ? Is Y.1731 (Delay measurement) serve TWAMP purpose in layer 2 network ? From yaakov_s@rad.com Thu Dec 15 05:56:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D94F21F891D for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:56:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.165 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZGktPoGr++d for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:56:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay02.rad.co.il [62.0.23.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2AC021F852E for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:56:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay02 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Dec 2011 15:34:25 +0200 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:56:13 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: Rakeshkumar Patel , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] TWAMP in layer 2 Thread-Index: AQHMsSMQHHg/7swhY0eeiZDcPo/YnZXc/tTA Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:56:13 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042856D4@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <1322851532.7831.49.camel@pearl186> In-Reply-To: <1322851532.7831.49.camel@pearl186> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.17.170.37] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ippm] TWAMP in layer 2 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:56:20 -0000 Y.1731 has several functions that may overlap OWAMP or TWAMP functions. As does 802.3 Clause 57 (EFM OAM). However, Y.1731 divides up the functionality into separate packets, one type for packet loss, one type for delay measurement, etc. Each of these functions triggers calculation at the OAM endpoints, rather than sending the raw data to a controller for processing. Also, Y.1731 is typically often used continuously, or at least periodically= , rather than setting up a test session as in xWAMP. Finally, Y.1731 does not define a security mechanism. although it could be used in association with one (e.g., MACsec). Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rak= eshkumar Patel Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 20:46 To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] TWAMP in layer 2 What's the TWAMP application in layer 2 network ? Is Y.1731 (Delay measurement) serve TWAMP purpose in layer 2 network ? _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From rakeshkumar.patel@us.fujitsu.com Thu Dec 15 07:47:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6842E21F84A9 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:47:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.117 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.518, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JhjPMfLiL1QH for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:47:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from fujitsu24.fnanic.fujitsu.com (fujitsu24.fnanic.fujitsu.com [192.240.6.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4DB21F84A0 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:47:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (fujitsu24 [127.0.0.1]) by fujitsu24.fnanic.fujitsu.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id pBFFl2fW024286; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:47:08 -0800 Received: from fujitsui.fna.fujitsu.com ([133.164.253.1]) by fujitsu24.fnanic.fujitsu.com with ESMTP id 11q38jgdet-1; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:47:08 -0800 Received: from fncnmp01.fnc.fujitsu.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fujitsui.fna.fujitsu.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBFFl2Cc012749; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:47:06 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,357,1320645600"; d="scan'208";a="490164831" Received: from unknown (HELO bali.ny.fnc.fujitsu.com) ([167.254.240.129]) by fncnmp01.fnc.fujitsu.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Dec 2011 09:47:05 -0600 Received: from [167.254.240.186] by bali.ny.fnc.fujitsu.com (8.14.4+Sun) id pBFFl3Aq005581; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:47:03 -0500 (EST) From: Rakeshkumar Patel To: Yaakov Stein , "ippm@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042856D4@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <1322851532.7831.49.camel@pearl186> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042856D4@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:47:03 -0500 Message-Id: <1323964023.6018.84.camel@pearl186> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-19.el5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.5.7110, 1.0.211, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-12-15_05:2011-12-15, 2011-12-15, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 Cc: msarwar@us.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [ippm] TWAMP in layer 2 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:47:09 -0000 Y.1731 is widely adopted standard and many vendors support it. Is TWAMP also widely adopted ? Y.1731 can be configured per vlan. Does TWAMP needs to be per vlan ? Is it possible to implement TWAMP security mechanism in hardware ? If it is not, how efficient its implementation in software ? On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:56 +0000, Yaakov Stein wrote: > Also, Y.1731 is typically often used continuously, or at least > periodically, > rather than setting up a test session as in xWAMP. From acmorton@att.com Thu Dec 15 08:06:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE4C21F899D for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:06:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IuM4zn+VZmKK for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:06:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C009821F86EC for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:06:13 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1323965171!35100109!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 6173 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2011 16:06:12 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-8.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Dec 2011 16:06:12 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pBFG6eOx027423 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:06:40 -0500 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pBFG6ZHk027336 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:06:35 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:05:56 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBFG5udR000676 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:05:56 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBFG5nbe000443 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:05:50 -0500 Message-Id: <201112151605.pBFG5nbe000443@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (martym.mt.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20111215160426gw100e4lv6e>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:04:26 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:06:39 -0500 To: Rakeshkumar Patel , Yaakov Stein , "ippm@ietf.org" From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <1323964023.6018.84.camel@pearl186> References: <1322851532.7831.49.camel@pearl186> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042856D4@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <1323964023.6018.84.camel@pearl186> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Cc: msarwar@us.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [ippm] TWAMP in layer 2 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:06:14 -0000 At 10:47 AM 12/15/2011, Rakeshkumar Patel wrote: >Y.1731 is widely adopted standard and many vendors support it. Is TWAMP >also widely adopted ? Yes, "About 12,600 results" on Google... >Y.1731 can be configured per vlan. Does TWAMP needs to be per vlan ? you can put the test stream in a VLAN, If that's the question. >Is it possible to implement TWAMP security mechanism in hardware ? If it >is not, how efficient its implementation in software ? with the mixed-mode feature, efficiency is less of an issue... http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5618 -- Agree with Yaakov, one TWAMP test session does ~all, Al From henk@uijterwaal.nl Fri Dec 23 05:44:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B15421F8B66 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:44:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sgc3kEfUT1M8 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:44:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4B621F8B5E for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:44:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBNDiMbS058007 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:44:23 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4EF485B6.3000701@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:44:22 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Meeting in Paris X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:44:55 -0000 IPPM Group, The chairs are currently discussing if we have to have a face-2-face meeting at the next IETF in Paris. If you have topics that need discussion, please drop us a note before January 25. Season's greetings, Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)