From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Mar 1 18:05:28 2012 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 9394D21E8072; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:05:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 AV5alHEn8wCO; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:05:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BEC821E8012; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:05:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120302020528.21345.10617.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:05:28 -0800 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03.txt 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 Mar 2012 02:05:28 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Round-trip Loss Metrics Author(s) : Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-03-01 Many user applications (and the transport protocols that make them possible) require two-way communications. To assess this capability, and to achieve test system simplicity, round-trip loss measurements are frequently conducted in practice. The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol specified in RFC 5357 establishes a round-trip loss measurement capability for the Internet. However, there is currently no metric specified according to the RFC 2330 framework. This memo adds round-trip loss to the set of IP Performance Metrics (IPPM). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03.txt From acmorton@att.com Thu Mar 1 18:18:36 2012 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 6CA4421E804F for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:18:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.397 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.399, 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 PeY++RqPVi9c for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:18:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E059421E8040 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:18:35 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1330654714!65766057!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 20123 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2012 02:18:35 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-7.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Mar 2012 02:18:35 -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 q222J5WK026017 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:19:05 -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 q222J0KS025987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:19:00 -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, 1 Mar 2012 21:18:22 -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 q222IMVS022237 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:18:22 -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 q222IHJQ022145 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:18:17 -0500 Message-Id: <201203020218.q222IHJQ022145@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-5-226.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.5.226](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120302021550gw100e4l4fe>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 02:15:50 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.5.226] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:19:21 -0500 To: ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton 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 Subject: [ippm] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-02.txt 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 Mar 2012 02:18:36 -0000 IPPM, This update addresses Yaakov's comments (Jan 31, 2012) and adds other clarifications. regards, Al >... >From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >Subject: I-D Action: draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-02.txt >X-Test-IDTracker: no >X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 >Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:55:25 -0800 >X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > Title : Rate Measurement Problem Statement > Author(s) : Al Morton > Filename : draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-02.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2012-03-01 > > There is a rate measurement scenario which has wide-spread attention > of users and seemingly all industry participants, including > regulators. This memo presents an access rate-measurement problem > statement for IP Performance Metrics. Key aspects require the > ability to control packet size on the tested path and enable > asymmetrical packet size testing in a controller-responder > architecture. > > > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-02.txt > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-02.txt > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >I-D-Announce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Mar 5 09:31:58 2012 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 D979021F8885; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:31:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, 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 C+jbEWhU8CHg; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:31:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4705B21F887D; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:31:58 -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: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120305173158.3975.99424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:31:58 -0800 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Last Call: (Round-trip Loss Metrics) to Proposed Standard 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: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:31:59 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'Round-trip Loss Metrics' as a Proposed Standard 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 2012-03-19. 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. Abstract Many user applications (and the transport protocols that make them possible) require two-way communications. To assess this capability, and to achieve test system simplicity, round-trip loss measurements are frequently conducted in practice. The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol specified in RFC 5357 establishes a round-trip loss measurement capability for the Internet. However, there is currently no metric specified according to the RFC 2330 framework. This memo adds round-trip loss to the set of IP Performance Metrics (IPPM). There is a normative down-ref to RFC 2330, which has been used in this way by the IPPM working group before, and is present in the IESG's down-ref registry. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From acmorton@att.com Fri Mar 9 05:46:46 2012 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 12A7921F865C for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 05:46:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.355, 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 XFUjA1W5Wo7z for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 05:46:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5283B21F8658 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 05:46:45 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1331300803!18400094!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 22298 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2012 13:46:44 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-8.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 9 Mar 2012 13:46:44 -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 q29DlEM7021951 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:47:14 -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 q29DlCiO021898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:47:12 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:46:24 -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 q29DkNdJ010845 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:46:23 -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 q29DkC52010261 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:46:16 -0500 Message-Id: <201203091346.q29DkC52010261@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-13-56.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.13.56](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120309134339gw1004or9ue>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:43:40 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.13.56] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:47:15 -0500 To: Wesley Eddy , draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics@tools.ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4F59970A.6090207@hyperelliptic.com> References: <4F59970A.6090207@hyperelliptic.com> 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: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-07 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, 09 Mar 2012 13:46:46 -0000 Thanks for your careful review and comments, Wes. These are all good clarifications. We'll address them ASAP, but possibly after the document submission deadline on Monday, sorry in advance if it works out that way... At 12:37 AM 3/9/2012, Wesley Eddy wrote: >Hi, I've reviewed the reporting metrics document submitted >for publication and have a few comments on it that should >be looked at: > >1 - in section 2, paragraph 4, the first bullet; it would > make later text more clear if this explicitly said that > it's the "restricted" version, and I also think we mean > to say congestion control rather than flow control, to > be more precise. I would suggest: > "[RFC3148] includes restrictions of congestion control > and the notion of unique bits delivered" > >2 - In figure 1 and 2, I think t_i and q_i should be grouped > with parenthesis for clarity, since they should be added > together within the summation > >3 - I think the notation on the summation in figure 2 could > use some help. I think it would be more clear with an > "i=j" on the bottom and "j+(L-1)" on the top, with text > saying "where j is the hop number where the loop begins" > >4 - I think it should be specifically stated that "TTL" is > the packet's initial TTL at the source, in Figure 2. > >5 - I think in section 4.3 that it should be acknowledged that > the link-layer can (and does) discard frames, resulting in > loss at the IP-layer. Since link-layer checksums often > cover more than just headers (like IP's does), errors in > transmission may more frequently generate lost packets > than errored packets that arrive at the destination. > >Other than that, I think this is a pretty good document and is >ready to go. > >-- >Wes Eddy >MTI Systems From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Mar 11 10:56:34 2012 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 7F27221F86BB; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:56:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, 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 9aYFvz6O+NCj; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117A721F861E; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:56:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120311175634.24429.98189.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:56:34 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01.txt 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: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:56:34 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2679 on the Stan= dards Track Author(s) : Len Ciavattone Ruediger Geib Al Morton Matthias Wieser Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2012-03-11 This memo proposes to advance a performance metric RFC along the standards track, specifically RFC 2679 on One-way Delay Metrics. Observing that the metric definitions themselves should be the primary focus rather than the implementations of metrics, this memo describes the test procedures to evaluate specific metric requirement clauses to determine if the requirement has been interpreted and implemented as intended. Two completely independent implementations have been tested against the key specifications of RFC 2679. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01.txt From acmorton@att.com Sun Mar 11 11:39:37 2012 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 120EF21F86B5 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:39:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.336, 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 tHrjAR7KI5ow for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036C621F869D for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:39:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1331491174!78821!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 19989 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2012 18:39:35 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-13.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 11 Mar 2012 18:39:35 -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 q2BIe4eg016818 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:40:04 -0400 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q2BIdtPZ016776 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:39:59 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:38:56 -0400 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 q2BIcut6015021 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:38:56 -0400 Received: from dns.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 q2BIcr6Q014954 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:38:54 -0400 Message-Id: <201203111838.q2BIcr6Q014954@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-103-237.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.103.237](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120311183618gw1004orc2e>; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:36:18 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.103.237] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:39:58 -0400 To: ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <20120311175704.24494.78924.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120311175704.24494.78924.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> 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: draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02.txt 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: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:39:37 -0000 A related, Individual draft for RFC 2680... At 01:57 PM 3/11/2012, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > Title : Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC > 2680 on the Standards Track > Author(s) : Len Ciavattone > Ruediger Geib > Al Morton > Matthias Wieser > Filename : draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02.txt > Pages : 26 > Date : 2012-03-11 > > This memo proposes to advance a performance metric RFC along the > standards track, specifically RFC 2680 on One-way Loss Metrics. > Observing that the metric definitions themselves should be the > primary focus rather than the implementations of metrics, this memo > describes the test procedures to evaluate specific metric requirement > clauses to determine if the requirement has been interpreted and > implemented as intended. Two completely independent implementations > have been tested against the key specifications of RFC 2680. > > In this version, the results are presented in the R-tool output form. > Beautification is future work. > > > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02.txt > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02.txt > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >I-D-Announce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Mar 11 12:13:58 2012 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 C95A921F8642; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, 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 Cd18oWITFvTb; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5858D21F860D; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120311191358.13047.64300.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:13:58 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-08.txt 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: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:13:59 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View Author(s) : Al Morton Gomathi Ramachandran Ganga Maguluri Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-08.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2012-03-11 Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses in mind. The memo provides "long-term" reporting considerations (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds), based on analysis of the two key audience points-of-view. It describes how the audience categories affect the selection of metric parameters and options when seeking info that serves their needs. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-08.txt From henk@uijterwaal.nl Wed Mar 14 03:17:27 2012 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 DBACB21F872A for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:17:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.018, 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 ey1gf6NuWt4Z for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED3F21F8703 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2EAGtHJ069585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:16:55 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F607016.5080905@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:16:54 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Paris meeting 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:17:28 -0000 IPPM Group, We have a 2 hour slot at the Paris meeting. I'm currently trying to decide if we need this slot for a face-2-face meeting. Agenda requests so-far, besides the usual administrative stuff. 1. draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-01.txt new version addressing Yaakov's comments in -02 2. draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-00 minor updates 3. draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-01 new version. I have not seen any discussion on these 3 drafts on the list. The question is whether a face-2-face discussion is needed to discuss issues on the drafts. 4. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets I have received 2 comments on this draft by private mail. I'll summarize to the list once the comment period is over. I'm keeping some time for this on the agenda though I doubt that a face-2-face discussion will be necessary. So, with this in mind, if you are the author of any of the drafts, please let me know what you want to discuss in Paris. Of course, if you have other agenda topics but didn't ask for a slot, please do so today. 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) From Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Wed Mar 14 03:25:00 2012 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 1C77D21F877B for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:25:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 2ltQNP-+S0BP for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3428E21F86EF for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.22]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 14 Mar 2012 11:24:55 +0100 Received: from HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.5.76]) by HE111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:24:44 +0100 From: To: Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:24:43 +0100 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Paris meeting Thread-Index: Ac0By7AcxGWyjSeFSF2/7+YXMtzjkwAAIstQ Message-ID: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D13A3B4AC82@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4F607016.5080905@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F607016.5080905@uijterwaal.nl> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Paris meeting 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:25:00 -0000 Hi Henk, Al and I have added some more test results in testplan-rfc2679. We'd be happy to present them. Regards, Ruediger -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hen= k Uijterwaal Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:17 AM To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] Paris meeting IPPM Group, We have a 2 hour slot at the Paris meeting. I'm currently trying to decide if we need this slot for a face-2-face meeting. Agenda requests so-far, besides the usual administrative stuff. 1. draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-01.txt new version addressing Yaakov's comments in -02 2. draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-00 minor updates 3. draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-01 new version. I have not seen any discussion on these 3 drafts on the list. The quest= ion is whether a face-2-face discussion is needed to discuss issues on the drafts. 4. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets I have received 2 comments on this draft by private mail. I'll summariz= e to the list once the comment period is over. I'm keeping some time for this on the agenda though I doubt that a face-2-face discussion will be necessary. So, with this in mind, if you are the author of any of the drafts, please let me know what you want to discuss in Paris. Of course, if you have other agenda topics but didn't ask for a slot, pleas= e do so today. 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= ) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From acmorton@att.com Wed Mar 14 07:09:37 2012 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 8AC9721F8789 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:09:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.794 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.794 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.394, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 LsM1Tj38+TxU for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDDD121F880C for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:09:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1331734175!210301!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 25698 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2012 14:09:35 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-3.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 14 Mar 2012 14:09:35 -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 q2EEA5iU006156 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:10:05 -0400 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q2EE9xGk006093 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:09:59 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:09:13 -0400 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 q2EE9DgP016639 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:09:13 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2EE97E0016247 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:09:07 -0400 Message-Id: <201203141409.q2EE97E0016247@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-239-27.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.239.27](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120314140630gw1004orice>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:06:31 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.239.27] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:10:12 -0400 To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de, From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D13A3B4AC82@HE111648.emea1. cds.t-internal.com> References: <4F607016.5080905@uijterwaal.nl> <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D13A3B4AC82@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Paris meeting 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:09:37 -0000 Hi Henk, As R=FCdiger says, we've added a new analysis section in -testplan-rfc2679-01 <<< note higher version than agenda. R=FCdiger has investigated the experimental conditions needed for successful delay distribution comparison using the Anderson-Darling K-sample tests. Also, -testplan-rfc2680-02 <<< note higher version than agenda now includes the results and analysis where there were only placeholders before, including goodness-of-fit for our Poisson stream implementations. This draft has never been presented at an IPPM meeting. Unfortunately, both these drafts were published last Sunday the 11th, so the working group hasn't had much time to find them among the tide of other submissions near the deadline. The first draft on the agenda, has been discussed both on-list and face-to-face since the last ippm session, but it too has never been presented at an IPPM meeting. Version 02 addresses the latest comments, as you said. So, this is an opportunity for ippm folks to read the drafts and help us earn some agenda time. regards, Al At 06:24 AM 3/14/2012, Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de wrote: >Hi Henk, > >Al and I have added some more test results in testplan-rfc2679. We'd be >happy to present them. > >Regards, > >Ruediger > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal >Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:17 AM >To: IETF IPPM WG >Subject: [ippm] Paris meeting > >IPPM Group, > >We have a 2 hour slot at the Paris meeting. I'm currently trying to decide >if we need this slot for a face-2-face meeting. Agenda requests so-far, >besides the usual administrative stuff. > >1. draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-01.txt > new version addressing Yaakov's comments in -02 > >2. draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-00 > minor updates > >3. draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-01 > new version. > > I have not seen any discussion on these 3=20 > drafts on the list. The question > is whether a face-2-face discussion is needed to discuss issues on the > drafts. > >4. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets > I have received 2 comments on this draft by private mail. I'll= summarize > to the list once the comment period is over. I'm keeping some time > for this on the agenda though I doubt that a face-2-face discussion= will > be necessary. > >So, with this in mind, if you are the author of any of the drafts, please >let me know what you want to discuss in Paris. > >Of course, if you have other agenda topics but didn't ask for a slot,= please >do so today. > >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) >_______________________________________________ >ippm mailing list >ippm@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >_______________________________________________ >ippm mailing list >ippm@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Mar 19 01:35:27 2012 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 9796321F85A3 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:35:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.519 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.015, 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 bpFwekFV97Z1 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D492D21F85D4 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.fritz.box (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2J8Ys9s045865 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:34:55 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F66EFAE.8040501@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:34:54 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <4F1E8DF2.2050401@uijterwaal.nl> <4F338A6F.4070706@uijterwaal.nl> <4F4C9C19.6060609@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F4C9C19.6060609@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] On draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets 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: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:35:27 -0000 On 28/02/2012 10:19, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Please see below. This document has meanwhile been submitted as > draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets and the authors have asked for > comments. Speaking as both myself and a WG chair, not sure where to draw the line. I have reviewed the document. Technically, it looks quite clear, I have some comments on how to fit this into the bigger picture though: 1. The reason for publishing this draft is to document the work done by the authors in a permanent way. The WG has reviewed the document to verify that the description of the work done is clear. The document is not published as "the WG consensus solution" to a specific problem, as there is no consensus amongst the WG on what the problem is. There has been no discussion and there no consensus either if this solution is the one the WG prefers. The abstract and introduction should explicitly says this. What I want to avoid, is that this gets to be the de facto standard without WG consensus on the problem or the solution. 2. The IANA section can be dropped. Yes, there is a registry and the authors made private extension to it, but now that the experiment is over, they can be removed again, and IANA doesn't have to do anything now. 3. I think it would be good to mention that there is a working prototype implementation of these extensions, with a reference if that is at all possible. The document should say that it describes the prototype as it was on the day the document was written. I did noticed changes in the protocol extensions over the versions. Is this because the prototype was modified? 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) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Mar 19 01:49:59 2012 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 7E4BD21F8611 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:49:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.519 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.015, 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 NjiZTg0eF6Q0 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:49:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97ACA21F85F3 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.fritz.box (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2J8nR27055841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:49:27 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F66F317.5090505@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:49:27 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <4F607016.5080905@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F607016.5080905@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [ippm] Paris meeting 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: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:49:59 -0000 IPPM group, After discussion last week, we will meet in Paris. On the agenda: 0. Administrative stuff. 1. draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-01.txt new version addressing Yaakov's comments in -02 2. draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-00 minor updates 3. draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02 new version. 4. AOB Note that draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets has been dropped from the agenda. I just posted comments on this draft and everybody else is invited to do so as well. However, I don't think that a face-2-face discussion is needed. Of course, if you have other agenda topics but didn't ask for a slot, please do so today. Henk ps. I'm still trying to figure out if/how I can make it to Paris next week, so I may need a replacement chair. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Thu Mar 22 01:11:42 2012 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 1086721F862A for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:11:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.013, 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 Q8l9k2NBkFb4 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E503D21F8638 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2M8B7Ou055926 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:11:09 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F6ADE9A.6000003@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:11:06 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Paris Meeting 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, 22 Mar 2012 08:11:42 -0000 IPPM Group, We will meet in Paris on Monday, 26 March, 13:00 (CET/local time). If you are presenting, please send your slides to the chairs at least an hour before, so that remote participants can follow the meeting. Thanks, Matt & 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) From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Mar 26 00:24:44 2012 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 36C7921E8094; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:24:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, 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 3-cI4OqeGqXj; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7D821E808F; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:24:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120326072440.12524.94652.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:24:40 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt 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: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:24:44 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group = of the IETF. Title : TWAMP Value-Added Octets Author(s) : Steve Baillargeon Christofer Flinta Andreas Johnsson Svante Ekelin Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2012-03-26 This memo describes an extension to the TWAMP test protocol for identifying and managing packet trains, which enables measuring capacity metrics like the available path capacity, tight section capacity and UDP delivery rate in the forward and reverse path directions. This memo is the product of a working prototype. It does not represent a consensus of the IETF community. The IETF community is currently working on the problem statement and has not reached consensus on the preferred method for measuring capacity metrics. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octet= s-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets= -01.txt From steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com Mon Mar 26 00:48:55 2012 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 7C50A21F856D for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:48:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 8WjVb2r4xCes for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815FB21F857A for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2Q7mrWR009428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:48:54 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.55]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:48:52 -0400 From: Steve Baillargeon To: Henk Uijterwaal Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:48:50 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ippm] On draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets Thread-Index: Ac0Fq0PcI74+OHQ+RUWN1Dya8OyyQAFdomDQ Message-ID: <4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF178A8FD467@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4F1E8DF2.2050401@uijterwaal.nl> <4F338A6F.4070706@uijterwaal.nl> <4F4C9C19.6060609@uijterwaal.nl> <4F66EFAE.8040501@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F66EFAE.8040501@uijterwaal.nl> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF178A8FD467EUSAACMS0701e_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] On draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets 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: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:48:55 -0000 --_002_4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF178A8FD467EUSAACMS0701e_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good morning Henk We have updated the draft as requested. See enclosed notice. Please let us know if the changes are OK. Regards Steve -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hen= k Uijterwaal Sent: March-19-12 9:35 AM To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] On draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets On 28/02/2012 10:19, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Please see below. This document has meanwhile been submitted as=20 > draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets and the authors have asked=20 > for comments. Speaking as both myself and a WG chair, not sure where to draw the line. I have reviewed the document. Technically, it looks quite clear, I have so= me comments on how to fit this into the bigger picture though: 1. The reason for publishing this draft is to document the work done by the authors in a permanent way. The WG has reviewed the document to verify that the description of the work done is clear. The document is not published as "the WG consensus solution" to a specific problem, as there is no consensus amongst the WG on what the problem is. There has been no discussion and there no consensus either if this solution is the one the WG prefers. The abstract and introduction should explicitly says this. What I want to avoid, is that this gets to be the de facto standard without WG consensus on the problem or the solution. 2. The IANA section can be dropped. Yes, there is a registry and the authors made private extension to it, but now that the experiment is over, they can be removed again, and IANA doesn't have to do anything now. 3. I think it would be good to mention that there is a working prototype implementation of these extensions, with a reference if that is at all possible. The document should say that it describes the prototype as it was on the day the document was written. I did noticed changes in the protocol extensions over the versions. Is this because the prototype was modified? 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= ) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm --_002_4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF178A8FD467EUSAACMS0701e_ Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from ESESSMW1740.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.134.17) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:26:21 -0400 Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.90) by ESESSMW1740.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.134.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:26:19 +0200 Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.92) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:25:30 +0200 Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [12.22.58.30]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B7.8C.28963.AE9107F4; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:25:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E8521E8099; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C7921E8094; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:24:44 -0700 (PDT) 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 3-cI4OqeGqXj; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7D821E808F; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:24:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" To: "i-d-announce@ietf.org" CC: "ippm@ietf.org" Sender: "ippm-bounces@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:24:40 -0400 Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt Thread-Topic: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt Thread-Index: Ac0LIb4kXisDTukYRJOlVsnUsmzaew== Message-ID: <20120326072440.12524.94652.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-brightmail-tracker: AAAAAA== x-auditid: c1b4fb30-b7c3eae000007123-26-4f7019eaad36 dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1332746687; bh=rPsWZT89axNmjB6gFy722309iZQ4bwXmbK1tCCXxhJY=; h=MIME-Version:From:To:Message-ID:Date:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=TOO6zRO0KslZVKSpJtNwbuWiKJCf0oEwLzbxIO/QW5TFBSAJtFOskfJ+UThlHjbxL 8XyckEVtplIPcuKGgF9DOTBmCnt6TKR4QGPCVQKCakjV/iMgBLQjmap21GqPqO/YTe J8Ufzlp4WBFFI9XhJDhhsjzbtOSwVS+jW+b5t4Vs= errors-to: ippm-bounces@ietf.org x-spam-flag: NO x-spam-status: No, score=-102.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] delivered-to: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com x-original-to: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com x-virus-scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com list-post: x-spam-level: list-id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group list-archive: x-beenthere: ippm@ietf.org x-mailman-version: 2.1.12 x-spam-score: -102.37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group = of the IETF. Title : TWAMP Value-Added Octets Author(s) : Steve Baillargeon Christofer Flinta Andreas Johnsson Svante Ekelin Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2012-03-26 This memo describes an extension to the TWAMP test protocol for identifying and managing packet trains, which enables measuring capacity metrics like the available path capacity, tight section capacity and UDP delivery rate in the forward and reverse path directions. This memo is the product of a working prototype. It does not represent a consensus of the IETF community. The IETF community is currently working on the problem statement and has not reached consensus on the preferred method for measuring capacity metrics. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octet= s-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets= -01.txt _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm --_002_4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF178A8FD467EUSAACMS0701e_-- From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Mar 26 01:11:17 2012 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 D9BE021F84B6 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:11:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.012, 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 31oIfw1Sjk6L for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7596021F8472 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2Q8AXAu016768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:10:33 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F702478.7030109@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:10:32 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] IPPM status 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: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:11:17 -0000 IPPM group, As I won't be able to attend and present in Paris this afternoon, here is the usual status update of the IPPM WG. Questions/comments to the list please. The general plan is to finish the drafts under (1), (3) and (4). If no other topics that generate sufficient discussion have come up by the time the last document is finished, close the WG. Slides for this afternoon will be online soon. Henk IPPM status as of 26/3/2012. ============================ 1. Drafts in the various publication queues: * draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest * draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode * draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics * draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03 2. Drafts declarered dead after the last meeting: * Draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt * RFC5136 update 3. Drafts not discussed today: * draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets Some comments received, new version published, can go to WGLC after this meeting 4. Drafts discussed today: * draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679 * draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680 Should this be a WG document? * draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-02 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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) From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Mon Mar 26 04:39:56 2012 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 DB36321F8628; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:39:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.451 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 4BDdrFKDJZkH; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092BB21F867A; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B40B6B1E005; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:38:29 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20120326113829.B40B6B1E005@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [ippm] BCP 176, RFC 6576 on IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing 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: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:39:57 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. BCP 176 RFC 6576 Title: IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing Author: R. Geib, Ed., A. Morton, R. Fardid, A. Steinmitz Status: Best Current Practice Stream: IETF Date: March 2012 Mailbox: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de, acmorton@att.com, rfardid@cariden.com, Alexander.Steinmitz@telekom.de Pages: 37 Characters: 84447 See Also: BCP0176 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6576.txt This document specifies tests to determine if multiple independent instantiations of a performance-metric RFC have implemented the specifications in the same way. This is the performance-metric equivalent of interoperability, required to advance RFCs along the Standards Track. Results from different implementations of metric RFCs will be collected under the same underlying network conditions and compared using statistical methods. The goal is an evaluation of the metric RFC itself to determine whether its definitions are clear and unambiguous to implementors and therefore a candidate for advancement on the IETF Standards Track. This document is an Internet Best Current Practice. This document is a product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. BCP: This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Wed Mar 28 09:17:47 2012 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 420C321F893A; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:17:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, 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 97YVUWj8c0hb; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875D721F8818; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:17:46 -0700 (PDT) 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: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120328161746.25061.77299.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:17:46 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Last Call: (Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View) to Informational RFC 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: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:17:47 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View' as an Informational RFC 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 2012-04-11. 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. Abstract Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses in mind. The memo provides "long-term" reporting considerations (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds), based on analysis of the two key audience points-of-view. It describes how the audience categories affect the selection of metric parameters and options when seeking info that serves their needs. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From henk@uijterwaal.nl Thu Mar 29 02:37:19 2012 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 82E5021F87B6 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:37:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.012, 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 AHhQHy00moYa for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BF721F8658 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2T9akAn053475 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:36:47 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F742D2D.4060408@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:36:45 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <4F1E8A30.1000606@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F1E8A30.1000606@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4F1E8A30.1000606@uijterwaal.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 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, 29 Mar 2012 09:37:19 -0000 IPPM Group, This starts a WGLC for the draft: Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2679 on the Standards Track draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 Please review the draft and raise any issues by Monday, April 16, 2012, 8:00 UTC. Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl RIPE NCC http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Thu Mar 29 02:40:38 2012 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 3766721F8915 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:40:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.012, 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 7aRXVkgyzT-U for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF1221F87F2 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2T9e5bT085800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:40:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F742DF5.3030906@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:40:05 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <4E2EBA1A.1080508@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4E2EBA1A.1080508@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4E2EBA1A.1080508@uijterwaal.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Adopt draft draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-02 as a WG document 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, 29 Mar 2012 09:40:38 -0000 IPPM group, This is a formal proposal to adopt Rate Measurement Problem Statement draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem-02 as a WG document. Please review the draft and raise any objections by Monday, April 16, 8:00 UTC. A URL for the draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morton-ippm-rate-problem/ Matt & 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) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Thu Mar 29 02:41:54 2012 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 5F65A21F8915 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:41:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.011, 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 73l5n-RGiK0V for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA66B21F87F2 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:41:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2T9fKqr039090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:41:21 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F742E40.7080809@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:41:20 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ippm >> IETF IPPM WG" X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Adopt draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02 as a WG document 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, 29 Mar 2012 09:41:54 -0000 IPPM group, This is a formal proposal to adopt: Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02 as a WG document. Please review the draft and raise any objections by Monday, April 16, 8:00 UTC. A URL for the draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680/ Matt & 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) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Thu Mar 29 03:18:57 2012 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 AE90421F89A9 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:18:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.011, 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 Zafu+i8Ia625 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2F621F89A4 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2TAINtR059564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:18:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F7436DB.4070606@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:18:03 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Baillargeon References: <4F1E8DF2.2050401@uijterwaal.nl> <4F338A6F.4070706@uijterwaal.nl> <4F4C9C19.6060609@uijterwaal.nl> <4F66EFAE.8040501@uijterwaal.nl> <4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF178A8FD467@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF178A8FD467@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] On draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets 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, 29 Mar 2012 10:18:57 -0000 Hi Steve, others, > We have updated the draft as requested. > See enclosed notice. > Please let us know if the changes are OK. I'm happy with the changes. Detail, while I think that I understand what This memo is the product of a working prototype. is supposed to mean, This memo contains the description of a working prototype is a lot clearer. (You can leave this as is for now and fix this during the publication process). Henk > > Regards > Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > Sent: March-19-12 9:35 AM > To: IETF IPPM WG > Subject: [ippm] On draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets > > On 28/02/2012 10:19, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> Please see below. This document has meanwhile been submitted as >> draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-valua-added-octets and the authors have asked >> for comments. > > Speaking as both myself and a WG chair, not sure where to draw the line. > > I have reviewed the document. Technically, it looks quite clear, I have some comments on how to fit this into the bigger picture though: > > 1. The reason for publishing this draft is to document the work done by the > authors in a permanent way. The WG has reviewed the document to verify > that the description of the work done is clear. > > The document is not published as "the WG consensus solution" to a > specific problem, as there is no consensus amongst the WG on what > the problem is. There has been no discussion and there no > consensus either if this solution is the one the WG prefers. > > The abstract and introduction should explicitly says this. > > What I want to avoid, is that this gets to be the > de facto standard without WG consensus on the problem or the solution. > > 2. The IANA section can be dropped. Yes, there is a registry and the > authors made private extension to it, but now that the experiment is > over, they can be removed again, and IANA doesn't have to do anything > now. > > 3. I think it would be good to mention that there is a working prototype > implementation of these extensions, with a reference if that is at all > possible. The document should say that it describes the prototype as > it was on the day the document was written. > > I did noticed changes in the protocol extensions over the versions. > Is this because the prototype was modified? > > 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) _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Thu Mar 29 03:29:50 2012 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 4734421F8927 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:29:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.011, 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 qL4h4xnzjVMQ for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B386B21F8957 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2TATHSt067533 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:29:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4F74397D.4050902@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:29:17 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <4F742D2D.4060408@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F742D2D.4060408@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4F742D2D.4060408@uijterwaal.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt 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, 29 Mar 2012 10:29:50 -0000 IPPM Group, This starts a WGLC for the draft: TWAMP Value-Added Octets draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt Please review the draft and raise any issues by Monday, April 16, 2012, 8:00 UTC. Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)