From a.botta@unina.it Wed Jul 3 02:36:16 2013 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 BBCBC21F9C97 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:36:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] 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 gvB5uHizkiQw for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.unina.it (smtp2.unina.it [192.132.34.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340DE21F9C93 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [143.225.229.166] ([143.225.229.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp2.unina.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r639a85R015155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:36:09 +0200 Message-ID: <51D3EFD2.2010708@unina.it> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 11:33:06 +0200 From: Alessio Botta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121123 Icedove/10.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [ippm] New Release Announcement: D-ITG version 2.8.1 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, 03 Jul 2013 09:36:16 -0000 New Release Announcement: D-ITG version 2.8.1. After a long period of silence, we are now proud to announce the release of D-ITG version 2.8.1, the latest version of our Open Source Distributed Internet Traffic Generator. Also thanks to the feedback received from the community, many improvements have been made, including new features and several bug fixes. Moreover, we have put a lot of effort in improving the documentation. You can find the new version and more information on D-ITG website: http://traffic.comics.unina.it/software/ITG/ We hope you will find the new version of D-ITG interesting and useful and you will continue to help us to improve D-ITG with your feedback. Please contact us for any comments or suggestions at the following address: ditg[-at-]comics.unina.it Thanks, D-ITG Crew -- Alessio Botta, PhD Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e delle Tecnologie dell'Informazione Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II" Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napoli (Italy) [Room 3.09] Phone: +390817683865 - Fax: +390817683816 Skypeid: alessiobotta Email: a.botta@unina.it alessio.botta@consorzio-cini.it WWW: http://wpage.unina.it/a.botta From trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch Thu Jul 4 08:06:44 2013 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 6C2D821F9FF3 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:06:44 -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 N9r8j5f2gbKv for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8190F21F9FF7 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3203D94B9 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:06:37 +0200 (MEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1IFER5+OwdYw for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:06:37 +0200 (MEST) Received: from pb-10243.ethz.ch (pb-10243.ethz.ch [82.130.102.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7782DD94B5 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:06:37 +0200 (MEST) From: Brian Trammell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:06:36 +0200 To: "ippm@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Draft submission deadlines change 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, 04 Jul 2013 15:06:44 -0000 Greetings, all, For those of you not on the ietf-announce list (and apologies for the = cross-post for those of you who are): -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Draft submission deadlines change Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 22:17:01 -0700 From: IETF Chair Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org To: IETF Announcement List Please note that for IETF 87, there is only one deadline for draft = submission: Monday 15th July. Previously, there had been two different = deadlines, one for -00 and another one for other versions. The IESG has = decided to experiment with just one deadline for now to simplify the set = of deadlines and enable easier submission of new drafts. While we = realise that the change comes near the deadline, we hope that you find = the extra time useful. But please do note that working group chairs will continue to make smart = decisions about what topics are worthwhile for discussing in a session = in the upcoming meeting, and will also set their agendas in a timely = manner and create deadlines for their working groups that must be = adhered to. The earlier new drafts are submitted, the more time there is = to talk about them on the mailing lists and consider them for the = session agendas. This is particularly important for BoFs. Jari Arkko for the IESG= From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jul 5 06:04:26 2013 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 0319B21F955A; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:04:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, 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 BCbAODRMjEoe; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951C021F9412; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:04:25 -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: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130705130425.8950.83848.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 06:04:25 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-00.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, 05 Jul 2013 13:04:26 -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 t= he IETF. Title : Network Performance Measurement for IPsec Author(s) : Kostas Pentikousis Yang Cui Emma Zhang Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-00.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2013-07-05 Abstract: IPsec is a mature technology with several interoperable implementations. Indeed, the use of IPsec tunnels is increasingly gaining popularity in several deployment scenarios, not the least in what used to be solely areas of traditional telecommunication protocols. Wider deployment calls for mechanisms and methods that enable tunnel end-users, as well as operators, to measure one-way and two-way network performance. Unfortunately, however, standard IP performance measurement security mechanisms cannot be readily used with IPsec. This document makes the case for employing IPsec to protect the One-way and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocols (O/ TWAMP) and proposes a method which combines IKEv2 and O/TWAMP as defined in RFC 4656 and RFC 5357, respectively. This specification aims, on the one hand, to ensure that O/TWAMP can be secured with the best mechanisms we have at our disposal today while, on the other hand, it facilitates the applicability of O/TWAMP to networks that have already deployed IPsec. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From k.pentikousis@huawei.com Fri Jul 5 06:11:19 2013 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 E581C11E82CD for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:11:19 -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 WbvxsZR+n60F for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9670921F9956 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ATD83537; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 13:11:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:10:44 +0100 Received: from SZXEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.31) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:11:02 +0100 Received: from SZXEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.253]) by szxeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 21:10:58 +0800 From: Konstantinos Pentikousis To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHOeYAwtBMLuF76zEG4X1KRJXueKJlWDkCA Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:10:58 +0000 Message-ID: <8D38716F0C1A444BA0CD7E96454366C24BB1A633@szxeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.200.37.52] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [ippm] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-00.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, 05 Jul 2013 13:11:20 -0000 RGVhciBBbGwsDQoNCldlIHBvc3RlZCB0aGUgdXBkYXRlZCBkcmFmdCBvbiAiTmV0d29yayBQZXJm b3JtYW5jZSBNZWFzdXJlbWVudCBmb3IgSVBzZWMiIGFuZCB3ZSdyZSBsb29raW5nIGZvcndhcmQg dG8geW91ciBjb21tZW50cywgcmV2aWV3cyBhbmQgY29udHJpYnV0aW9ucy4NCg0KQmVzdCByZWdh cmRzLA0KDQpLb3N0YXMsIFlhbmcgYW5kIEVtbWEuDQoNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdl LS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmludGVybmV0LWRy YWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gDQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIEp1bHkgMDUsIDIwMTMgMzowNCBQTQ0KVG86 IEN1aXlhbmc7IEtvbnN0YW50aW5vcyBQZW50aWtvdXNpczsgWmhhbmdsaWppYSAoQSkNClN1Ympl Y3Q6IE5ldyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pcHBtLWlwc2VjLTAw LnR4dA0KDQoNCkEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1ELCBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0taXBzZWMtMDAu dHh0IGhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgS29zdGFzIFBlbnRpa291c2lz IGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCg0KRmlsZW5hbWU6CSBkcmFmdC1p ZXRmLWlwcG0taXBzZWMNClJldmlzaW9uOgkgMDANClRpdGxlOgkJIE5ldHdvcmsgUGVyZm9ybWFu Y2UgTWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgZm9yIElQc2VjDQpDcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlOgkgMjAxMy0wNy0wNQ0KR3Jv dXA6CQkgaXBwbQ0KTnVtYmVyIG9mIHBhZ2VzOiAxNQ0KVVJMOiAgICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8v d3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0taXBzZWMtMDAudHh0 DQpTdGF0dXM6ICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1pcHBtLWlwc2VjDQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9o dG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtaXBwbS1pcHNlYy0wMA0KDQoNCkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgSVBzZWMgaXMg YSBtYXR1cmUgdGVjaG5vbG9neSB3aXRoIHNldmVyYWwgaW50ZXJvcGVyYWJsZQ0KICAgaW1wbGVt ZW50YXRpb25zLiAgSW5kZWVkLCB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIElQc2VjIHR1bm5lbHMgaXMgaW5jcmVhc2lu Z2x5DQogICBnYWluaW5nIHBvcHVsYXJpdHkgaW4gc2V2ZXJhbCBkZXBsb3ltZW50IHNjZW5hcmlv cywgbm90IHRoZSBsZWFzdCBpbg0KICAgd2hhdCB1c2VkIHRvIGJlIHNvbGVseSBhcmVhcyBvZiB0 cmFkaXRpb25hbCB0ZWxlY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbg0KICAgcHJvdG9jb2xzLiAgV2lkZXIgZGVwbG95 bWVudCBjYWxscyBmb3IgbWVjaGFuaXNtcyBhbmQgbWV0aG9kcyB0aGF0DQogICBlbmFibGUgdHVu bmVsIGVuZC11c2VycywgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyBvcGVyYXRvcnMsIHRvIG1lYXN1cmUgb25lLXdheSBh bmQNCiAgIHR3by13YXkgbmV0d29yayBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZS4gIFVuZm9ydHVuYXRlbHksIGhvd2V2 ZXIsIHN0YW5kYXJkIElQDQogICBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCBzZWN1cml0eSBtZWNo YW5pc21zIGNhbm5vdCBiZSByZWFkaWx5IHVzZWQNCiAgIHdpdGggSVBzZWMuICBUaGlzIGRvY3Vt ZW50IG1ha2VzIHRoZSBjYXNlIGZvciBlbXBsb3lpbmcgSVBzZWMgdG8NCiAgIHByb3RlY3QgdGhl IE9uZS13YXkgYW5kIFR3by1XYXkgQWN0aXZlIE1lYXN1cmVtZW50IFByb3RvY29scyAoTy8NCiAg IFRXQU1QKSBhbmQgcHJvcG9zZXMgYSBtZXRob2Qgd2hpY2ggY29tYmluZXMgSUtFdjIgYW5kIE8v VFdBTVAgYXMNCiAgIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gUkZDIDQ2NTYgYW5kIFJGQyA1MzU3LCByZXNwZWN0aXZl bHkuICBUaGlzIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24NCiAgIGFpbXMsIG9uIHRoZSBvbmUgaGFuZCwgdG8gZW5z dXJlIHRoYXQgTy9UV0FNUCBjYW4gYmUgc2VjdXJlZCB3aXRoIHRoZQ0KICAgYmVzdCBtZWNoYW5p c21zIHdlIGhhdmUgYXQgb3VyIGRpc3Bvc2FsIHRvZGF5IHdoaWxlLCBvbiB0aGUgb3RoZXINCiAg IGhhbmQsIGl0IGZhY2lsaXRhdGVzIHRoZSBhcHBsaWNhYmlsaXR5IG9mIE8vVFdBTVAgdG8gbmV0 d29ya3MgdGhhdA0KICAgaGF2ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGRlcGxveWVkIElQc2VjLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K From trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch Mon Jul 8 01:32:02 2013 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 13E3421F9D08 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:31:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, 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 vdyFt7+XuWOk for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA9A21F8168 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D62D9305 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:29:05 +0200 (MEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lBUSknzxU9LM for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:29:05 +0200 (MEST) Received: from pb-10243.ethz.ch (pb-10243.ethz.ch [82.130.102.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C781D9304 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:29:05 +0200 (MEST) From: Brian Trammell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:29:04 +0200 Message-Id: <8C2FA416-6611-4FAE-86B3-A9E8C56C82CB@tik.ee.ethz.ch> To: "ippm@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Subject: [ippm] DRAFT agenda for IETF 87 Berlin posted X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:32:05 -0000 Greetings, all, The draft agenda for IPPM at IETF 87 in Berlin has been posted to = http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/agenda/agenda-87-ippm, and is = included below. Presenters, please review to ensure the details for your = slot are correct. You will notice we have a completely full schedule, so = if you need less than the assigned time, please let us know so we can = build some slack into the agenda. Best regards, Brian IPPM Agenda - IETF 87 Berlin Wednesday 31 July, 09:00 - 11:30 CEST, Potsdam 2 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I. Welcome and Administrivia ------ --------------------------------------------------------------- 09:00 Welcome, Status, and Agenda Bash 10m Chairs (B. Trammell, B. Cerveny) II. Current Working Group Drafts ------ --------------------------------------------------------------- 09:10 draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-00 15m J. Fabini 09:25 draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-00 20m M. Mathis 09:45 draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-00 10m A. Morton 09:55 draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02=20 10m A. Morton 10:05 draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-02 10m A. Morton 10:15 draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-00 15m K. Pentikousis III. Updates on Previously Presented Individual Drafts ------ --------------------------------------------------------------- 10:30 draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-* 20m M. Bagnulo =20 IV. New Work ------ --------------------------------------------------------------- 10:50 draft-hedin-ippm-type-p-monitor-01 15m G. Mirsky 11:05 draft-owamp-twamp-checksum-trailer-00 15m T. Mizrahi 11:20 draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework 10m M. Chen From trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch Mon Jul 8 04:19:45 2013 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 A56F921F9EAE for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 04:19:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.313 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.313 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.286, 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 5PBzvzMisXcb for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 04:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D554B21F9E98 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 04:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73AA2D9305; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:19:39 +0200 (MEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3yYxbpM8diFX; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:19:39 +0200 (MEST) Received: from pb-10243.ethz.ch (pb-10243.ethz.ch [82.130.102.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4859BD9304; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:19:39 +0200 (MEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: <8C2FA416-6611-4FAE-86B3-A9E8C56C82CB@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:19:38 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <481A1A40-3C59-4F14-B27E-0DA270C4D24F@tik.ee.ethz.ch> References: <8C2FA416-6611-4FAE-86B3-A9E8C56C82CB@tik.ee.ethz.ch> To: "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] DRAFT agenda for IETF 87 Berlin posted 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, 08 Jul 2013 11:19:45 -0000 Greetings, all, A new draft agenda for IPPM has been posted, fixing a typo in a draft = name, and reserving an additional slot for an alternate proposal on the = IPPM registry, currently in preparation. See below. Please note that each new work item has only 10 minutes to present; the = agenda is completely full, so presenters, please ensure that you can = keep to time, including time for discussion, when preparing your = presentations. Best regards, Brian IPPM Agenda - IETF 87 Berlin Wednesday 31 July, 09:00 - 11:30 CEST, Potsdam 2 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I. Welcome and Administrivia ------ --------------------------------------------------------------- 09:00 Welcome, Status, and Agenda Bash 10m Chairs (B. Trammell, B. Cerveny) II. Current Working Group Drafts ------ --------------------------------------------------------------- 09:10 draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-00 15m J. Fabini 09:25 draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-00 20m M. Mathis 09:45 draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-00 10m A. Morton 09:55 draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02=20 10m A. Morton 10:05 draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-02 10m A. Morton 10:15 draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-00 15m K. Pentikousis III. Updates on Previously Presented Individual Drafts ------ --------------------------------------------------------------- 10:30 draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-* 20m M. Bagnulo =20 IV. New Work ------ --------------------------------------------------------------- 10:50 Alternate Registry Propsal (draft due before 15 July) 10m B. Claise =20 11:00 draft-hedin-ippm-type-p-monitor-01 10m G. Mirsky 11:10 draft-mizrahi-owamp-twamp-checksum-trailer-00 10m T. Mizrahi 11:20 draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework 10m M. Chen On 8 Jul 2013, at 10:29 , Brian Trammell = wrote: > Greetings, all, >=20 > The draft agenda for IPPM at IETF 87 in Berlin has been posted to = http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/agenda/agenda-87-ippm, and is = included below. Presenters, please review to ensure the details for your = slot are correct. You will notice we have a completely full schedule, so = if you need less than the assigned time, please let us know so we can = build some slack into the agenda. >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > Brian From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jul 8 05:28:28 2013 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 EA70D11E81DF; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 05:28:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, 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 pkDZo9PBdiVy; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 05:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940FE11E81D7; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 05:28:28 -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: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130708122828.24790.71435.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 05:28:28 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-00.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, 08 Jul 2013 12:28:29 -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 t= he IETF. Title : A Reference Path and Measurement Points for LMAP Author(s) : Marcelo Bagnulo Trevor Burbridge Sam Crawford Phil Eardley Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-00.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2013-07-08 Abstract: This document defines a reference path for Large-scale Measurement of Broadband Access Performance (LMAP) and measurement points for commonly used performance metrics. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jul 8 13:31:20 2013 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 BB68E21F9D8B; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:31:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.525 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, 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 GsRLZSuZumkO; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2255721F9CE6; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:31:19 -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: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130708203119.25251.84952.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:31:19 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-03.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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 20:31:20 -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 t= he IETF. Title : Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Stan= dards Track Author(s) : Len Ciavattone Ruediger Geib Al Morton Matthias Wieser Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-03.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2013-07-08 Abstract: 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. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680 There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From mach.chen@huawei.com Mon Jul 8 18:18:55 2013 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 E09EA11E80F2 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 18:18:54 -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 4svljp4q7x75 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 18:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597E211E80EE for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 18:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ATG17107; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 01:18:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 02:17:54 +0100 Received: from SZXEML462-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.205) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 02:18:22 +0100 Received: from szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.243]) by szxeml462-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.205]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:18:17 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Solicit comments//FW: New Version Notification for draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHOfEIxfLWcks91Y0SaiiYfsuedlQ== Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 01:18:17 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.96.176] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [ippm] Solicit comments//FW: New Version Notification for draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-00.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: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 01:18:55 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpXZSBqdXN0IHVwbG9hZGVkIGEgbmV3IGRyYWZ0IHRoYXQgaXMgYWJvdXQgcGFz c2l2ZSBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCwgd2hpY2ggaW50cm9kdWNlcyBhIGNvbG9yaW5n IGJhc2VkIElQIGZsb3cgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgbWVhc3VyZW1lbnQuIFdlIHBsYW4gdG8gZGlzY3Vz cyB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGluIHRoZSB1cGNvbWluZyBtZWV0aW5nLg0KDQpXZSdkIGFwcHJlY2lhdGUg dGhhdCB5b3UgY291bGQgc3BlbmQgc29tZSB0aW1lIHRvIHJldmlldyB0aGUgZHJhZnQsIGFuZCBh bnkgY29tbWVudHMgYW5kIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYXJlIHdlbGNvbWUhDQoNCk1hbnkgdGhhbmtzLA0K QmVzdA0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRz QGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnXSANClNlbnQ6IE1vbmRh eSwgSnVseSAwOCwgMjAxMyA5OjM4IEFNDQpUbzogTWFjaCBDaGVuOyBSYWppdiBQYXBuZWphOyBH dWFuZ3FpbmcgRGVuZzsgTGl1aG9uZ21pbmc7IFlpbnl1YW5iaW47IE1hY2ggQ2hlbjsgU2hhaWxl c2ggQWJoeWFua2FyDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIGRyYWZ0 LWNoZW4taXBwbS1jb2xvcmluZy1iYXNlZC1pcGZwbS1mcmFtZXdvcmstMDAudHh0DQoNCg0KQSBu ZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LWNoZW4taXBwbS1jb2xvcmluZy1iYXNlZC1pcGZwbS1m cmFtZXdvcmstMDAudHh0DQpoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5IE1hY2go R3VveWkpIENoZW4gYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUNCklFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCg0KRmlsZW5h bWU6CSBkcmFmdC1jaGVuLWlwcG0tY29sb3JpbmctYmFzZWQtaXBmcG0tZnJhbWV3b3JrDQpSZXZp c2lvbjoJIDAwDQpUaXRsZToJCSBDb2xvcmluZyBiYXNlZCBJUCBGbG93IFBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIE1l YXN1cmVtZW50IEZyYW1ld29yaw0KQ3JlYXRpb24gZGF0ZToJIDIwMTMtMDctMDgNCkdyb3VwOgkJ IEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KTnVtYmVyIG9mIHBhZ2VzOiAyMw0KVVJMOiAgICAgICAg ICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1jaGVuLWlwcG0t Y29sb3JpbmctYmFzZWQtaXBmcG0tZnJhbWV3b3JrLTAwLnR4dA0KU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgICBo dHRwOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWNoZW4taXBwbS1jb2xvcmluZy1i YXNlZC1pcGZwbS1mcmFtZXdvcmsNCkh0bWxpemVkOiAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYu b3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtY2hlbi1pcHBtLWNvbG9yaW5nLWJhc2VkLWlwZnBtLWZyYW1ld29yay0w MA0KDQoNCkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgQnkgc2V0dGluZyBvbmUgdW51c2VkIGJpdCBvZiB0aGUgSVAg aGVhZGVyIG9mIHBhY2tldHMgdG8gImNvbG9yIiB0aGUNCiAgIHBhY2tldHMgaW50byBkaWZmZXJl bnQgY29sb3IgYmxvY2tzLCBpdCBuYXR1cmFsbHkgZ2l2ZXMgYSB3YXkgdG8NCiAgIG1lYXN1cmUg dGhlIHJlYWwgcGFja2V0IGxvc3MgYW5kIGRlbGF5IHdpdGhvdXQgaW5zZXJ0aW5nIGFueSBleHRy YQ0KICAgT0FNIHBhY2tldHMuICBUaGlzIGlzIGNhbGxlZCAiY29sb3JpbmciIGJhc2VkIElQIEZs b3cgUGVyZm9ybWFuY2UNCiAgIE1lYXN1cmVtZW50IChJUEZQTSkuICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHNw ZWNpZmllcyBhIGZyYW1ld29yayBmb3IgdGhpcw0KICAgImNvbG9yaW5nIiBiYXNlZCBJUEZQTSBh bmQgZGVmaW5lcyBhIG5ldyBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgSVBGSVggZm9yDQogICBleHBvcnRp bmcgdGhlIHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIG1lYXN1cmVtZW50IHN0YXRpc3RpYyBkYXRhLg0KDQoNCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANCg0KDQpUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0KDQo= From alessandro.capello@telecomitalia.it Wed Jul 10 02:04:31 2013 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 C83B321F9F41 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:04:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.719 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 hLR4KpZFi+iO for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFEDG702BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg702ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BFDF21F9D49 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grfhub704ba020.griffon.local (10.188.101.117) by GRFEDG702BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.297.1; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:04:24 +0200 Received: from GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.11]) by grfhub704ba020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.117]) with mapi; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:04:24 +0200 From: Capello Alessandro To: Mach Chen , "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:04:22 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Solicit comments//FW: New Version Notification for draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHOfEIxfLWcks91Y0SaiiYfsuedlZldn4pA Message-ID: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A5B15D0AF8@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ippm] Solicit comments//FW: New Version Notification for draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-00.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: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:04:31 -0000 Hi, Mach, all, the concept of a coloring-based IP flow performance measurement is currentl= y described in draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m, referenced by Mach's draft. draft-tempia is an experimental draft that is primarily focused on describi= ng the implementation and deployment of the coloring-based measurement meth= od in Telecom Italia's network. Some of the choices of the current implementation are impractical for stand= ardization, but we believe that the basic concept could be of interest for = the IPPM WG. In principle it could be applied to passive measurement but al= so to hybrid measurement, by coloring packets belonging to an active measur= ement protocol. So I encourage the wg to have a look also at draft-tempia and provide comme= nts. I point out that there are some IPR disclosures related to draft-tempia. Thanks, Alessandro -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mac= h Chen Sent: marted=EC 9 luglio 2013 3.18 To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Solicit comments//FW: New Version Notification for draft-ch= en-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-00.txt Hi all, We just uploaded a new draft that is about passive performance measurement,= which introduces a coloring based IP flow performance measurement. We plan= to discuss this draft in the upcoming meeting. We'd appreciate that you could spend some time to review the draft, and any= comments and suggestion are welcome! Many thanks, Best -----Original Message----- From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 9:38 AM To: Mach Chen; Rajiv Papneja; Guangqing Deng; Liuhongming; Yinyuanbin; Mach= Chen; Shailesh Abhyankar Subject: New Version Notification for draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-= framework-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Mach(Guoyi) Chen and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework Revision: 00 Title: Coloring based IP Flow Performance Measurement Framework Creation date: 2013-07-08 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 23 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chen-ippm-colori= ng-based-ipfpm-framework-00.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ippm-coloring-b= ased-ipfpm-framework Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-= ipfpm-framework-00 Abstract: By setting one unused bit of the IP header of packets to "color" the packets into different color blocks, it naturally gives a way to measure the real packet loss and delay without inserting any extra OAM packets. This is called "coloring" based IP Flow Performance Measurement (IPFPM). This document specifies a framework for this "coloring" based IPFPM and defines a new application to the IPFIX for exporting the performance measurement statistic data. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jul 11 05:27:46 2013 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 CAF3311E8116; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 05:27:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, 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 WE-NHLOlV1RS; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 05:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE7021F9FEA; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 05:27:46 -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: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130711122746.10324.11379.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 05:27:46 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-00.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, 11 Jul 2013 12:27:46 -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 t= he IETF. Title : Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM Author(s) : Joachim Fabini Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-00.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2013-07-11 Abstract: To obtain repeatable results in modern networks, test descriptions need an expanded stream parameter framework that also augments aspects specified as Type-P for test packets. This memo proposes to update the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework with advanced considerations for measurement methodology and testing. The existing framework mostly assumes deterministic connectivity, and that a single test stream will represent the characteristics of the path when it is aggregated with other flows. Networks have evolved and test stream descriptions must evolve with them, otherwise unexpected network features may dominate the measured performance. This memo describes new stream parameters for both network characterization and support of application design using IPPM metrics. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at Mon Jul 15 03:24:17 2013 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 3394721F9ABD; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:24:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, 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 25vflHuQeopT; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.zserv.tuwien.ac.at (mail1.zserv.tuwien.ac.at [128.130.35.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614E221F9FA7; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.131.88.241] (priamos.ibk.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.88.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.zserv.tuwien.ac.at (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6FAO13o030067 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:24:03 +0200 Message-ID: <51E3CDB8.5080105@tuwien.ac.at> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:23:52 +0200 From: Joachim Fabini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Al Morton , lmap@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Draft RFC 2330 Update submission 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, 15 Jul 2013 10:24:18 -0000 Dear all, we have submitted the RFC2330 Update draft last week, it is available online at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update/. As a side-note: the time-slotted randomness cancellation (TSRC) issue, which the draft discusses, questions appropriateness of end-to-end measurement methodologies for sequences of time-slotted links - not only for wireless but also for wired access links. We will present some details/measurement results in Berlin and would welcome a discussion on the potential impact that TSRC can have onto the future lmap architecture. More details on TSRC and its impact on measurements can be found in reference [TSRC] of the draft. The paper is currently available as early-access in IEEExplore, you may contact me (JF) by email in case you have no access to it. regards Joachim and Al. -- --------------------------------------- Dr. Joachim Fabini Institute of Telecommunications Vienna University of Technology Favoritenstraße 9/389 A-1040 Vienna, Austria Tel: +43 1 58801-38813 Fax: +43 1 58801-38898 mailto: Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at --------------------------------------- From bclaise@cisco.com Mon Jul 15 09:10:54 2013 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 CD42B11E8171 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:10:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.305 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.305 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 3eFy+uY3Kg3A for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (av-tac-rtp.cisco.com [64.102.19.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956B411E8166 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:10:50 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6FGAn3q001255 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:10:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6FGAmTX029102 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51E41F08.4060407@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:10:48 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft 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, 15 Jul 2013 16:10:54 -0000 Dear all, Let me introduce http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry/ This draft creates of a new IANA registry, for performance metrics that follows the RFC6390 template. And, let's not forget that the IPPM charter mentions: "Metric definitions will follow the template given in RFC 6390." Thanks Brian for giving me 10 min to present this draft. Regards, Benoit. From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Tue Jul 16 07:15:54 2013 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 E859F11E80E6 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:15:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.87 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.729, 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 tnaRtqgh14SX for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48DC11E80C5 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:15:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A83894C99 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:15:47 +0200 (CEST) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from [163.117.203.99] (unknown [163.117.203.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcelo@smtp02.uc3m.es) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF43B894C8B for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:15:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51E55592.1050304@it.uc3m.es> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:15:46 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <20130714200900.20014.53545.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130714200900.20014.53545.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130714200900.20014.53545.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelistedACL 131 matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (smtp02.uc3m.es); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:15:47 +0200 (CEST) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-20018.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.939-7.0-31-1 X-imss-scan-details: No--11.939-7.0-31-1 Subject: [ippm] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-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: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:15:55 -0000 Hi, We have updated the draft to include the comment we received in the previous meeting about RFC6390 format on defining new metrics. This new draft explores this proposed format to see how it would look like. It is not obvious to me at this point that the registry should have the fields defined in RFC6390. I mean, a new metric should have all the information required in RFC 6390, but it is far from clear to me that the metrci should also have these different explicilty spelled out. We have updated the draft to reflect this and see how it looks like. I am not sure i am convinced by the result though. I would be interested to hear from the WG. Regards, marcelo -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: I-D Action: draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-01.txt Fecha: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:09:00 -0700 De: internet-drafts@ietf.org Responder a: internet-drafts@ietf.org Para: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : A registry for commonly used metrics. Independent registries Author(s) : Marcelo Bagnulo Trevor Burbridge Sam Crawford Philip Eardley Al Morton Filename : draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-01.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2013-07-14 Abstract: This document creates a registry for commonly used metrics, defines the rules for assignments in the new registry and performs initial allocations. This document proposes one particular registry structure with independent registries for each of the fields involved. A companion document draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry explores an alternative structure with a single registry with multiple sub-registries. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ 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 marcelo@it.uc3m.es Tue Jul 16 07:17:24 2013 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 3DFE321F85E8 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:17:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.113 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.486, 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 92GszAZVZrK2 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768E221F85BB for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C74894CB3 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:17:18 +0200 (CEST) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from [163.117.203.99] (unknown [163.117.203.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcelo@smtp02.uc3m.es) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E006894C99 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:17:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51E555ED.6060004@it.uc3m.es> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:17:17 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <20130714200925.23759.41055.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130714200925.23759.41055.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130714200925.23759.41055.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelistedACL 131 matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (smtp02.uc3m.es); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:17:18 +0200 (CEST) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-20018.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--8.676-7.0-31-1 X-imss-scan-details: No--8.676-7.0-31-1 Subject: [ippm] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-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: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:17:24 -0000 This new version is only to keep it alive. no changes were made since the 00 version. We limited the RFC 6390 experiment to the other draft. If the WG feels that the rfc6390 format shouldbe adopted and preffers this registry rather than the indpendent one, we will gladly update this document. Regards, marcelo -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: I-D Action: draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-01.txt Fecha: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:09:25 -0700 De: internet-drafts@ietf.org Responder a: internet-drafts@ietf.org Para: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : A registry for commonly used metrics Author(s) : Marcelo Bagnulo Trevor Burbridge Sam Crawford Philip Eardley Al Morton Filename : draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-01.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2013-07-14 Abstract: This document creates a registry for commonly used metrics, defines the rules for assignments in the new registry and performs initial allocations. This document proposes one particular registry structure with a single registry with multiple sub-registries. A companion document draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent explores an alternative structure with independent registries for each of the fields involved. . The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ 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 acmorton@att.com Tue Jul 16 10:24:08 2013 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 2B2B521E8082 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:24:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.306 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.306 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.293, 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 jkQ9fcYKSym9 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [192.20.225.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9152E21E8063 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.11]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374BE1205CE; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg1.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg1.research.att.com [135.207.177.20]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D7DF0365; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299]) by njfpsrvexg1.research.att.com ([fe80::58ce:ca01:5d18:db01%13]) with mapi; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:24:00 -0400 From: "MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)" To: "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:23:59 -0400 Thread-Topic: TWAMP TCP testing Thread-Index: Ac6CRWoowLsbdwZ9TfeemWFVepEPLQ== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Konstantinos Pentikousis \(k.pentikousis@huawei.com\)" Subject: [ippm] TWAMP TCP 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: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:24:08 -0000 IPPM, I revised the "Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement" * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-03 a few months back. When reviewing the text to see if further=20 updates were warranted, I was reminded that we had incorporated TCP testing as well as the ubiquitous UDP transport. There are some open points on TCP, but I keep hearing this is wanted. I decided to examine the topic, and this draft is the result: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-twamp-tcp-00 There are several design choices. So far, the roles of=20 TCP connection Initiator or Listener are 2 new Modes selected=20 and fixed for each TWAMP-Control connection, and there would be one new Request-TW-Session Command and corresponding Accept message.=20 I didn't request an agenda slot for this draft (it barely made the extended deadline), but we can certainly discuss it on the list. regards, Al * Belated thanks to Kostas Pentikousis for sitting with me=20 in Orlando to help work his clarifications into the early sections of the Test Protocol Problem Statement draft.=20 Kostas got an XXE demo out of the session, so it was win-win. From a.botta@unina.it Wed Jul 17 09:33:25 2013 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 2B32821F99F8 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:33:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.069 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] 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 sJ4pnTbqjdkR for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.unina.it (smtp1.unina.it [192.132.34.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5C121F94DC for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [143.225.229.166] ([143.225.229.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp1.unina.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6HGXFbQ007557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:33:17 +0200 Message-ID: <51E6C67B.7010800@unina.it> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:29:47 +0200 From: Alessio Botta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130704 Icedove/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: YIC@zurich.ibm.com Subject: [ippm] Deadline extended: ICNC 2014, Communication QoS and System Modeling Symposium 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, 17 Jul 2013 16:33:25 -0000 Please note that the paper submission deadline has been extended to July 22! (We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this email) Communication QoS and System Modeling Symposium (CQSM) at IEEE ICNC 2014 February 3-6, 2014, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA The deadline for paper submission has been extended to July 22 URL: http://www.conf-icnc.org/2014 =============== Important dates =============== Paper submission: Extended to July 22 (FIRM) Paper Acceptance: Sept. 20, 2013 Camera-ready paper: Oct. 20, 2013 =============== Submission Guidelines =============== Please follow the author instructions at http://www.conf-icnc.org/2014/author.htm Direct paper submission link of this symposium is http://www.edas.info/newPaper.php?c=14505&track=31375 ============== Scope ============== Communication networks are designed to offer services to end-users with suitable Quality of Service (QoS) level. To such an end, network traffic should be analyzed and appropriately controlled so that the desired QoS requirements are achieved. The development of today’s applications, network technologies and standards greatly leverages modeling and design tools. Furthermore, different methodologies including analytical modeling, simulation, experimentation, and monitoring are needed to support designs of communication networks and services. The aim of the “Communication QoS and System Modeling” Symposium is to provide an international forum for the discussion of communications service provisioning, the quality and mechanisms to support such services as well as the techniques to model and assess the efficiency of communication networks. ============== List of Topics ============== Authors are invited to submit original technical papers covering but not limited to the topics of interest listed below: -- Quality, scalability, reliability, and performance in network and their services, including o Internet o Optical networks o Autonomic systems o Wireless and mobile networks o Wireless and mobile networks o Grid and distributed computing o Wireless and mobile networks o Multimedia networks in voice over IP and IPTV -- Performance of large-scale experimental platforms -- Standardization aspects of QoS and reliability -- Network Performance evaluation methodologies o Network simulation o Network modeling o Network measurement and monitoring -- Design of networks and their services -- Cross-layer design, modeling and optimization -- Traffic economics -- Application/service oriented networking -- Traffic workload modeling and characterization -- Traffic and workload control -- Traffic engineering and traffic theory -- Metrics and models for QoE ============== Symposium Organizers ============== Lydia Y. Chen IBM Zurich Research Laboratory Säumerstrasse 4 8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland yic[AT]zurich.ibm.com Antonio Pescapé Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e delle Tecnologie dell'Informazione University of Napoli ''Federico II'' Via Claudio, 21 - 80125, Napoli (Italy) pescape[AT]unina.it -- Alessio Botta, PhD Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e delle Tecnologie dell'Informazione Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II" Via Claudio 21 -- 80125 Napoli (Italy) [Room 3.09] Phone: +390817683865 - Fax: +390817683816 Skypeid: alessiobotta Email: a.botta@unina.it alessio.botta@consorzio-cini.it WWW: http://wpage.unina.it/a.botta From trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch Fri Jul 26 07:37:26 2013 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 5BCF221F99E3 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:37:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.378, 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 3JbaXGiKqKhz for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6ACB21F99A0 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:37:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117C3D93A2 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:37:15 +0200 (MEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id kkiZabLii8da for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:37:14 +0200 (MEST) Received: from [172.27.10.188] (unknown [195.37.142.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA500D9309 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:37:14 +0200 (MEST) From: Brian Trammell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1C3AAC2D-7BA4-4FC9-99DA-6201E357A382@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:37:15 +0200 To: "ippm@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Subject: [ippm] Note-Takers, IPPM, Wednesday 31 July 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, 26 Jul 2013 14:37:26 -0000 Greetings, all, I'll be chairing Wednesday morning's IPPM meeting on my own, as Bill = Cerveny won't be able to travel to the meeting this time. I'll need some = help with note-takers during the session, and I'd really appreciate = volunteers in advance. Please let me know if you'll be able to take = notes and send them to the chairs after the meeting for the minutes. Many thanks, best regards, Brian= From k.pentikousis@huawei.com Fri Jul 26 09:04:54 2013 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 57D8B21F9A98 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:04:54 -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 yUxLmbS2ff13 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6DB21F9A8E for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ATV02187; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:04:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:03:46 +0100 Received: from SZXEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:04:05 +0100 Received: from SZXEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.151]) by szxeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.161]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 00:03:58 +0800 From: Konstantinos Pentikousis To: Joachim Fabini , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] Draft RFC 2330 Update submission Thread-Index: AQHOgY4e8jaqJXTwm0uuemjOtxKkPJl3KUqg Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:03:57 +0000 Message-ID: <8D38716F0C1A444BA0CD7E96454366C24BB28000@szxeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <51E3CDB8.5080105@tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <51E3CDB8.5080105@tuwien.ac.at> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.200.37.52] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Al Morton Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft RFC 2330 Update submission 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, 26 Jul 2013 16:04:54 -0000 Dear Joachim, Al, all, Many thanks for the draft which reads well over all and addresses a very pe= rtinent problem: the current framework may not be suitable for a range of t= echnologies as has been demonstrated in the literature you cite. Especially= with respect to the wireless network cases you mention in the draft, I'd n= ote that although the type of state-based access control is becoming much f= aster than previous generations of cellular networks, it will not go away c= ompletely in the mid-term. Plus, we should anticipate that other types of (= different) access states could come into play once network functions become= virtualized, or once the network includes significant parts that are softw= are-defined. On-demand network resource allocation, scale-out, -up and flex= ible redeployment of resources will only further add to this. I agree with = the text that the classic pov that there is a dedicated pipe somewhere is f= or most networks no longer the case, hence we need to revise the framework. However, I find the term "reactive networks" a bit incorrect or, if you wan= t, no all-encompassing of the behavior that an enhanced IPPM framework shou= ld consider. I gather that this is a term defined in this document. At leas= t, I am not aware of earlier peer-reviewed literature using this term exten= sively. Perhaps I'm mistaken; could you please offer some pointers?=20 Moreover, on-demand allocation may not be the result of on-going traffic on= ly. At least, it may not be "reactive" to the particular flow you're measur= ing. For example, it may be indeed that due to the active measurement flow = more resources are allocated. It may be as well because the time of the day= has changed. Both are on-demand (traffic-volume vs. policy triggered) but = not "reactive". As such, I'm not very happy with this term. In addition the= definition is quite loose: "one or more successive measurements cause one = or more network components to process future packets using a different mode= of operation than for other measurement outcomes" - this could even happen= today with a queue in the absence of higher-priority traffic, or when DPI = is used on a random/profiled basis. The fact that a box-in-the-middle may t= reat packets differently is not really new. I could imagine the background = of your thinking here (cellular base station access control changes, for ex= ample), but the text does not reflect it. Many measurements will happen over overlays or virtualized networks by the = time this draft becomes an RFC. This is also not captured in the document, = and I think we should include it given the state and direction of the indus= try lately. Note that I do not refer to mobility, and I'm not even delving= into aspects such as small-cell or HetNet deployments etc. from a wireless= perspective which are coming our (IPPM) way. I'm not also sure why you opt= for excluding networks that differentiate traffic based on port numbers fr= om being reactive. Being "reactive" (or not), as per the example at the end= of the sec. 1.1 may well depend exactly on that: allocate resources differ= ent depending on the inferred type of traffic. Of course, I couldn't agree = more with you about the fact that "Networks have evolved and test stream de= scriptions must evolve with them", but I think we may have an opportunity t= o do more here than simply capturing what has been the case in earlier gene= rations of cellular networks. Therefore, I'd like to discuss further the de= finition of sec. 1.1 next week if you can spare the time. I fully agree that network treatment may depend on Type-P, but item 3 in se= c. 3 is not fully correct. First, you may have the same effect without any = change in access technology. States inside the access network may change de= pending on traffic flow, inactivity timers, but also policies. The paper "T= heory and Practice of RRC State Transitions in UMTS Networks", for example = (http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/GLOCOMW.2009.5360763), could be added as valuabl= e reference in this case as it explains such network behavior in detail. You're also making the implicit assumption that the tests are performed fro= m stationary hosts; mobility is not really discussed in the draft.=20 In sec. 3.1.2, you should consider mentioning VoIP (and other types of traf= fic) aggregation in addition to compression. For example, we explored earli= er the implications of VoIP aggregation (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= =3D1390599) as well as the combination of different types of multimedia tra= ffic over WiMAX (http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WIOPT.2008.4586026). In general,= other types of content manipulation (including placeholders for advertisem= ents, for instance), which a typical measurement won't capture should be me= ntioned. Finally, regarding the HSPA comment at the end of this section, yo= u should find earlier work by Jurvansuu et al. telling: http://dx.doi.org/1= 0.1109/ICC.2007.83=20 As mentioned above, access technology change (sec. 3.3) should discuss othe= r aspects here, including perhaps mobility, in more detail. Moving from one= macro base station which is lightly loaded to another one which is heavily= loaded, or to one that has backhaul limitations, or from a macro cell to a= femto cell, may be a world of difference. And this is not "reactive" in th= e way it is described in sec. 1.1 :) In addition, there are several protoco= ls that can shield upper layers from determining that an access change has = occurred. From an upper layer's point of view the delay may be as well a re= sult of e2e congestion and not due to inter- or intra-access handover. I'm not sure I understand the recommendation in sec. 3.4 that "End-to-end m= etrics can provide accurate measurement results for short-term sessions and= low likelihood of flow state modifications." and I'm looking forward to th= e measurement results you mention below. Earlier work (http://dx.doi.org/10= .1109/LCOMM.2005.1506708) indicated that such an end-to-end metric, i.e. ap= plication-layer throughput ("goodput"), may give completely different indic= ations for a range of simple data transfers. This is of course specific to = access technology, but I think we could discuss further the recommendation.= And, it's hard for me to think of "stable network conditions" :) Looking forward to the presentation next week! Best regards, Kostas |-----Original Message----- |From: Joachim Fabini [mailto:Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at] |Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 12:24 PM |To: ippm@ietf.org |Cc: Al Morton; lmap@ietf.org |Subject: [ippm] Draft RFC 2330 Update submission | |Dear all, | |we have submitted the RFC2330 Update draft last week, it is available |online at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update/. | |As a side-note: the time-slotted randomness cancellation (TSRC) issue, |which the draft discusses, questions appropriateness of end-to-end |measurement methodologies for sequences of time-slotted links - not only |for wireless but also for wired access links. We will present some |details/measurement results in Berlin and would welcome a discussion on |the potential impact that TSRC can have onto the future lmap |architecture. | |More details on TSRC and its impact on measurements can be found in |reference [TSRC] of the draft. The paper is currently available as |early-access in IEEExplore, you may contact me (JF) by email in case you |have no access to it. | |regards |Joachim and Al. | |-- |--------------------------------------- |Dr. Joachim Fabini |Institute of Telecommunications |Vienna University of Technology |Favoritenstra=DFe 9/389 |A-1040 Vienna, Austria | |Tel: +43 1 58801-38813 |Fax: +43 1 58801-38898 |mailto: Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at |--------------------------------------- From rschrage@schrageconsult.net Fri Jul 26 09:35:25 2013 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 678E921F99C7 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:35:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 hFG2EZ1faCJF for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailoutvans01.telekom-dienste.de (mailoutvans01.telekom-dienste.de [62.153.159.240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A708B21F9A87 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fwd19.aul.t-online.de (fwd19.aul.t-online.de ) by mailoutvans01.telekom-dienste.de with smtp id 1V2kz8-00087N-D9; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:35:18 +0200 Received: from WinLinux (VmuZBaZ1rtrKjBss7DWlduSPJ569uC1iO8kyHSblYk4lFS9XKK+NMSsZ3dMOgi6Q3UrGiNIDdj@[89.182.182.244]) by fwd19.webpage.t-com.de with esmtp id 1V2kz1-0EAZG40; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:35:11 +0200 From: "Reinhard Schrage" To: "'Brian Trammell'" , References: <1C3AAC2D-7BA4-4FC9-99DA-6201E357A382@tik.ee.ethz.ch> In-Reply-To: <1C3AAC2D-7BA4-4FC9-99DA-6201E357A382@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:35:09 +0200 Message-ID: <008601ce8a1e$18363220$48a29660$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac6KDeC8Os7Xc6jWRAuneL1MjlcrhgAEBULA Content-Language: en-gb X-ID: VmuZBaZ1rtrKjBss7DWlduSPJ569uC1iO8kyHSblYk4lFS9XKK+NMSsZ3dMOgi6Q3UrGiNIDdj X-TOI-MSGID: 8229b8b9-f995-4227-b9ea-2ec21c9edb85 Subject: Re: [ippm] Note-Takers, IPPM, Wednesday 31 July 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, 26 Jul 2013 16:35:25 -0000 Brian, I'm happy to volunteer and give my five pennies worth. Best regards Reinhard Schrage t: +49 (0) 5137 909540 m: +49 (0) 172 26.36.046 reinhard@schrageconsult.com -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell Sent: 26 July 2013 16:37 To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Note-Takers, IPPM, Wednesday 31 July Greetings, all, I'll be chairing Wednesday morning's IPPM meeting on my own, as Bill Cerveny won't be able to travel to the meeting this time. I'll need some help with note-takers during the session, and I'd really appreciate volunteers in advance. Please let me know if you'll be able to take notes and send them to the chairs after the meeting for the minutes. Many thanks, best regards, Brian _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From vinayakh@gmail.com Sun Jul 28 04:21:27 2013 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 2820E21F9E35 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:21:27 -0700 (PDT) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 OjNQaa7iEyBB for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A07521F9E2A for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id kq13so4792995pab.39 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:21:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=uX2js35Gks0NOlQ79wKX4KXkPoYyRDI0hiu2gEPuRuY=; b=KUZh+0mLeYkvlgoH6m+nnmPhSZQYF5K2XvwlAomq3/aP2MXbxbZRNIT/Vtdl5M19Zq EN9raNkUTGFKffQLBEKWA5NSvGtYHxhtwJISdg2z/fxH4R4B/FAgDd89iDgQ9jp6uSUs 7uClGcZeAQrOdiPfUyQ/1Z3nrU8QENdsKkU+fLap8sirBWtp+4nffYQIc5acaxg768hj 62m/qG6IWyaRvJUEaqUrHyznH848x2AMg7obnZ9cRe2RsL0TsDR6qfYro9tK19caX+jB f02il4gYsYzZnJdyeNtWT7ybfXMHzjhrwwIPOv+McPLx/gF2rdKpchF0n36H3bzGysrU a9gA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.69.13.132 with SMTP id ey4mr62282507pbd.52.1375010481067; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.100.226 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:21:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <008601ce8a1e$18363220$48a29660$@net> References: <1C3AAC2D-7BA4-4FC9-99DA-6201E357A382@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <008601ce8a1e$18363220$48a29660$@net> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 16:51:20 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Reinhard Schrage Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=60eb69fdf21149616c04e2909309 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Note-Takers, IPPM, Wednesday 31 July 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, 28 Jul 2013 11:21:27 -0000 --60eb69fdf21149616c04e2909309 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Brian, I am also volunteering to take notes. -- Vinayak On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Reinhard Schrage < rschrage@schrageconsult.net> wrote: > Brian, > > I'm happy to volunteer and give my five pennies worth. > > Best regards > Reinhard Schrage > t: +49 (0) 5137 909540 > m: +49 (0) 172 26.36.046 > reinhard@schrageconsult.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Brian Trammell > Sent: 26 July 2013 16:37 > To: ippm@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] Note-Takers, IPPM, Wednesday 31 July > > Greetings, all, > > I'll be chairing Wednesday morning's IPPM meeting on my own, as Bill > Cerveny > won't be able to travel to the meeting this time. I'll need some help with > note-takers during the session, and I'd really appreciate volunteers in > advance. Please let me know if you'll be able to take notes and send them > to > the chairs after the meeting for the minutes. > > Many thanks, best regards, > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > 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 > --60eb69fdf21149616c04e2909309 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Brian,

I am also volunteering to take notes.

-- Vinayak
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Reinhard = Schrage <rschrage@schrageconsult.net> wrote:
Brian,

I'm happy to volunteer and give my five pennies worth.

Best regards
Reinhard Schrage
t: =A0 =A0 +49 (0) 5137 909540
m: =A0 +49 (0) 172 26.36.046
reinhard@schrageconsult.com<= /a>

-----Original Message-----
From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [m= ailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] O= n Behalf Of
Brian Trammell
Sent: 26 July 2013 16:37
To: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] Note-Takers, IPPM, Wednesday 31 July

Greetings, all,

I'll be chairing Wednesday morning's IPPM meeting on my own, as Bil= l Cerveny
won't be able to travel to the meeting this time. I'll need some he= lp with
note-takers during the session, and I'd really appreciate volunteers in=
advance. Please let me know if you'll be able to take notes and send th= em to
the chairs after the meeting for the minutes.

Many thanks, best regards,

Brian
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

--60eb69fdf21149616c04e2909309-- From yaojk@cnnic.cn Mon Jul 29 01:04:42 2013 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 4A82321F9DB0 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:04:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.916 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, 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 LfUvHnKpHrFd for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D33521F9D7B for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:04:24 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO healthyao-think) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:03:48 +0800 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:03:45 +0800 From: "Jiankang Yao" To: "Brian Trammell" , "ippm@ietf.org" References: <1C3AAC2D-7BA4-4FC9-99DA-6201E357A382@tik.ee.ethz.ch> X-Priority: 3 X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.92[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2013072916034235078235@cnnic.cn> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart417326067604_=----" Subject: Re: [ippm] Note-Takers, IPPM, Wednesday 31 July X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: yaojk List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:04:42 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart417326067604_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 bm90ZS10YWtlcnMgPT0gamFiYmVyIHNjcmliZXJzPw0KSWYgbm90LCBwbHMga2luZGx5IGFycmFu Z2UgdGhlIHRoZSBqYWJiZXIgc2NyaWJlcnMgdG9vLg0KSXQgaXMgdXNlZnVsIGZvciByZW1vdGUg cGFydGljaXBhbnRzLg0KDQoNCg0KDQpKaWFua2FuZyBZYW8NCg0KRnJvbTogQnJpYW4gVHJhbW1l bGwNCkRhdGU6IDIwMTMtMDctMjYgMjI6MzcNClRvOiBpcHBtQGlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBb aXBwbV0gTm90ZS1UYWtlcnMsIElQUE0sIFdlZG5lc2RheSAzMSBKdWx5DQpHcmVldGluZ3MsIGFs bCwNCg0KSSdsbCBiZSBjaGFpcmluZyBXZWRuZXNkYXkgbW9ybmluZydzIElQUE0gbWVldGluZyBv biBteSBvd24sIGFzIEJpbGwgQ2VydmVueSB3b24ndCBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIHRyYXZlbCB0byB0aGUg bWVldGluZyB0aGlzIHRpbWUuIEknbGwgbmVlZCBzb21lIGhlbHAgd2l0aCBub3RlLXRha2VycyBk dXJpbmcgdGhlIHNlc3Npb24sIGFuZCBJJ2QgcmVhbGx5IGFwcHJlY2lhdGUgdm9sdW50ZWVycyBp biBhZHZhbmNlLiBQbGVhc2UgbGV0IG1lIGtub3cgaWYgeW91J2xsIGJlIGFibGUgdG8gdGFrZSBu b3RlcyBhbmQgc2VuZCB0aGVtIHRvIHRoZSBjaGFpcnMgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcgZm9yIHRo ZSBtaW51dGVzLg0KDQpNYW55IHRoYW5rcywgYmVzdCByZWdhcmRzLA0KDQpCcmlhbg0KX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCmlwcG0gbWFpbGluZyBs aXN0DQppcHBtQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZv L2lwcG0= ------=_001_NextPart417326067604_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
note-takers =3D=3D jabber scriber= s?
If not, pls kindly arrange the the jab= ber=20 scribers too.
It is useful for remote participants.<= /DIV>
 
Jiankang Yao
 
Date: 2013-07-26 22:37
To: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] Note-Takers, IPPM, Wednesday 31=20 July
Greetings, all,
 
I'll be chairing Wednesday morning's IPPM&nb= sp;meeting on my own, as Bill Cerveny w= on't be able to travel to the meeting&n= bsp;this time. I'll need some help with = ;note-takers during the session, and I'd rea= lly appreciate volunteers in advance. Please = ;let me know if you'll be able to = take notes and send them to the chairs&= nbsp;after the meeting for the minutes.
 
Many thanks, best regards,
 
Brian
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
------=_001_NextPart417326067604_=------ From trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch Mon Jul 29 02:02:14 2013 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 4CD2C11E80D3 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:02:14 -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 kvbceIC2tqFr for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32D411E80A2 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43C0D9305; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:02:08 +0200 (MEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id XMqZ-E+0hp1q; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:02:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: from dhcp-90be.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-90be.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.8.190]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8707AD9304; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:02:08 +0200 (MEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 From: Brian Trammell X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <2013072916034235078235@cnnic.cn> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:02:06 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <86F470FC-A7C2-4FA0-8E86-521F7A1762F8@tik.ee.ethz.ch> References: <1C3AAC2D-7BA4-4FC9-99DA-6201E357A382@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <2013072916034235078235@cnnic.cn> To: yaojk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Note-Takers, IPPM, Wednesday 31 July 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, 29 Jul 2013 09:02:14 -0000 hi Jiankang, all, We will have Meetecho for remote participants (see = http://ietf87.conf.meetecho.com) but yes, Jabber scribing would be = useful as well. So if you'd be willing to be a Jabber scribe, then = please let us know at ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank Reinhard Schrage and = Vinayak Hegde for volunteering as note takers! Many thanks, best regards, Brian On 29 Jul 2013, at 10:03, Jiankang Yao wrote: > note-takers =3D=3D jabber scribers? > If not, pls kindly arrange the the jabber scribers too. > It is useful for remote participants. > =20 > Jiankang Yao > =20 > From: Brian Trammell > Date: 2013-07-26 22:37 > To: ippm@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] Note-Takers, IPPM, Wednesday 31 July > Greetings, all, > =20 > I'll be chairing Wednesday morning's IPPM meeting on my own, as Bill = Cerveny won't be able to travel to the meeting this time. I'll need some = help with note-takers during the session, and I'd really appreciate = volunteers in advance. Please let me know if you'll be able to take = notes and send them to the chairs after the meeting for the minutes. > =20 > Many thanks, best regards, > =20 > Brian > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From philip.eardley@bt.com Tue Jul 30 08:59:25 2013 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 65DDF11E820D for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:59:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 opuoqkSSa6gf for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpe1.intersmtp.com (smtp64.intersmtp.com [62.239.224.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCB811E81E9 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHT69-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.129) by RDW083A008ED64.smtp-e4.hygiene.service (10.187.98.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:58:41 +0100 Received: from EMV65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([169.254.2.219]) by EVMHT69-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([10.36.3.129]) with mapi; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:58:41 +0100 From: To: , Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:58:40 +0100 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft Thread-Index: Ac6BdeTgFnvtyVNiQju0rYW8tbGwtwLw4DMZ Message-ID: <9510D26531EF184D9017DF24659BB87F35CC70B7F3@EMV65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <51E41F08.4060407@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <51E41F08.4060407@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft 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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:59:25 -0000 Benoit, I'm trying to compare your i-d with the two bagnulo drafts - they tried to = compare organising a registry "hierarchically" or "independently" . http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent= / so do we have independent registries: one a regsitry of the test methods (U= DP latency, UDP packet loss etc); one a registry of possible ways of schedu= ling instances of the test (one-off, regular, poisson distribution etc); on= e a registry of the possible output formats for the results (raw data, mean= , X-ile...); etc. So, a measurement system would choose one entry from each registry in order= to define a test. or do we have a single registry which has all the combinations (UDP latency= + one-off + raw data; etc).=20 one entry from this registry would define a test.=20 I wasn't sure from your draft which you think is the right approach to purs= ue, or whether you're suggesting a third possibility. thanks phil ________________________________________ From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Cla= ise [bclaise@cisco.com] Sent: 15 July 2013 17:10 To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft Dear all, Let me introduce http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry/ This draft creates of a new IANA registry, for performance metrics that follows the RFC6390 template. And, let's not forget that the IPPM charter mentions: "Metric definitions will follow the template given in RFC 6390." Thanks Brian for giving me 10 min to present this draft. Regards, Benoit. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm= From Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at Wed Jul 31 04:39:00 2013 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 25ACA11E80E4 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:38:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.83 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_83=0.6, 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 wtzYIpbBqNE2 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.zserv.tuwien.ac.at (mail1.zserv.tuwien.ac.at [128.130.35.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1C421F9F5C for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.131.88.241] (priamos.ibk.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.88.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.zserv.tuwien.ac.at (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6VBcdPq007885 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:38:39 +0200 Message-ID: <51F8F726.7050202@tuwien.ac.at> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:38:14 +0200 From: Joachim Fabini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [ippm] Metric registry considerations 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, 31 Jul 2013 11:39:00 -0000 Dear group, to detail on my point started at the microphone, please find below a rather formal approach to registries. Metric registries imho have a clearly hierarchical concept to which software engineering offers well-proven solutions - why do not reuse these? Starting from top to bottom in the list below, abstraction level moves from a theoretic concept to concrete implementation (I'll stick to the C++ naming in the following). 1. Metric _Templates_ (the Type_P stuff): abstract metrics, not depending on any specific parameter types. Eg: Type_P one-way-delay. These templates are highly generic meta-concepts, offering operations which act on an abstract type P (I really like that name! ;). These are the RFCs defining metrics. 2. Metric _Types_ (Instantiations of Templates): Metric Template (1) plus a set of parameter _types_ (names, definitions, which are mandatory to safeguard repeatability for the respective metric), i.e., protocol type (SIP, ICMP, whatever), packet size type, or packet size range type, source address type, destination address type, port type. 3. Metric _Instances_ (Variables in C++, Instances of Metric Types). These must define values for any of the parameters types specified. The only metric which is "executable", i.e., safeguards the repeatibility condition and allows for unique identification, is #3. However, such a metric registry is illusory (must define all possible combinations of all parameters) (protocol type ICMPv4, payload size 25-37 bytes, flags ..., etc.). However, an intermediate solution between #2 and #3 could work and be usable in practice as reference registry. The key is to define acceptable default parameters (which have been already established in practice, see RTD ICMPv4 echo with 32/64 byte payload). What is needed A) an abstract registry (#2 above), which is NOT used/referenced by measurements, maintained by IPPM and stores all metrics defined by IPPM together with their parameter names (types) and descriptions which are known to (potentially) influence on results. I find it extremly important to make the decision on Type-P explicit. Otherwise we end up comparing apples and oranges (see the payload-dependent delay in my presentation as an example). Ideally, we can agree in this registry on default values for some or all of these parameters and state mandatory pre-requisites. Example: ID-M1 Metric round-trip-delay. Parameters: (NetProtocol->default=IPv6, TransProtocol->default=ICMP, packetSizeRange->default=64-64, packetSizeRangeAlgorithm->default=none, Flags->default=none, interPacketDelayRange->default=1-1s, interPacketDelayAlgorithm=none, SourceAddress, DestinationAddress, SPort=none, DPort=none, AdditionalIPHeaders=none...) B) However, this default set won't work stand-alone. Therefore for public use we must define a second registry. Here we can refine all metric types from A) and specialize them with other parameter values. Example: ID 1: Metric round-trip-delay-default (ref. ID-M1) ModParam: SourceAddress=mandatoryUser, DestinationAddress=mandatoryUser ID 2: Metric round-trip-delay-default-IPv4 (ref. ID-M1) ModParam: Protocol:IPv4, ... (Description) ID 3: Metric round-trip-delay-default-UPD (ref. ModParam: Protocol:UDP, SourceAddress=mandatory, DestinationAddress=mandatory, SPort=mandatory, Dport=mandatory, ... (Description) ID 4: Metric round-trip-delay-default-SIP (ref. ModParam: Protocol:UDP, .. For better reference the metric name should probably be unique and the protocol name part of the metric name (don't stick to that). Concerning Benoit's remark on user requests "give me one round-trip-delay, one one-way delay": I think that one key to success is to define ALL parameters but at the same time provide as many default values as possible. However, the user must be requested to EXPLICITLY mention all parameter value changes relative to the default set (if he needs special features). The question is, whether: a) we can list all relevant parameters for any metric type, b) agree on default values for these parameters, c) define a process on how "custom-tailored" metrics should be defined and referenced. best regards Joachim PS: Just my unbiased view on how I would tackle this topic with focus on usability while maintaing the main metric property (repeatability) and a common discussion ground. From Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Wed Jul 31 05:58:47 2013 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 0A7AE11E8178 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:58:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.874 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_83=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 KeDn6G2yosic for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail43.telekom.de (tcmail43.telekom.de [80.149.113.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775BC21F9F6F for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113443.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.103]) by tcmail41.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 31 Jul 2013 14:57:26 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113443.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:57:26 +0200 From: To: Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:57:25 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Metric registry considerations Thread-Index: Ac6N4prqIHr2fXQXRkWfoZXfNAu0lAACXCsA Message-ID: References: <51F8F726.7050202@tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <51F8F726.7050202@tuwien.ac.at> 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] Metric registry considerations 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, 31 Jul 2013 12:58:47 -0000 Joachim, thanks. Your proposal of defaults (in general) came to my mind after follow= ing this mornings discussion. They seem to be a reasonable way forward. But= we should be careful to avoid an interpretation that defaults are the only= way to derive useful measurements. I think to recall that IPPM wanted to allow for utmost flexibility in measu= rement parametrisation where that wouldn't break the concepts of IPPM. I fo= und no text in RFC23330. IPPM wanted to avoid a bias by any of the metric s= pecifications. The lack of "MUST" requirements in the metric specifications supports the p= oint of giving as much as possible flexibility to those measuring. But IPPM also demands that measurements must be repeatable. And here defaul= t definitions fit well, if they ensure repeatability under otherwise identi= cal conditions. Regards, Ruediger -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joa= chim Fabini Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:38 PM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Metric registry considerations Dear group, to detail on my point started at the microphone, please find below a rather formal approach to registries. Metric registries imho have a clearly hierarchical concept to which software engineering offers well-proven solutions - why do not reuse these? Starting from top to bottom in the list below, abstraction level moves from a theoretic concept to concrete implementation (I'll stick to the C++ naming in the following). 1. Metric _Templates_ (the Type_P stuff): abstract metrics, not depending on any specific parameter types. Eg: Type_P one-way-delay. These templates are highly generic meta-concepts, offering operations which act on an abstract type P (I really like that name! ;). These are the RFCs defining metrics. 2. Metric _Types_ (Instantiations of Templates): Metric Template (1) plus a set of parameter _types_ (names, definitions, which are mandatory to safeguard repeatability for the respective metric), i.e., protocol type (SIP, ICMP, whatever), packet size type, or packet size range type, source address type, destination address type, port type. 3. Metric _Instances_ (Variables in C++, Instances of Metric Types). These must define values for any of the parameters types specified. The only metric which is "executable", i.e., safeguards the repeatibility condition and allows for unique identification, is #3. However, such a metric registry is illusory (must define all possible combinations of all parameters) (protocol type ICMPv4, payload size 25-37 bytes, flags ..., etc.). However, an intermediate solution between #2 and #3 could work and be usable in practice as reference registry. The key is to define acceptable default parameters (which have been already established in practice, see RTD ICMPv4 echo with 32/64 byte payload). What is needed A) an abstract registry (#2 above), which is NOT used/referenced by measurements, maintained by IPPM and stores all metrics defined by IPPM together with their parameter names (types) and descriptions which are known to (potentially) influence on results. I find it extremly important to make the decision on Type-P explicit. Otherwise we end up comparing apples and oranges (see the payload-dependent delay in my presentation as an example). Ideally, we can agree in this registry on default values for some or all of these parameters and state mandatory pre-requisites. Example: ID-M1 Metric round-trip-delay. Parameters: (NetProtocol->default=3DIPv6, TransProtocol->default=3DICMP, packetSizeRange->default=3D64-64, packetSizeRangeAlgorithm->default=3Dnone, Flags->default=3Dnone, interPacketDelayRange->default=3D1-1s, interPacketDelayAlgorithm=3Dnone, SourceAddress, DestinationAddress, SPort=3Dnone, DPort=3Dnone, AdditionalIPHeaders=3Dnone...) B) However, this default set won't work stand-alone. Therefore for public use we must define a second registry. Here we can refine all metric types from A) and specialize them with other parameter values. Example: ID 1: Metric round-trip-delay-default (ref. ID-M1) ModParam: SourceAddress=3DmandatoryUser, DestinationAddress=3DmandatoryUser ID 2: Metric round-trip-delay-default-IPv4 (ref. ID-M1) ModParam: Protocol:IPv4, ... (Description) ID 3: Metric round-trip-delay-default-UPD (ref. ModParam: Protocol:UDP, SourceAddress=3Dmandatory, DestinationAddress=3Dmandatory, SPort=3Dmandator= y, Dport=3Dmandatory, ... (Description) ID 4: Metric round-trip-delay-default-SIP (ref. ModParam: Protocol:UDP, .. For better reference the metric name should probably be unique and the protocol name part of the metric name (don't stick to that). Concerning Benoit's remark on user requests "give me one round-trip-delay, one one-way delay": I think that one key to success is to define ALL parameters but at the same time provide as many default values as possible. However, the user must be requested to EXPLICITLY mention all parameter value changes relative to the default set (if he needs special features). The question is, whether: a) we can list all relevant parameters for any metric type, b) agree on default values for these parameters, c) define a process on how "custom-tailored" metrics should be defined and referenced. best regards Joachim PS: Just my unbiased view on how I would tackle this topic with focus on usability while maintaing the main metric property (repeatability) and a common discussion ground. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm