From nobody Thu Mar 3 08:06:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6761A1DE1 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:06:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uMActN6Y-kGL for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:06:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D731A1EFA for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:06:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.27.103] (dynamic-94-247-222-033.catv.glattnet.ch [94.247.222.33]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6C231A00D9 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:05:57 +0100 (CET) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E9782F40-FA31-43A1-90A4-B2190FAF184E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:05:56 +0100 Message-Id: <4EEEB530-A331-46E7-A87F-E7338564DE1A@trammell.ch> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Adoption of initial registry and TWAMP model drafts X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 03 Mar 2016 16:06:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E9782F40-FA31-43A1-90A4-B2190FAF184E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, Making a belated call for adoption: we have adopted two new milestones. April 2016: submit a Standards Track document to the IESG for a YANG = model for managing TWAMP clients and servers (based on draft-cmzrjp...) and July 2016: submit a Standards Track document to the IESG defining = initial contents of performance metric registry (based on draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry) Authors: please submit ietf-00 revisions of these documents for = discussion at the meeting in Buenos Aires. Many thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) --Apple-Mail=_E9782F40-FA31-43A1-90A4-B2190FAF184E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW2GDlAAoJEIoSt78L6kajQbUP/0xSOCe1j10Rm0LtMbpe4jwR PyZ2bJaFv0p7S40n/rfkkgGuz5IEE0A70Ko5mKXC5HQndtw1jq8rjlUr4T2ppnJl PF9OzYfgTHdIoJ+k86/RtdI86iQQ1db+cAqozUofDdu6dMwg88oChOOysu+abivA 5LQpaCVSBsftM6Pb05b35dvsn3zMgE769XhlmZ3uD8VUyFJ3JhyrIhcUab/AZhvt mjXp06TLl2USnPIibXpV8TCqnWc776wCm7ISzRhI8h3YWZVQZsQhHuUb6K5fuy/c ZGX4mCoCmgjOnvzlzpVCXwjJ9NY6zlUUBctKWvIni88hMdL9UZjwNV/iCnNkz9Ez RWGkSb1c5QeKp0/MRjxRlDiYnvOwwqgQ6u1z/rsNykMxCg2o+q50ok4ufeZky4PM 7XtOrk3PW51S3D8oiUOV+N2E+xImnUO7CSivSh/kxQyoLlQW+T4KX6nxBR6gYqPY W/NYn1S+5k6iD8uenUfCiZc65ASCwTmjdW0dyyvYGx2W3dZF3tFv6dYMoswhy4Tj BL98Q8+lXq9eRXs0tsHlZOy3QbE9hbHKZv1RvYCl4r7NIqDCXL2VlahY1jOiftnr mEy4HjLti2VYH9Lu2bcjWmpdZezLpowFzaGCJacQXJuLR1hs9BL/nmrh5rbf1Dez qor+3drqPxxdOOkzkZwv =PJSv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E9782F40-FA31-43A1-90A4-B2190FAF184E-- From nobody Thu Mar 3 08:16:25 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542C01A6EE2 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:16:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dx61dyqApyYM for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:16:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (usplmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A28E01A1DBE for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:16:22 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79dd6d000003091-9d-56d85ec6d44e Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 83.68.12433.6CE58D65; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:56:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:16:19 -0500 From: Gregory Mirsky To: Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] Adoption of initial registry and TWAMP model drafts Thread-Index: AQHRdWaybEskv5fROE6ZnywYPYLX559H45uw Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:16:18 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112219F6DFF@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <4EEEB530-A331-46E7-A87F-E7338564DE1A@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <4EEEB530-A331-46E7-A87F-E7338564DE1A@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.9] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgu6xuBthBgu+yVtsbHnHZtHz4B2z A5PHkiU/mTye7J/JEsAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXxcO01poKvHBUTXk1mbmCcyd7FyMkhIWAi seDFEVYIW0ziwr31bF2MXBxCAkcYJZZ86WSGcJYxSvzumANWxSZgJPFiYw9Yt4iAm8Slk5uY QWxhAXeJ4xP7mSDiHhJL27dD2UYSe+ZcA6thEVCRWLQEop5XwFdi5enTYDVCAnYSV648ZwOx OQXsJY6tXghWwwh00fdTa8BqmAXEJW49mc8EcamAxJI955khbFGJl4//QX2gKLGvfzo7RL2O xILdn9ggbG2JZQtfQ+0VlDg58wnLBEbRWUjGzkLSMgtJyywkLQsYWVYxcpQWF+TkphsZbGIE xsMxCTbdHYz3p3seYhTgYFTi4d2w4nqYEGtiWXFl7iFGCQ5mJRHeuqQbYUK8KYmVValF+fFF pTmpxYcYpTlYlMR517+9HCYkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLglGpg7OSQ7dh4daq+VLjtEq2De1d5 Swa9C22atK8lcqHrLreJq3dNkbgacCnrgpRIwQEetsuC2Saxl5ZVBkl+DtgW4Cz8Nsf2mmAn m8R/s36v9xmHJt06kFocVDqH87ltq+LyJZznnm/8JLto/XKnRb4h343s7P8ey3gewH7h9fHS Vzs39WsrrVQ2VWIpzkg01GIuKk4EAAQptRiDAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption of initial registry and TWAMP model drafts X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 03 Mar 2016 16:16:24 -0000 Hi Brian, et. al, I've sent comments to the TWAMP YANG model draft during WG adoption call. O= nly one comment received acknowledgement from authors, thank you Reshad. No= ne of comments been addressed. Would authors be kind to review the comments= , respond on the list and make necessary changes? Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:06 AM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Adoption of initial registry and TWAMP model drafts Greetings, all, Making a belated call for adoption: we have adopted two new milestones. April 2016: submit a Standards Track document to the IESG for a YANG model = for managing TWAMP clients and servers (based on draft-cmzrjp...) and July 2016: submit a Standards Track document to the IESG defining initial c= ontents of performance metric registry (based on draft-morton-ippm-initial-= registry) Authors: please submit ietf-00 revisions of these documents for discussion = at the meeting in Buenos Aires. Many thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) From nobody Fri Mar 4 08:36:04 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E469F1B2D0B; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:05:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Liaison Statement Management Tool To: , , , , , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.14.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160226180541.18278.30437.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:05:41 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 08:36:03 -0800 Cc: L3VPN Service Model Discussion List , Multiprotocol Label Switching Discussion List , Deborah Brungard , IP Performance Metrics Discussion List , Bill Cerveny , Bill Bjorkman , Benoit Claise , Nan Chen , Alia Atlas , Joel Jaeggli , Martin Stiemerling , The IETF Chair , Raghu Ranganathan , Adrian Farrel , Ross Callon , Alvaro Retana , George Swallow , Qin Wu , Loa Andersson Subject: [ippm] New Liaison Statement, "Liaison from MEF on IP Service Attributes" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:05:42 -0000 Title: Liaison from MEF on IP Service Attributes Submission Date: 2016-02-26 URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1458/ From: "Raghu Ranganathan" To: bclaise@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, ietf@trammell.ch>, ietf@wjcerveny.com, loa@pi.nu, swallow.ietf@gmail.com, rcallon@juniper.net, adrian@olddog.co.uk, bill.wu@huawei.com Cc: Alvaro Retana ,Joel Jaeggli ,Deborah Brungard ,IP Performance Metrics Discussion List ,Multiprotocol Label Switching Discussion List ,Adrian Farrel ,Qin Wu ,Bill Cerveny ,Brian Trammell ,Spencer Dawkins ,George Swallow ,Alia Atlas ,The IETF Chair ,Nan Chen ,Ross Callon ,Loa Andersson ,Benoit Claise ,L3VPN Service Model Discussion List ,Bill Bjorkman ,Martin Stiemerling ,Raghu Ranganathan , Response Contacts: rraghu@ciena.com Technical Contacts: Purpose: For information Body: We would like to inform you that during our 1Q2016 meeting, MEF has approved a new project on IP Service Attributes. We have set out some background and further details below. MEF is well known for the definition of Carrier Ethernet (CE) services (in MEF 6.2, MEF 33 and MEF 51) based on service attributes (defined in MEF 10.3 and MEF 26.1). In MEF terms, a "service" refers to the set of attributes and their values that are agreed between the provider of a serviceand the customer of that service. These attributes are independent of how the service is implemented; for example a CE service could be implemented using Provider Backbone Bridging (802.1Q) or using VPLS (RFC 4761/4762) to provide the connectivity across the service provider's network. MEF defines both end-to-end services agreed between a subscriber and a service provider, where the end points are all User-Network Interfaces (UNIs), and inter-provider services supplied by one service provider or operator to another, where the end points may be UNIs or External Network-Network Interfaces (ENNIs). Note that this differs from how the word "service" is sometimes used in IETF, e.g. to describe a particular technology (as in "Virtual Private LAN Service"). Although IP Services are widely deployed, there is currently no standard definition of the attributes and values used to describe them. Each Service Provider has their own way of describing IP services (including in some cases their own terminology); this makes it hard for customers to compare service offerings from different providers, and in particular makes it hard for providers to interconnect with each other – each Service Provider must form a specific bilateral agreement with each other Service Provider they wish to connect with. Furthermore, there is a desire among service providers to improve service delivery times by automating the service ordering and configuration process. This is a key aspect of MEF Lifecycle Services Orchestration (LSO). The aim of MEF LSO is to deliver the MEF Third Network vision, to provide Assured, Agile and Orchestrated services. MEF LSO enables automation and orchestration of service ordering and management between service providers ("East/West interfaces") through the creation of standard data models and APIs. However, a pre-requisite for defining those is to have a standard definition of the service that is to be managed. The new project is intended to address these issues by providing a standard definition of IP Services, including both end-to-end services and inter-provider services, through the definition of a standard set of Service Attributes that can be used in each case. The scope is limited to IP-VPN and Internet Access services (IP peering/transit for internet traffic is precluded). It is intended that this project is the first step in enabling multi-operator service orchestration of IP Services using MEF LSO, and that later projects will use the Service Attributes to create standard data models and APIs. The intent of LSO is to provide a common framework across different service technologies; MEF is working with TMF and ONF to create common models for services, and the standard data models and APIs for IP Services will tie into this framework. We have noted that IETF is working on a Yang model for Layer 3 Services in the L3SM working group. Although the scope of that project in IETF is different, it is clear there is some synergy between the L3SM work and this MEF project. We believe that both projects can benefit from input from each other and we hope to work closely with the L3SM working group to ensure our specifications are aligned. The scope of the initial phase of the IP Service Attributes project includes: -Definition of attributes for IP-capable UNIs and NNIs, for IP Service connections, and for IP Service End Points at UNIs and ENNIs -IP address allocations and IP control protocols (e.g. DHCP) etc at UNIs -OAM across the external interface (by reference to IETF protocols and mechanisms) -Service Level Specification (SLS) definitions including performance monitoring/constraints (by reference to IETF protocols and metric definitions) -Redundant links at an external interface (Subscriber/Service provider or between Service Providers), including options for different routing protocols. -Multi-CoS services (i.e. QoS classification) and classification of Green/Yellow packets including diffserv, Bandwidth profiles, etc. -IPv4, IPv6 and dual stack services -Inter-operator IP-VPN services using options A, B or C from RFC4364 -Unicast only (multicast is defered to a future phase). -Other topics may be added as the project progresses. It is important to note that we intend to make extensive reference to existing IETF RFCs where applicable; it is not our intent to specify new protocols or mechanisms where there are existing solutions. Note: further information about MEF LSO can be found in the LSO Reference Architecture. The final verison is expected to be published in March; in the meantime, the latest approved draft is available as below: https://mef.net/liaison-login Username: mef Attachments: Liaison https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2016-02-26-mef-ippm-mpls-l3sm-ops-liaison-from-mef-on-ip-service-attributes-attachment-1.pdf From nobody Sat Mar 5 13:42:32 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E6D1B376E; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 13:42:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8DHQ4rbEzk9Z; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 13:42:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A2E1B3778; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 13:42:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA2B122E5D; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 16:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80835E0FD5; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 16:42:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 16:42:24 -0500 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Srivathsa Sarangapani , "draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 16:42:22 -0500 Thread-Topic: draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang Thread-Index: AdF3HAHePX9ntDaYSdWv78wF9Fcc1wAABxaw Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D3FF3CBBFF2@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D3FF3CBBFF0@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D3FF3CBBFF0@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> 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 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 21:42:30 -0000 Hi Vathsa, Please see replies below, [ACM]. The main follow-up for authors is to check the description of "repeat" in section 4.1. Al >=20 > Dear Authors, >=20 > I had some comments on the draft in IETF 93rd Meeting and some of them > are adopted. I have listed down the other comments which are still not > addressed. > These are some of the parameters which are already being supported in > Juniper implementation of TWAMP client and Server. >=20 > Below are my questions, can you please comment >=20 > - Section 5.1: > | +--rw repeat? uint32 >=20 > Thanks for making in uint32. Currently if it is 0, it means no more it= erations. > If user wants to run the TWAMP sessions infinitely, how do we handle t= his? > So can we change it so that 0 indicates the iterations will run infini= tely. > 1-4294967295 can indicate the number of iterations. > The default value can be changed to 1 if required. [ACM]=20 Changing the Default to one would mean that all sessions would be repeated, except those where repeat is set to zero. I think that *repeating test sess= ions*=20 should be a feature that users have to request explicitly. I'd rather speci= fy=20 that non-repeating test sessions be the default. Even though the value is uint32, the description still sounds binary: repeat and repeat-interval These two values together are used to determine if the TWAMP- Test session is to be run repeatedly. Once a test session has completed, the repeat parameter is checked. If the value indicates that this test session is to run again, then the parent TWAMP-Control connection for this test session is restarted - and negotiates a new instance of this TWAMP-Test session. This may occur immediately after the test session completes (if the repeat-interval is set to 0). Otherwise, the Control-Client will wait for the number of minutes specified in the repeat-interval parameter before negotiating the new instance of this TWAMP-Test session. The default value of repeat is 0, indicating that once the session has completed, it will not be renegotiated and restarted. I read this as the value of repeat controls whether the test session repeats or not. There is no indication of a number of iterations, or that the value of "repeat" should be decremented each time one=20 test session completes. So, setting repeat =3D 1 will give the infinite Test Session loop you are requesting. >=20 > - Section 5.1: > In case of both twamp-session-sender and twamp-session-reflector, can > we even store the timestamp of the last-sent-seq and last-rcv-seq > packets? > Say along with the below fields: > | +--ro last-sent-seq? uint32 > | +--ro last-rcv-seq? uint32 > have 2 more fields > | +--ro last-sent-seq-time? uint64 > | +--ro last-rcv-seq-time? uint64 > This might give more insight on when the last packet was sent and > when the last packet was received. > As TWAMP deals with RTT, storing the time stamps might make sense. [ACM]=20 Your request for specific timestamps is a bit unexpected. We included the last sequence numbers to support a quick sanity check on the test session (did the test terminate prematurely? did the RT path fail during the test session?) TWAMP's advantage over ICMP and other Echo replies is that it requires the four T->R T->R time stamps to calculate both one-way delays and the two-way delay without reflector processing time. The test packets will have three of the four timestamps. And the IPPM delay metric definitions specify storage of T, the time every packet is sent, and the one-way/round-trip delay for each packet. So, all of the needed time stamps are in your results (?) . >=20 > - Can we add a configuration on server side to add a list of client IPs > from which the server can accept the connections? > Doing this gives an option to server to accept only genuine > connection requests and not from some spurious clients. > This was discussed in July meet at Prague. [ACM]=20 I imagine that most TWAMP systems embedded in other devices could rely on the device ACL to perform this function. The TWAMP way to reject unwanted sessions this is to use=20 Authenticated mode, of course.=20 Although this could be a useful feature to add, I wonder if there is an ACL YANG model already? We could simply re-use/reference what they have specified... >=20 > - Wanted to propose addition of the below delay stats: [ACM]=20 In IPPM, we have defined RFCs for all the fundamental metrics. For example: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2681 is Round-trip Delay. In RFC 3393, we agreed not to use the term "jitter", http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3393#section-1.1 RFC 5481 examined different two forms of packet delay variation, including the version you describe below, which is called=20 inter-packet delay variation (IPDV). We compared IPDV with=20 the simple packet delay variation w.r.t minimum delay (PDV), and found that most use cases were better served by the=20 network characteristics measured by PDV. The Summary: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5481#section-7.3 =20 The current solution in the YANG model is to refer to a=20 Performance Metrics Registry. pm-index One or more Numerical index values of a Registered Metric in the Performance Metric Registry [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry] comprise the pm-reg-list. Output statistics are specified in the corresponding Registry entry. As you know, TWAMP RFCs control and provide active test packets which are the basis for calculating metrics. By simply referencing a=20 registered metric we avoid overlap and maintain TWAMP RFC's scope in the YANG Model. Some of us are creating a registry for IANA to help manage, containing many metrics which are widely used and=20 known to provide real network performance insight. It is also possible to use the registry format to create=20 a private registry. -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- > - RTT shall be (Session-Sender Ingress Timestamp) - (Session-Sender > Egress Timestamp) - > ((Session-Reflector Egress Timestamp) - (Session- > Reflector Ingress Timestamp)) > (Session-Reflector Egress Timestamp) - (Session-Reflector Ingress > Timestamp) : Shall be the server processing Time. > - Ingress Jitter > - Egress Jitter > - RTT Jitter > The Ingress, Egress and RTT Jitters are as defined below: >=20 > jitter is defined to be the difference in relative transit time between > two consecutive probes. > From the diagram below, we can define this to be: >=20 > | | > |Si | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | Ri| > | | > | /| > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | | > |Sj | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | Rj| > | | > | /| > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > Probe Probe > Sender Responder >=20 > D(i,j) =3D (Rj - Sj) - (Ri - Si) > =3D (Rj - Ri) - (Sj - Si) >=20 > D(i,j) represents the measure of jitter between probes i and j in the > egress (ie, Source to Destination) direction. >=20 > Similarly, we can also define jitter in the ingress direction (ie, > Destination > to Source) direction to be: >=20 >=20 > | | > |\ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \| > | | > | Si| > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > |Ri | > | | > |\ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \| > | | > | Sj| > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > |Rj | > Probe Probe > Sender Responder >=20 > D(i,j) =3D (Rj - Sj) - (Ri - Si) > =3D (Rj - Ri) - (Sj - Si) >=20 > Similarly, we can also define jitter for the round trip delays to be: >=20 > | | > |Si | > |\ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \| > | /| > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > |Ri | > | | > |Sj | > |\ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \ | > | \| > | /| > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > | / | > |Rj | > Probe Probe > Sender Responder >=20 > D(i,j) =3D (Rj - Sj) - (Ri - Si) > =3D (Rj - Ri) - (Sj - Si) >=20 >=20 > - > Regards, > Vathsa From nobody Sat Mar 5 14:06:21 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3D41B37BB; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:06:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FKIgJpLYcGDQ; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520541B37B6; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66492120365; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 17:05:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (sentinel.research.att.com [135.207.255.38]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CC0E0FF3; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 17:01:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by sentinel.research.att.com ([fe80::7914:9c7e:6a73:a8d6%10]) with mapi; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 17:01:42 -0500 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Srivathsa Sarangapani , "draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 17:01:41 -0500 Thread-Topic: draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang Thread-Index: AdF3HAHePX9ntDaYSdWv78wF9Fcc1wAABxawAAOGRoA= Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D3FF3CBBFF4@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D3FF3CBBFF0@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D3FF3CBBFF2@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D3FF3CBBFF2@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> 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 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 22:06:19 -0000 ... > > > > - Can we add a configuration on server side to add a list of client > IPs > > from which the server can accept the connections? > > Doing this gives an option to server to accept only genuine > > connection requests and not from some spurious clients. > > This was discussed in July meet at Prague. > [ACM] > I imagine that most TWAMP systems embedded in other devices > could rely on the device ACL to perform this function. > The TWAMP way to reject unwanted sessions this is to use > Authenticated mode, of course. >=20 > Although this could be a useful feature to add, I wonder > if there is an ACL YANG model already? We could simply > re-use/reference what they have specified... >=20 [ACM]=20 Quick follow-up: an ACL YANG model exists: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06 and it seems that the "NETCONFiscation" of IETF is complete. Al From nobody Sun Mar 6 15:35:29 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C891B3C49 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 15:35:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L1NNIy1zy-iQ for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 15:35:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CF4B1B3C48 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 15:35:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12200207F4 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 18:35:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:35:23 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= smtpout; bh=Q3LcERFp41JJo3SmnBuSaItMv24=; b=qwqIexc3YhguEusFbQBl CyJj/oK5Lmh4PhJSVZS4B3/9+mPAsLv7Vk5tD7uL6ICVqWmL0SDBLiH7QdL+9zJR icdQjHVZnPcieJ8Um5UbklsBDsxMYGHn/ShcnzpXMziewJDNbdWLqOWzI77xZUTv qfpRpNMsnN7U2xUroHfZMhs= X-Sasl-enc: yFdldEJAC5fKatPo2h6X6ZoUDQt/1K1wTY++pkwwqM4m 1457307322 Received: from [192.168.1.115] (66-227-205-202.dhcp.bycy.mi.charter.com [66.227.205.202]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AD7DB6801A1 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 18:35:22 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Cerveny Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A1BED01A-4DFF-4384-91E3-A88A8B033352" X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 479000132.398446-db73b4996e7458256c8512ffe367082b Message-Id: Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 18:35:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) To: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] IPPM WGLC of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: IPPM Chairs List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 23:35:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A1BED01A-4DFF-4384-91E3-A88A8B033352 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear IPPM WG participants: WG last call on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option begins today, and will = conclude Friday, March 18, 2016. Please send any comments (including = "I've read it and it's good" :) ) to the ippm@ietf.org = list. For reference, draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option can be found at: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option/ = Abstract To assess performance problems, measurements based on optional sequence numbers and timing may be embedded in each packet. Such measurements may be interpreted in real-time or after the fact. An implementation of the existing IPv6 Destination Options extension header, the Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Options extension header as well as the field limits, calculations, and usage of the PDM in measurement are included in this document. Thanks, Bill Cerveny IPPM WG co-chair --Apple-Mail=_A1BED01A-4DFF-4384-91E3-A88A8B033352 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Dear IPPM WG participants:

WG last call on = draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option begins today, and will conclude Friday, = March 18, 2016. Please send any comments (including "I've read it and = it's good" :) ) to the ippm@ietf.org list.

For reference, = draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option can be found at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-optio= n/

Abstract


   To assess = performance problems,  measurements based on optional
   sequence numbers and timing may be embedded in = each packet.  Such
   measurements = may be interpreted in real-time or after the fact. An
   implementation of the existing IPv6 Destination = Options extension
   header, the = Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
   Options extension header as well as the field = limits, calculations,
   and usage of the = PDM in measurement are included in this document.


Thanks,

Bill Cerveny
IPPM WG co-chair

= --Apple-Mail=_A1BED01A-4DFF-4384-91E3-A88A8B033352-- From nobody Mon Mar 7 15:48:57 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5BD1CDE6B for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:48:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.41]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9plILrPPakBL for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (usplmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C5E81CDE72 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:48:54 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79dd6d000003091-4f-56de0e9f73ea Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3D.42.12433.F9E0ED65; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 00:28:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:48:49 -0500 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHReMt+4g3Qhn/yZU2vA+++azqBKJ9OpXdQ Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 23:48:48 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A042D7@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <20160307234552.19758.14207.idtracker@ietfc.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160307234552.19758.14207.idtracker@ietfc.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.9] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPuO4CvnthBl9msVj0PHjH7MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujA9/T7EVnBCpePZvM0sDY4tIFyMnh4SAicTan/vZIGwxiQv3 1oPZQgJHGCWe9JtC2MsYJSY85wKx2QSMJF5s7GEHsUUElCVavv1h7GLk4BAWCJU4vNoTIhwm MW9tLyOEbSTxpPkRK4jNIqAi0fTmMlgrr4CvxO0Lp9ghxjtKdF5fBbaWU8BJYt7U+WC9jEDn fD+1hgnEZhYQl7j1ZD4TxJkCEkv2nGeGsEUlXj7+xwphK0rs65/ODnIOs4CmxPpd+hCtihJT uh9CrRWUODnzCcsERtFZSKbOQuiYhaRjFpKOBYwsqxg5SosLcnLTjQw2MQID/pgEm+4OxvvT PQ8xCnAwKvHwfmC/FybEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhHc3MF6EeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ 865/ezlMSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwFjVss17yqJvirEb1oYVHtl1x3s5i43j311J5QoG v3ecfPHA85vepzmnM682dzfOUPt7gINR+XdwSKeYld/CdVVtc/+GrJ208s1R/9qWHWbGzj+E NhimK07+4xB/VSanJljX+eixBUHrA9fnHzm45Zdw58E1jkuWv7DpFK6/b/9GyZRX2zP4XZcS S3FGoqEWc1FxIgBxXc8JdAIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] FW: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 07 Mar 2016 23:48:56 -0000 RGVhciBBbGwsDQpjbGFyaWZpZWQgVURQIHBvcnRzIGZvciBTZW5kZXIgYW5kIFJlZmxlY3RvciB0 byBiZSBjb25zdHJhaW5lZCB0byANCiAgICAgbGVhZiBzZW5kZXJVZHBQb3J0IHsNCiAgICAgICB0 eXBlIGluZXQ6cG9ydC1udW1iZXIgew0KICAgICAgICAgICByYW5nZSAiNDkxNTIuLjY1NTM1Ijt9 DQogICAgICAgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gIlNlbmRlciBVRFAgcG9ydCBudW1iZXIiOw0KICAgICB9DQph bmQNCiAgICAgbGVhZiByZWZsZWN0b3JVZHBQb3J0IHsNCiAgICAgICB0eXBlIGluZXQ6cG9ydC1u dW1iZXJ7DQogICAgICAgICAgIHJhbmdlICI0OTE1Mi4uNjU1MzUiO30NCiAgICAgICBkZXNjcmlw dGlvbiAiUmVmbGVjdG9yIFVEUCBwb3J0IG51bWJlciI7DQogICAgIH0NCmZpeGVkIHNvbWUgbml0 cyBhbmQgdXBkYXRlZCByZWZlcmVuY2UgdG8gUkZDIDc3NTAuDQoNCkdyZWF0bHkgYXBwcmVjaWF0 ZSB5b3VyIHJldmlldyBhbmQgY29tbWVudHMuDQoNCglSZWdhcmRzLA0KCQlHcmVnDQoNCi0tLS0t T3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21h aWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIA0KU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAwNywg MjAxNiAzOjQ2IFBNDQpUbzogR3JlZ29yeSBNaXJza3k7IFRhbcOhcyDDiWx0ZXTDtQ0KU3ViamVj dDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC1taXJza3ktaXBwbS10d2FtcC1s aWdodC15YW5nLTAyLnR4dA0KDQoNCkEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1ELCBkcmFmdC1taXJza3kt aXBwbS10d2FtcC1saWdodC15YW5nLTAyLnR4dA0KaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHN1Ym1p dHRlZCBieSBHcmVnIE1pcnNreSBhbmQgcG9zdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBJRVRGIHJlcG9zaXRvcnkuDQoN Ck5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC1taXJza3ktaXBwbS10d2FtcC1saWdodC15YW5nDQpSZXZpc2lvbjoJMDIN ClRpdGxlOgkJVHdvLVdheSBBY3RpdmUgTWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgUHJvdG9jb2wgKFRXQU1QKSBMaWdo dCBEYXRhIE1vZGVsDQpEb2N1bWVudCBkYXRlOgkyMDE2LTAzLTA3DQpHcm91cDoJCUluZGl2aWR1 YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KUGFnZXM6CQkxMg0KVVJMOiAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmll dGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1taXJza3ktaXBwbS10d2FtcC1saWdodC15YW5n LTAyLnR4dA0KU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9j L2RyYWZ0LW1pcnNreS1pcHBtLXR3YW1wLWxpZ2h0LXlhbmcvDQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgaHR0 cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LW1pcnNreS1pcHBtLXR3YW1wLWxpZ2h0LXlh bmctMDINCkRpZmY6ICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9yZmNkaWZmP3VybDI9 ZHJhZnQtbWlyc2t5LWlwcG0tdHdhbXAtbGlnaHQteWFuZy0wMg0KDQpBYnN0cmFjdDoNCiAgIFRo aXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgc3BlY2lmaWVzIHRoZSBkYXRhIG1vZGVsIGZvciBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMg b2YNCiAgIFNlc3Npb24tU2VuZGVyIGFuZCBTZXNzaW9uLVJlZmxlY3RvciBmb3IgVHdvLVdheSBB Y3RpdmUgTWVhc3VyZW1lbnQNCiAgIFByb3RvY29sIChUV0FNUCkgTGlnaHQgbW9kZSB1c2luZyBZ QU5HLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0KUGxlYXNlIG5vdGUgdGhhdCBp dCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygc3VibWlzc2lv biB1bnRpbCB0aGUgaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhbmQgZGlmZiBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IHRv b2xzLmlldGYub3JnLg0KDQpUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0KDQo= From nobody Tue Mar 8 20:30:58 2016 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 EC41412DE82; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:30:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1rkmHvWehJHe; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:30:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0107.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82C0712DE6B; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:30:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from BY2PR0501MB2133.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.198.19) by BY2PR0501MB2134.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.198.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.415.20; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 04:30:35 +0000 Received: from BY2PR0501MB2133.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.198.19]) by BY2PR0501MB2133.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.198.19]) with mapi id 15.01.0415.024; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 04:30:35 +0000 From: Srivathsa Sarangapani To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" , "draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang Thread-Index: AdF3HAHePX9ntDaYSdWv78wF9Fcc1wAABxawALOhIYA= Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 04:30:35 +0000 Message-ID: <503FDB26-FC1C-498A-976B-BFB2A74C110C@juniper.net> References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D3FF3CBBFF0@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D3FF3CBBFF2@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D3FF3CBBFF2@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.160212 authentication-results: att.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;att.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.11] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0501MB2134; 5:5nWRhDi8kALAjO7gjFQVKeo6ThsMWIEt26m4JzW8ze3FLriaXgKEkVoCujff17p6v85gnMPvnOYVmeu+nbk9YoeVZkOcztO9bK/s3S8xoLYACjiHH+ULGTsSiGB2MB0oFWwmRoG4lvqwoQXcs/CuXw==; 24:kM8J4qpxQTTiYf7BIoG8fVAiL/32JF1GfKM/QWFCZcGLYPX6HVJ+CYxU52cYD5x7IDDV6cXW1eHjIvPQGB1pHy2mn/c/3dMfa1v/82FXNbA= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR0501MB2134; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: dcfd45e6-2d82-4a78-555d-08d347d38f10 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(138986009662008); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:BY2PR0501MB2134; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0501MB2134; x-forefront-prvs: 0876988AF0 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(54094003)(51444003)(52604005)(13464003)(33656002)(561944003)(19580405001)(99286002)(19580395003)(82746002)(83506001)(15975445007)(230783001)(66066001)(586003)(6116002)(3846002)(5001770100001)(102836003)(3280700002)(76176999)(10400500002)(50986999)(1096002)(3660700001)(2906002)(1220700001)(122556002)(54356999)(11100500001)(86362001)(5008740100001)(83716003)(81166005)(5004730100002)(87936001)(36756003)(189998001)(2501003)(4326007)(77096005)(5002640100001)(2900100001)(2950100001)(92566002)(1720100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0501MB2134; H:BY2PR0501MB2133.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Mar 2016 04:30:35.2318 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0501MB2134 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 09 Mar 2016 04:30:53 -0000 SGkgQWwsDQoNClRoYW5rcyBhIGxvdCBmb3IgdGhlIGRldGFpbGVkIGFuc3dlcnMuDQpTb21lIHF1 ZXN0aW9ucyBpbmxpbmUuIFBsZWFzZSByZWZlciBbU1JJXSBmb3IgdGhlIHNhbWUuDQoNCuKAlCAN ClJlZ2FyZHMsDQpWYXRoc2ENCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2Ut LS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogIk1PUlRPTiwgQUxGUkVEIEMgKEFMKSIgPGFjbW9ydG9uQGF0dC5jb20+DQpE YXRlOiBTdW5kYXksIE1hcmNoIDYsIDIwMTYgYXQgMzoxMiBBTQ0KVG86IFNyaXZhdGhzYSBTYXJh bmdhcGFuaSA8c3JpdmF0aHNhc0BqdW5pcGVyLm5ldD4sICJkcmFmdC1jbXpyanAtaXBwbS10d2Ft cC15YW5nQGlldGYub3JnIiA8ZHJhZnQtY216cmpwLWlwcG0tdHdhbXAteWFuZ0BpZXRmLm9yZz4N CkNjOiAiaXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZyIgPGlwcG1AaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogZHJhZnQt Y216cmpwLWlwcG0tdHdhbXAteWFuZw0KDQpIaSBWYXRoc2EsDQpQbGVhc2Ugc2VlIHJlcGxpZXMg YmVsb3csIFtBQ01dLg0KDQpUaGUgbWFpbiBmb2xsb3ctdXAgZm9yIGF1dGhvcnMgaXMgdG8gY2hl Y2sNCnRoZSBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbiBvZiAicmVwZWF0IiBpbiBzZWN0aW9uIDQuMS4NCg0KQWwNCg0K PiANCj4gRGVhciBBdXRob3JzLA0KPiANCj4gSSBoYWQgc29tZSBjb21tZW50cyBvbiB0aGUgZHJh ZnQgaW4gSUVURiA5M3JkIE1lZXRpbmcgYW5kIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlbQ0KPiBhcmUgYWRvcHRlZC4g SSBoYXZlIGxpc3RlZCBkb3duIHRoZSBvdGhlciBjb21tZW50cyB3aGljaCBhcmUgc3RpbGwgbm90 DQo+IGFkZHJlc3NlZC4NCj4gVGhlc2UgYXJlIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIHBhcmFtZXRlcnMgd2hpY2gg YXJlIGFscmVhZHkgYmVpbmcgc3VwcG9ydGVkIGluDQo+IEp1bmlwZXIgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24g b2YgVFdBTVAgY2xpZW50IGFuZCBTZXJ2ZXIuDQo+IA0KPiBCZWxvdyBhcmUgbXkgcXVlc3Rpb25z LCBjYW4geW91IHBsZWFzZSBjb21tZW50DQo+IA0KPiAgLSBTZWN0aW9uIDUuMToNCj4gICAgfCAg ICAgICAgKy0tcncgcmVwZWF0PyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHVpbnQzMg0KPiANCj4gICAgVGhhbmtz IGZvciBtYWtpbmcgaW4gdWludDMyLiBDdXJyZW50bHkgaWYgaXQgaXMgMCwgaXQgbWVhbnMgbm8g bW9yZSBpdGVyYXRpb25zLg0KPiAgICBJZiB1c2VyIHdhbnRzIHRvIHJ1biB0aGUgVFdBTVAgc2Vz c2lvbnMgaW5maW5pdGVseSwgaG93IGRvIHdlIGhhbmRsZSB0aGlzPw0KPiAgICBTbyBjYW4gd2Ug Y2hhbmdlIGl0IHNvIHRoYXQgMCBpbmRpY2F0ZXMgdGhlIGl0ZXJhdGlvbnMgd2lsbCBydW4gaW5m aW5pdGVseS4NCj4gICAgMS00Mjk0OTY3Mjk1IGNhbiBpbmRpY2F0ZSB0aGUgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGl0 ZXJhdGlvbnMuDQo+ICAgIFRoZSBkZWZhdWx0IHZhbHVlIGNhbiBiZSBjaGFuZ2VkIHRvIDEgaWYg cmVxdWlyZWQuDQpbQUNNXSANCkNoYW5naW5nIHRoZSBEZWZhdWx0IHRvIG9uZSB3b3VsZCBtZWFu IHRoYXQgYWxsIHNlc3Npb25zIHdvdWxkIGJlIHJlcGVhdGVkLA0KZXhjZXB0IHRob3NlIHdoZXJl IHJlcGVhdCBpcyBzZXQgdG8gemVyby4gSSB0aGluayB0aGF0ICpyZXBlYXRpbmcgdGVzdCBzZXNz aW9ucyogDQpzaG91bGQgYmUgYSBmZWF0dXJlIHRoYXQgdXNlcnMgaGF2ZSB0byByZXF1ZXN0IGV4 cGxpY2l0bHkuIEknZCByYXRoZXIgc3BlY2lmeSANCnRoYXQgbm9uLXJlcGVhdGluZyB0ZXN0IHNl c3Npb25zIGJlIHRoZSBkZWZhdWx0Lg0KDQpFdmVuIHRob3VnaCB0aGUgdmFsdWUgaXMgdWludDMy LCB0aGUgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gc3RpbGwgc291bmRzIGJpbmFyeToNCg0KICAgcmVwZWF0IGFuZCBy ZXBlYXQtaW50ZXJ2YWwNCiAgICAgICAgICAgVGhlc2UgdHdvIHZhbHVlcyB0b2dldGhlciBhcmUg dXNlZCB0byBkZXRlcm1pbmUgaWYgdGhlIFRXQU1QLQ0KICAgICAgICAgICBUZXN0IHNlc3Npb24g aXMgdG8gYmUgcnVuIHJlcGVhdGVkbHkuICBPbmNlIGEgdGVzdCBzZXNzaW9uDQogICAgICAgICAg IGhhcyBjb21wbGV0ZWQsIHRoZSByZXBlYXQgcGFyYW1ldGVyIGlzIGNoZWNrZWQuICBJZiB0aGUg dmFsdWUNCiAgICAgICAgICAgaW5kaWNhdGVzIHRoYXQgdGhpcyB0ZXN0IHNlc3Npb24gaXMgdG8g cnVuIGFnYWluLCB0aGVuIHRoZQ0KICAgICAgICAgICBwYXJlbnQgVFdBTVAtQ29udHJvbCBjb25u ZWN0aW9uIGZvciB0aGlzIHRlc3Qgc2Vzc2lvbiBpcw0KICAgICAgICAgICByZXN0YXJ0ZWQgLSBh bmQgbmVnb3RpYXRlcyBhIG5ldyBpbnN0YW5jZSBvZiB0aGlzIFRXQU1QLVRlc3QNCiAgICAgICAg ICAgc2Vzc2lvbi4gIFRoaXMgbWF5IG9jY3VyIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGFmdGVyIHRoZSB0ZXN0IHNl c3Npb24NCiAgICAgICAgICAgY29tcGxldGVzIChpZiB0aGUgcmVwZWF0LWludGVydmFsIGlzIHNl dCB0byAwKS4gIE90aGVyd2lzZSwNCiAgICAgICAgICAgdGhlIENvbnRyb2wtQ2xpZW50IHdpbGwg d2FpdCBmb3IgdGhlIG51bWJlciBvZiBtaW51dGVzDQogICAgICAgICAgIHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiB0 aGUgcmVwZWF0LWludGVydmFsIHBhcmFtZXRlciBiZWZvcmUgbmVnb3RpYXRpbmcNCiAgICAgICAg ICAgdGhlIG5ldyBpbnN0YW5jZSBvZiB0aGlzIFRXQU1QLVRlc3Qgc2Vzc2lvbi4gIFRoZSBkZWZh dWx0DQogICAgICAgICAgIHZhbHVlIG9mIHJlcGVhdCBpcyAwLCBpbmRpY2F0aW5nIHRoYXQgb25j ZSB0aGUgc2Vzc2lvbiBoYXMNCiAgICAgICAgICAgY29tcGxldGVkLCBpdCB3aWxsIG5vdCBiZSBy ZW5lZ290aWF0ZWQgYW5kIHJlc3RhcnRlZC4NCg0KSSByZWFkIHRoaXMgYXMgdGhlIHZhbHVlIG9m IHJlcGVhdCBjb250cm9scyB3aGV0aGVyIHRoZSB0ZXN0IHNlc3Npb24NCnJlcGVhdHMgb3Igbm90 LiBUaGVyZSBpcyBubyBpbmRpY2F0aW9uIG9mIGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGl0ZXJhdGlvbnMsDQpvciB0 aGF0IHRoZSB2YWx1ZSBvZiAicmVwZWF0IiBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGVjcmVtZW50ZWQgZWFjaCB0aW1l IG9uZSANCnRlc3Qgc2Vzc2lvbiBjb21wbGV0ZXMuIFNvLCBzZXR0aW5nIHJlcGVhdCA9IDEgd2ls bCBnaXZlIHRoZSBpbmZpbml0ZQ0KVGVzdCBTZXNzaW9uIGxvb3AgeW91IGFyZSByZXF1ZXN0aW5n Lg0KDQo+Pj4NCltTUkldIA0KU28gd2l0aCB0aGUgY3VycmVudCBvcHRpb25zLCBpdCBpcyBlaXRo ZXIgcnVuIHRlc3Qgc2Vzc2lvbnMgZm9yZXZlciBvciBvbmx5IG9uY2UuDQpJZiBhIHVzZXIgd2Fu dHMgdG8gcnVuIHNvbWUgdGVzdCBzZXNzaW9ucyBmb3IgMTAgdGltZXMgb3IgMTAwIHRpbWVzLCBo b3cgY2FuIGhlIGFjaGlldmUgdGhpcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IHByb3Bvc2FsPw0KDQoNCj4g DQo+ICAtIFNlY3Rpb24gNS4xOg0KPiAgICBJbiBjYXNlIG9mIGJvdGggdHdhbXAtc2Vzc2lvbi1z ZW5kZXIgYW5kIHR3YW1wLXNlc3Npb24tcmVmbGVjdG9yLCBjYW4NCj4gd2UgZXZlbiBzdG9yZSB0 aGUgdGltZXN0YW1wIG9mIHRoZSBsYXN0LXNlbnQtc2VxIGFuZCBsYXN0LXJjdi1zZXENCj4gcGFj a2V0cz8NCj4gICAgU2F5IGFsb25nIHdpdGggdGhlIGJlbG93IGZpZWxkczoNCj4gICAgfCAgICAg Ky0tcm8gbGFzdC1zZW50LXNlcT8gICAgICAgICAgICAgdWludDMyDQo+ICAgIHwgICAgICstLXJv IGxhc3QtcmN2LXNlcT8gICAgICAgICAgICAgIHVpbnQzMg0KPiAgICBoYXZlIDIgbW9yZSBmaWVs ZHMNCj4gICAgfCArLS1ybyBsYXN0LXNlbnQtc2VxLXRpbWU/IHVpbnQ2NA0KPiAgICB8ICstLXJv IGxhc3QtcmN2LXNlcS10aW1lPyB1aW50NjQNCj4gICAgVGhpcyBtaWdodCBnaXZlIG1vcmUgaW5z aWdodCBvbiB3aGVuIHRoZSBsYXN0IHBhY2tldCB3YXMgc2VudCBhbmQNCj4gd2hlbiB0aGUgbGFz dCBwYWNrZXQgd2FzIHJlY2VpdmVkLg0KPiAgICBBcyBUV0FNUCBkZWFscyB3aXRoIFJUVCwgc3Rv cmluZyB0aGUgdGltZSBzdGFtcHMgbWlnaHQgbWFrZSBzZW5zZS4NCltBQ01dIA0KWW91ciByZXF1 ZXN0IGZvciBzcGVjaWZpYyB0aW1lc3RhbXBzIGlzIGEgYml0IHVuZXhwZWN0ZWQuDQpXZSBpbmNs dWRlZCB0aGUgbGFzdCBzZXF1ZW5jZSBudW1iZXJzIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgYSBxdWljayBzYW5pdHkN CmNoZWNrIG9uIHRoZSB0ZXN0IHNlc3Npb24gKGRpZCB0aGUgdGVzdCB0ZXJtaW5hdGUgcHJlbWF0 dXJlbHk/DQpkaWQgdGhlIFJUIHBhdGggZmFpbCBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIHRlc3Qgc2Vzc2lvbj8pDQoN ClRXQU1QJ3MgYWR2YW50YWdlIG92ZXIgSUNNUCBhbmQgb3RoZXIgRWNobyByZXBsaWVzIGlzIHRo YXQgaXQNCnJlcXVpcmVzIHRoZSBmb3VyIFQtPlIgVC0+UiB0aW1lIHN0YW1wcyB0byBjYWxjdWxh dGUgYm90aCBvbmUtd2F5IGRlbGF5cw0KYW5kIHRoZSB0d28td2F5IGRlbGF5IHdpdGhvdXQgcmVm bGVjdG9yIHByb2Nlc3NpbmcgdGltZS4NClRoZSB0ZXN0IHBhY2tldHMgd2lsbCBoYXZlIHRocmVl IG9mIHRoZSBmb3VyIHRpbWVzdGFtcHMuDQpBbmQgdGhlIElQUE0gZGVsYXkgbWV0cmljIGRlZmlu aXRpb25zIHNwZWNpZnkgc3RvcmFnZSBvZiBULA0KdGhlIHRpbWUgZXZlcnkgcGFja2V0IGlzIHNl bnQsIGFuZCB0aGUgb25lLXdheS9yb3VuZC10cmlwDQpkZWxheSBmb3IgZWFjaCBwYWNrZXQuIFNv LCBhbGwgb2YgdGhlIG5lZWRlZCB0aW1lIHN0YW1wcw0KYXJlIGluIHlvdXIgcmVzdWx0cyAoPykg Lg0KDQo+Pj4NCltTUkldIA0KU29ycnkgQWwsIEkgY29tcGxldGVseSBtaXN1bmRlcnN0b29kIHRo ZSBsYXN0LXNlbnQtc2VxIGFzIGxhc3QgU1VDQ0VTU0ZVTExZIHNlbnQgc2VxdWVuY2UgbnVtYmVy IHdoaWNoIGhhcyBiZWVuIGFja2VkL3JlcGxpZWQgYnkgdGhlIHNlcnZlci4NCkhlbmNlIEkgd2Fz IHByb3Bvc2luZyB0byBzdG9yZSB0aGUgdGltZXN0YW1wIGFsb25nIHdpdGggdGhlIHNlcXVlbmNl IG51bWJlci4gSSBjb21wbGV0ZWx5IGFncmVlIGZvciBsYXN0LXNlbnQtc2VxIG51bWJlciB0aGVy ZSBpcyBubyBuZWVkIHRvIHN0b3JlIHRoZSBwYWNrZXQgdGltaW5ncy4NCg0KSnVzdCBhIHRob3Vn aHQuIEhvdyBhYm91dCBhZGRpbmcgdGhlc2UgbmV3IHZhcmlhYmxlcyB0byBhaWQgcXVpY2sgc2Fu aXR5IGNoZWNrL2RlYnVnZ2luZyBwdXJwb3NlczoNCk9uIHNlc3Npb24tc2VuZGVyDQoNCmxhc3Qt c3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5LXNlbnQtc2VxIGFuZCBsYXN0LXN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseS1zZW50LXNlcS10aW1l IDogDQogICAgIFRoaXMgaW5kaWNhdGVzIHRoZSBsYXN0IHNlcXVlbmNlIG51bWJlciwgZm9yIHdo aWNoIHRoZSBzZXNzaW9uLXJlZmxlY3RvciBoYXMgYWNrZWQvcmVwbGllZCBiYWNrIGFuZCB0aGF0 IHdhcyBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgcmVjZWl2ZWQgYnkgc2Vzc2lvbi1zZW5kZXIuDQoNCk9uIHNlc3Np b24tcmVmbGVjdG9yIA0KbGFzdC1zdWNjZXNzZnVsbHktcmN2LXNlcSBhbmQgbGFzdC1zdWNjZXNz ZnVsbHktcmN2LXNlcS10aW1lIDogDQogICAgIFRoaXMgaW5kaWNhdGVzIHRoZSBsYXN0IHNlcXVl bmNlIG51bWJlciwgdGhlIHNlc3Npb24tcmVmbGVjdG9yIGhhcyBhY2tlZC9yZXBsaWVkIGJhY2su DQoNCg0KQmFzZWQgb24gd2hldGhlciB0aGUgbGFzdC1zdWNjZXNzZnVsbHktc2VudC1zZXEgYW5k IGxhc3Qtc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5LXJjdi1zZXEgdmFsdWVzLCBpdCBjYW4gYmUga25vd24gdGhhdCB3 aGV0aGVyIHRoZSBwYXRoIGZyb20gU2Vzc2lvbi1TZW5kZXIgdG8gU2Vzc2lvbi1SZWZsZWN0b3Ig IGhhcyBnb25lIGJhZCBvciB0aGUgcmV2ZXJzZSBwYXRoIGhhcyBnb25lIGJhZC4NClNheSwgaWYg Ym90aCB0aGUgdmFsdWVzIGFyZSBzYW1lLCB0aGVuIGl0IG1lYW5zIHRoZSBUeCBwYXRoIGZyb20g U2Vzc2lvbi1zZW5kZXIgaGFzIGdvbmUgZm9yIGEgdG9zcyBhbmQgaWYgYm90aCBhcmUgZGlmZmVy ZW50IHRoZW4gaXQgbWVhbnMgdGhlIFR4IHBhdGgoUnggcGF0aCkgZnJvbSh0bykgU2Vzc2lvbi1y ZWZsZWN0b3IoU2Vzc2lvbi1zZW5kZXIpIGhhcyBnb25lIGJhZC4NCg0KDQo+IA0KPiAgLSBDYW4g d2UgYWRkIGEgY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbiBvbiBzZXJ2ZXIgc2lkZSB0byBhZGQgYSBsaXN0IG9mIGNs aWVudCBJUHMNCj4gZnJvbSB3aGljaCB0aGUgc2VydmVyIGNhbiBhY2NlcHQgdGhlIGNvbm5lY3Rp b25zPw0KPiAgICBEb2luZyB0aGlzIGdpdmVzIGFuIG9wdGlvbiB0byBzZXJ2ZXIgdG8gYWNjZXB0 IG9ubHkgZ2VudWluZQ0KPiBjb25uZWN0aW9uIHJlcXVlc3RzIGFuZCBub3QgZnJvbSBzb21lIHNw dXJpb3VzIGNsaWVudHMuDQo+ICAgIFRoaXMgd2FzIGRpc2N1c3NlZCBpbiBKdWx5IG1lZXQgYXQg UHJhZ3VlLg0KW0FDTV0gDQpJIGltYWdpbmUgdGhhdCBtb3N0IFRXQU1QIHN5c3RlbXMgZW1iZWRk ZWQgaW4gb3RoZXIgZGV2aWNlcw0KY291bGQgcmVseSBvbiB0aGUgZGV2aWNlIEFDTCB0byBwZXJm b3JtIHRoaXMgZnVuY3Rpb24uDQpUaGUgVFdBTVAgd2F5IHRvIHJlamVjdCB1bndhbnRlZCBzZXNz aW9ucyB0aGlzIGlzIHRvIHVzZSANCkF1dGhlbnRpY2F0ZWQgbW9kZSwgb2YgY291cnNlLiANCg0K QWx0aG91Z2ggdGhpcyBjb3VsZCBiZSBhIHVzZWZ1bCBmZWF0dXJlIHRvIGFkZCwgSSB3b25kZXIN CmlmIHRoZXJlIGlzIGFuIEFDTCBZQU5HIG1vZGVsIGFscmVhZHk/ICBXZSBjb3VsZCBzaW1wbHkN CnJlLXVzZS9yZWZlcmVuY2Ugd2hhdCB0aGV5IGhhdmUgc3BlY2lmaWVk4oCmDQo+Pj4+DQpbU1JJ XSBBZ3JlZWQuIA0KDQoNCj4gDQo+ICAtIFdhbnRlZCB0byBwcm9wb3NlIGFkZGl0aW9uIG9mIHRo ZSBiZWxvdyBkZWxheSBzdGF0czoNCltBQ01dIA0KSW4gSVBQTSwgd2UgaGF2ZSBkZWZpbmVkIFJG Q3MgZm9yIGFsbCB0aGUgZnVuZGFtZW50YWwgbWV0cmljcy4NCg0KRm9yIGV4YW1wbGU6DQpodHRw Oi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9yZmMyNjgxDQppcyBSb3VuZC10cmlwIERlbGF5Lg0KDQpJ biBSRkMgMzM5Mywgd2UgYWdyZWVkIG5vdCB0byB1c2UgdGhlIHRlcm0gImppdHRlciIsDQpodHRw Oi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9yZmMzMzkzI3NlY3Rpb24tMS4xDQoNCj4+Pj4NCltTUkld DQpJIHdhcyBub3QgYXdhcmUgb2YgdGhpcy4gV2UgY2FuIGRyb3Agaml0dGVyIGZyb20gdGhlIHN0 YXRzLg0KQ2FuIHdlIGluY2x1ZGUgdGhlIFJUVCBjYWxjdWxhdGlvbnMgZm9yIHRoZSBwcm9iZXM/ IA0KDQpBbHNvIGFkZGluZyB0aGUgbWF4LCBtaW4sIGF2ZXJhZ2UsIHBlYWstdG8tcGVhaywgc3Rk ZGV2IGZvciBSVFQgbWlnaHQgYmUgYSBnb29kIGlkZWEuDQoNClJGQyA1NDgxIGV4YW1pbmVkIGRp ZmZlcmVudCB0d28gZm9ybXMgb2YgcGFja2V0IGRlbGF5IHZhcmlhdGlvbiwNCmluY2x1ZGluZyB0 aGUgdmVyc2lvbiB5b3UgZGVzY3JpYmUgYmVsb3csIHdoaWNoIGlzIGNhbGxlZCANCmludGVyLXBh Y2tldCBkZWxheSB2YXJpYXRpb24gKElQRFYpLiBXZSBjb21wYXJlZCBJUERWIHdpdGggDQp0aGUg c2ltcGxlIHBhY2tldCBkZWxheSB2YXJpYXRpb24gdy5yLnQgbWluaW11bSBkZWxheSAoUERWKSwN CmFuZCBmb3VuZCB0aGF0IG1vc3QgdXNlIGNhc2VzIHdlcmUgYmV0dGVyIHNlcnZlZCBieSB0aGUg DQpuZXR3b3JrIGNoYXJhY3RlcmlzdGljcyBtZWFzdXJlZCBieSBQRFYuIFRoZSBTdW1tYXJ5Og0K aHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvcmZjNTQ4MSNzZWN0aW9uLTcuMw0KIA0KVGhlIGN1 cnJlbnQgc29sdXRpb24gaW4gdGhlIFlBTkcgbW9kZWwgaXMgdG8gcmVmZXIgdG8gYSANClBlcmZv cm1hbmNlIE1ldHJpY3MgUmVnaXN0cnkuDQoNCiAgIHBtLWluZGV4DQogICAgICAgICAgIE9uZSBv ciBtb3JlIE51bWVyaWNhbCBpbmRleCB2YWx1ZXMgb2YgYSBSZWdpc3RlcmVkIE1ldHJpYyBpbg0K ICAgICAgICAgICB0aGUgUGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgTWV0cmljIFJlZ2lzdHJ5DQogICAgICAgICAgIFtJ LUQuaWV0Zi1pcHBtLW1ldHJpYy1yZWdpc3RyeV0gY29tcHJpc2UgdGhlIHBtLXJlZy1saXN0Lg0K ICAgICAgICAgICBPdXRwdXQgc3RhdGlzdGljcyBhcmUgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGluIHRoZSBjb3JyZXNw b25kaW5nIFJlZ2lzdHJ5DQogICAgICAgICAgIGVudHJ5Lg0KDQpBcyB5b3Uga25vdywgVFdBTVAg UkZDcyBjb250cm9sIGFuZCBwcm92aWRlIGFjdGl2ZSB0ZXN0IHBhY2tldHMgd2hpY2gNCmFyZSB0 aGUgYmFzaXMgZm9yIGNhbGN1bGF0aW5nIG1ldHJpY3MuIEJ5IHNpbXBseSByZWZlcmVuY2luZyBh IA0KcmVnaXN0ZXJlZCBtZXRyaWMgd2UgYXZvaWQgb3ZlcmxhcCBhbmQgbWFpbnRhaW4gVFdBTVAg UkZDJ3Mgc2NvcGUgaW4NCnRoZSBZQU5HIE1vZGVsLg0KDQpTb21lIG9mIHVzIGFyZSBjcmVhdGlu ZyBhIHJlZ2lzdHJ5IGZvciBJQU5BIHRvIGhlbHAgbWFuYWdlLA0KY29udGFpbmluZyBtYW55IG1l dHJpY3Mgd2hpY2ggYXJlIHdpZGVseSB1c2VkIGFuZCANCmtub3duIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgcmVhbCBu ZXR3b3JrIHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIGluc2lnaHQuDQpJdCBpcyBhbHNvIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRvIHVzZSB0 aGUgcmVnaXN0cnkgZm9ybWF0IHRvIGNyZWF0ZSANCmEgcHJpdmF0ZSByZWdpc3RyeS4NCg0KDQoN Ci09LT0tPS09LT0tPS09LT0tPS09LT0tPS0NCg0KDQoNCg== From nobody Thu Mar 10 12:46:20 2016 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 2414F12DD5B; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:46:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vLzDFn3SnJbc; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:46:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (usplmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 607D112DC82; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:46:16 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c6180641-f799c6d000007d66-6a-56e1dcf943a2 Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usplmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9E.4D.32102.9FCD1E65; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:45:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:46:14 -0500 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Request for presentation slots at IETF-95 Thread-Index: AdF7DDD9SVfidkT/QrSwULzpluk32Q== Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:46:13 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A0829A@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.9] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A0829Aeusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt+7POw/DDJ4dFbdYvaObzaLnwTtm ByaPJUt+MgUwRnHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlTHt+nrHghnHF3qP32RoYN+l2MXJySAiYSCxdtIoN whaTuHBvPZDNxSEkcIRRou1sEwuEs5xR4vXnV+wgVWwCRhIvNvaA2SIChhJHp7WygNjMApES O4/fYgaxhYFqtnX+YYaoMZdonHIcytaT+LJvFhOIzSKgKrHjXidQnIODV8BXon+BCEiYEeiI 76fWMEGMFJe49WQ+E8RxAhJL9pxnhrBFJV4+/scKYStK7Oufzg5Rny8xZ/0aRhCbV0BQ4uTM JywTGIVnIRk1C0nZLCRlEHEdiQW7P7FB2NoSyxa+Zoaxzxx4zIQsvoCRfRUjR2lxQU5uupHh JkZgbByTYHPcwbi31/MQowAHoxIP74dVD8KEWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifAWHX8YJsSbklhZlVqU H19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZz328fLYUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZJg5OqQZGv/sZYsuymO0ZI1/mTuW7 Y1avfoXhzvX9TxQvN2p8uHmAw+vukZogcYlJniFcB5cFCk57lRizQt1wwl+bl1s09+ycrJzd PtfxRNHDTeYBt7QbmGIaJ1hyXOVatTw5ZuK/o4H+Uys6DVwPCSx9LXGMJTU7e02FsNSTkx80 ukzDxbnfWSXteCKixFKckWioxVxUnAgAP/FEHIkCAAA= Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: [ippm] Request for presentation slots at IETF-95 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 10 Mar 2016 20:46:18 -0000 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A0829Aeusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Bill and Brian, please consider request for two presentation slots at the IPPM WG meeting i= n Buenos Aires: * Control and Monitoring DSCP in TWAMP draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dsc= p-ctrl-mon-00 Greg Mirsky 10 min * TWAMP Light data model draft-mirsky-ip= pm-twamp-light-yang-02 Greg Mirsky 5 min Will send slides before the April 1st. Regards, Greg --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A0829Aeusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Bill and Brian,

please consider request for two presentation slots a= t the IPPM WG meeting in Buenos Aires:

·         Control and Monitoring DSCP in TWAMP draft-b= ailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00    Greg Mirsky  = ;  10 min

·         TWAMP Light data model   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           draft-mir= sky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02        = ;    Greg Mirsky      5 min

Will send slides before the April 1st.

 

        &nbs= p;       Regards,

        &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;          Greg 

--_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A0829Aeusaamb103erics_-- From nobody Fri Mar 11 05:01:08 2016 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 39BDE12D6D3 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 05:01:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jGc_OfauQcLQ for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 05:01:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A9412D6D2 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 05:00:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:52c7:8000::38e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:52c7:8000::38e]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42F611A0374 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:00:54 +0100 (CET) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_552C5F9C-F20C-4C52-A7CF-ECB848F6182F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:00:54 +0100 Message-Id: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 11 Mar 2016 13:01:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_552C5F9C-F20C-4C52-A7CF-ECB848F6182F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent = productivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) = documents published since Yokohama: - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) In addition: - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered AUTH48 - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in queue Well done, IPPM! With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to plan = our agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of active = Working Group drafts: - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a second = WGLC. We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see = dratf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see where = the working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. First, = we have seen a lot of discussion on what we call the "hybrid/coloring = cluster", so I think we should have a discussion about approaches here, = how they fit together, and what if anything we should consider adopting = in this space: - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like to = propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long = discussion slot. There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and = it seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption call = for too. All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time = for work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the = end of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any = substantial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute = lightning talks, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new = drafts having priority over ones that have already been presented. We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, but = there is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, so = we'd propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 or = 45 minutes long: 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, 45m) draft-tempia-ippm-p3m draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext Discussion; decision on call to adopt? 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) Discussion: decision on call to adopt? 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those with = new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning talk = slot. Cheers, Brian and Bill (chair hats) --Apple-Mail=_552C5F9C-F20C-4C52-A7CF-ECB848F6182F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW4sGGAAoJEIoSt78L6kajzDAP/3zX7OxOAhsp1vRsFgpQvZbR 9c9ILra0h500Pz300dsMivlYHopfc4IyWHL9Jci7449+Xh1/vqZ9IpHIPRnB3t+e YWrHUvZlq9XTt3AziRpoknTxEgOKD5flUZvYZf+TRuDChC5UrMstNFwzJmfpMk6L jZpuf+8/97lb8qIBYsUVf7sbXhf3qc4h1pIfptYNgVJtiM0GS6H7Je1wNKr2mTh7 Qdbfpn741goUwRgKq9LIVWGmiwkbi0SmfURUZz2+pj8XDyMwJ/6XHpGWNlgInTOt li8OiOfvghMUrqoiv/MGSK5oXemHVx4SKkb2GF7PqdreHjihds9DzRu0IiVi0+QZ FI3ru9biVC3ItHLAfLNDUjtiSE5GGr8BnxnTj/B+WTmCDbxPk5iM9FrG5h1tIkYQ HR5/MWMvr97v6Ra6rbz+hydBUo+UXv0aERao18R8KSVcNzRMZtbeD+a9Op0MbU0I K13ha+wW3v1cNzo+QkCSGyZvmZscqbikdpVAqWHw+M2Kfr14gGAnNfcB8fakFZCt yYP8d46Ckl1YDxMxmIKVHTsr5+xCzpX9ydN0ln40RMxKILiHnHwKft6zUTI+6jaL 5gaMMim9wjiEJmxE0vXNcriRXCNhYAXgEyC5mShOO/XXmTh3juBKDpBt0i52P8dH 5WY1orKpPIycsL560Kfi =NKz7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_552C5F9C-F20C-4C52-A7CF-ECB848F6182F-- From nobody Fri Mar 11 08:14:14 2016 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 C337612D6C6 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:14:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OhbH-bV2XGHQ for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:14:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at (xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.67.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3123812D615 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:14:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ADFB95EA03DD; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:14:06 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nt.tuwien.ac.at Received: from xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ikRrPcOB+14i; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:14:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [128.131.67.239] (jason.nt.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.67.239]) by xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2F7C95EA03D2; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:14:05 +0100 (CET) References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> To: ippm@ietf.org From: Joachim Fabini Message-ID: <56E2EECC.8000702@tuwien.ac.at> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:14:04 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:14:12 -0000 Brian, IPPM, Thumbs up, excellent work and RFC-publishing performance. This brings me to a somewhat related topic: fixing of legacy shortcomings seems to not be that thrilling and gains little attention/priority in ippm. The process of finding new ippm topics may benefit from some priority-elevation scheme. In particular, we must make sure to advance work that a) ippm has committed to as part of RFC approval processes and/or b) approved RFCs depend on. (co-author hat off) Specifically I'm concerned about the 2330-update for IPv6 and IP options not even being on the agenda. During the GenArt review of RFC 7679 and 7680 the IESG asked ippm to fix the missing IPv6 support in RFC2330. When reading https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg14489.html it is my understanding that these two essential RFCs have passed the standardization process only because ippm proposed/committed to fix the RFC2330 shortcomings wrt IPv6 in a separate document. This is draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, which has not been adopted as WG item and not even on the agenda for IETF-95. It's a fundamental question of the ippm being credible. The same question about IPv6 support will be asked again by the IESG latest when the next IPv6-related ippm draft is in their queue. The active-passive RFC now is in AUTH48 and references draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, PDM-options may be next, so we have at least two RFCs and two almost-RFCs that reference and badly need the IPv6 update. >From my perspective the ippm work can and must prioritize new topics that are in the attention and focus of ippm participants. Still, the fixing of such substantial legacy issues like IPv6 should have at least the same level of priority. Ippm must prioritize and complete the homework it has committed to while adopting earlier RFCs to stay credible vs. the IESG. And it is my feeling that this needs to be reflected somehow by ippm processes and priorities. Any opinions? thanks Joachim On 11.03.2016 14:00, Brian Trammell wrote: > Greetings, all, > > First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent productivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) documents published since Yokohama: > > - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) > A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) > A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) > IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement > Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) > - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) > Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) > - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) > Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion > Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement > Protocol (TWAMP) > > In addition: > > - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered AUTH48 > - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in queue > > Well done, IPPM! > > > With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to plan our agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of active Working Group drafts: > > - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. > - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. > - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a second WGLC. > > We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. > > We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see dratf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: > > - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang > - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry > > We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. > > Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see where the working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. First, we have seen a lot of discussion on what we call the "hybrid/coloring cluster", so I think we should have a discussion about approaches here, how they fit together, and what if anything we should consider adopting in this space: > > - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext > > We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like to propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long discussion slot. > > There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and it seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption call for too. > > All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time for work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the end of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any substantial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute lightning talks, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new drafts having priority over ones that have already been presented. > > We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, but there is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, so we'd propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 or 45 minutes long: > > 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) > 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry > WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) > 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option > WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) > 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics > new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) > 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, 45m) > draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext > Discussion; decision on call to adopt? > 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) > Discussion: decision on call to adopt? > 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: > draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) > draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) > > Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those with new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning talk slot. > > Cheers, > > Brian and Bill (chair hats) > > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > From nobody Fri Mar 11 08:17:35 2016 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 8885612D615 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:17:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OAn95wjkTVHt for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.z120.zixworks.com (mx.z120.zixworks.com [199.30.235.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A31A12D7AC for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (ZixVPM [127.0.0.1]) by Outbound.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id EBD241C18FF for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:17:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from imsva2.bcbsm.com (unknown [12.107.172.81]) by mx.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id 857771C18F5; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:17:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from imsva2.bcbsm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA80 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8D8420008; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:17:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from pwn401ea105.ent.corp.bcbsm.com (unknown [10.64.102.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by imsva2.bcbsm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EEDF420002; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:17:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from PWN401EA120.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([169.254.12.50]) by PWN401EA105.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([10.64.102.241]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:17:25 -0500 From: "Ackermann, Michael" To: "joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at" , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires Thread-Index: AQHRe5YWn7pNkeYyrkiXpMZUZ4QEHJ9UvrUA//+tDyA= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:17:24 +0000 Message-ID: <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0D94BEE1@PWN401EA120.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> <56E2EECC.8000702@tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <56E2EECC.8000702@tuwien.ac.at> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.64.10.35] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-VPM-MSG-ID: 00e61b48-771d-4a92-a0ba-5ef5027ed5dc X-VPM-HOST: vmvpm01.z120.zixworks.com X-VPM-GROUP-ID: ecb52c8a-92b2-4092-b37f-c7f7dd17916f X-VPM-ENC-REGIME: Plaintext X-VPM-IS-HYBRID: 0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 11 Mar 2016 16:17:33 -0000 +1 -----Original Message----- From: ippm =5Bmailto:ippm-bounces=40ietf.org=5D On Behalf Of Joachim Fabini Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 11:14 AM To: ippm=40ietf.org Subject: Re: =5Bippm=5D IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires Brian, IPPM, Thumbs up, excellent work and RFC-publishing performance. This brings me = to a somewhat related topic: fixing of legacy shortcomings seems to not be = that thrilling and gains little attention/priority in ippm. The process of = finding new ippm topics may benefit from some priority-elevation scheme. = In particular, we must make sure to advance work that a) ippm has = committed to as part of RFC approval processes and/or b) approved RFCs = depend on. (co-author hat off) Specifically I'm concerned about the 2330-update for IPv6 and IP options not even being on the agenda. During the GenArt review = of RFC 7679 and 7680 the IESG asked ippm to fix the missing IPv6 support = in RFC2330. When reading = https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg14489.html = it is my understanding that these two essential RFCs have passed the = standardization process only because ippm proposed/committed to fix the RFC2330 shortcomings wrt IPv6 in a separate document. This is = draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, which has not been adopted as WG = item and not even on the agenda for IETF-95. It's a fundamental question of the ippm being credible. The same question = about IPv6 support will be asked again by the IESG latest when the next = IPv6-related ippm draft is in their queue. The active-passive RFC now is = in AUTH48 and references draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, PDM-options = may be next, so we have at least two RFCs and two almost-RFCs that = reference and badly need the IPv6 update. >From my perspective the ippm work can and must prioritize new topics that are in the attention and focus of ippm participants. Still, the = fixing of such substantial legacy issues like IPv6 should have at least = the same level of priority. Ippm must prioritize and complete the homework = it has committed to while adopting earlier RFCs to stay credible vs. the = IESG. And it is my feeling that this needs to be reflected somehow by ippm = processes and priorities. Any opinions? thanks Joachim On 11.03.2016 14:00, Brian Trammell wrote: > Greetings, all, >=20 > First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent = productivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(=21) = documents published since Yokohama: >=20 > - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) A One-Way Delay Metric for=20 > IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) A One-Way Loss Metric for=20 > IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret=20 > Key for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way=20 > Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) > - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) Registries for the=20 > One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) > - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) Differentiated=20 > Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification Monitoring in=20 > the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) >=20 > In addition: >=20 > - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered=20 > AUTH48 > - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in=20 > queue >=20 > Well done, IPPM=21 >=20 >=20 > With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to plan = our agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of active = Working Group drafts: >=20 > - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. > - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. > - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a second = WGLC. >=20 > We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. >=20 > We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see = dratf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: >=20 > - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang > - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry >=20 > We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. >=20 > Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see where = the working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. First, we = have seen a lot of discussion on what we call the =22hybrid/coloring = cluster=22, so I think we should have a discussion about approaches here, = how they fit together, and what if anything we should consider adopting in = this space: >=20 > - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >=20 > We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like to = propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long = discussion slot. >=20 > There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and = it seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption call for = too. >=20 > All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time = for work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the = end of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any = substantial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute = lightning talks, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new = drafts having priority over ones that have already been presented. >=20 > We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, but = there is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, so = we'd propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 or = 45 minutes long: >=20 > 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) > 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry > WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) > 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option > WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) > 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics > new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) > 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, 45m) > draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext > Discussion; decision on call to adopt? > 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) > Discussion: decision on call to adopt? > 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: > draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) > draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) >=20 > Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those with = new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning talk slot. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Brian and Bill (chair hats) >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm=40ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >=20 _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm=40ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and = is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this = communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are = hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of = this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic = mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original = message without making any copies. =20 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are = nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and = Blue Shield Association. From nobody Fri Mar 11 08:24:55 2016 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 C575A12D883 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:24:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.619 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yx1tzg5eRCMI for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:24:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm21-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm21-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6374D12D760 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:24:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1457713485; bh=EaINhcalBlnFc08wmZbEcUEN/iQI/PhmE8+M5gaTImE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=P78uB/HkuAr7i8Wz7PmJhLcJzUj2jCy2L6URuYRjlS7X2WUeD5/EQ/L9MzPXw78Mju9Rj6S12FCq6+F1xDPwA+1fYyUkBcU6Wlfukfvhhua9X4ZM05w9LbIXcez1g48+2tr1hySKIe4oXvj1JEe2pAxQVU9JW36zAVji3o2kfXvSBZix2pd9vmS7hl0U0hA9rVT/vlm4GvnGbJuTXiifIKkMTtaTWvpnKtXjJ18nXy2qnLgPfeUw8w5WCoQ1mo/unv3hXkvcolI7+O6HMeUTL1wvsidSLTY2BNUG3D2ZW90C3X+hC2UZkefISVkFtWq14P3/YQ9BtWWtf3GgpEXTGQ== Received: from [98.138.100.103] by nm21.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Mar 2016 16:24:45 -0000 Received: from [98.138.87.12] by tm102.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Mar 2016 16:24:45 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Mar 2016 16:24:45 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 584857.70503.bm@omp1012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: WmVAtbUVM1m9NhUqlT2KKCpjufWJNHQ0iQjYoHNNMqvZtgH22C48Qp8d94jemlr HZA6YJoIOqeb.6k8IsN3GRNK5UzbOCRjmUMJQZxMhtmAMSJcmWxO2MIBFCNZwCziYu20u9tevmsl oUMpq0PKiZxHa4KnFEVELby9v_vPCBnClSEC88buhCPaAYlU8C2OqmwUvB9XZyiTMAU7cSNu0c0F 3EBcxnDlAGiGgshXjgH6u57p_ncBqALTSonCXgGzPzYgbPHsaIt0iiNka9pDqj6d1HLoREZrAzqL DOzbtkrvSYcVi0XcYXw0Mti66uSYrcNuFG98ivwK6Q7TxwKmGxV4PVMRGjWEhUpiAfLi7_W71Qpl dMWPXt8upfg7dJxVYqClCEhA.Ep86RWm4aeVfSSotoYdlSp4NcCoxR2_uyKObbJSaw0Xq3c4CKTb MbOUnuLT14CQyNkqenM3xny9zJs3SQwKRWvsVWrA1JJ41Alx.RWt1Hqe6nlPUpvvf8293QOqlPO1 hvjGnUCYC3ASfoTssRhtTCVKX1Wnsj4qjTc1ISfSAYP6l.xk- Received: by 98.138.101.163; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:24:45 +0000 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:24:44 +0000 (UTC) From: To: "joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at" , "ippm@ietf.org" Message-ID: <160175762.361498.1457713484631.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <56E2EECC.8000702@tuwien.ac.at> References: <56E2EECC.8000702@tuwien.ac.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_361497_2068564753.1457713484626" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:24:54 -0000 ------=_Part_361497_2068564753.1457713484626 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 IPv6 stats from Google for the United States are 23% access this year - 12%= last year. =C2=A0 High growth rate (even considering likely plateaus in th= e future). We are actually researching potential additions to PDM with FreeBSD folks. = =C2=A0So, IPv6 is very necessary for us. Thanks for bringing this up, Joachim. Nalini=C2=A0 From: Joachim Fabini To: ippm@ietf.org=20 Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires =20 Brian, IPPM, Thumbs up, excellent work and RFC-publishing performance. This brings me to a somewhat related topic: fixing of legacy shortcomings seems to not be that thrilling and gains little attention/priority in ippm. The process of finding new ippm topics may benefit from some priority-elevation scheme. In particular, we must make sure to advance work that a) ippm has committed to as part of RFC approval processes and/or b) approved RFCs depend on. (co-author hat off) Specifically I'm concerned about the 2330-update for IPv6 and IP options not even being on the agenda. During the GenArt review of RFC 7679 and 7680 the IESG asked ippm to fix the missing IPv6 support in RFC2330. When reading https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg14489.html i= t is my understanding that these two essential RFCs have passed the standardization process only because ippm proposed/committed to fix the RFC2330 shortcomings wrt IPv6 in a separate document. This is draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, which has not been adopted as WG item and not even on the agenda for IETF-95. It's a fundamental question of the ippm being credible. The same question about IPv6 support will be asked again by the IESG latest when the next IPv6-related ippm draft is in their queue. The active-passive RFC now is in AUTH48 and references draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, PDM-options may be next, so we have at least two RFCs and two almost-RFCs that reference and badly need the IPv6 update. >From my perspective the ippm work can and must prioritize new topics that are in the attention and focus of ippm participants. Still, the fixing of such substantial legacy issues like IPv6 should have at least the same level of priority. Ippm must prioritize and complete the homework it has committed to while adopting earlier RFCs to stay credible vs. the IESG. And it is my feeling that this needs to be reflected somehow by ippm processes and priorities. Any opinions? thanks Joachim On 11.03.2016 14:00, Brian Trammell wrote: > Greetings, all, >=20 > First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent produc= tivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) documents publish= ed since Yokohama: >=20 > - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) >=C2=A0 A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) >=C2=A0 A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) >=C2=A0 IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement >=C2=A0 Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) > - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) >=C2=A0 Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) > - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) >=C2=A0 Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion >=C2=A0 Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement >=C2=A0 Protocol (TWAMP) >=20 > In addition: >=20 > - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered AUTH48 > - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in queue >=20 > Well done, IPPM! >=20 >=20 > With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to plan o= ur agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of active Worki= ng Group drafts: >=20 > - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. > - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. > - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a second W= GLC. >=20 > We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. >=20 > We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see dratf= -ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: >=20 > - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang > - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry >=20 > We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. >=20 > Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see where t= he working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. First, we h= ave seen a lot of discussion on what we call the "hybrid/coloring cluster",= so I think we should have a discussion about approaches here, how they fit= together, and what if anything we should consider adopting in this space: >=20 > - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >=20 > We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like to = propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long discussion= slot. >=20 > There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and i= t seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption call for to= o. >=20 > All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time for= work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the end of= the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any substant= ial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute lightning talks,= and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new drafts having priori= ty over ones that have already been presented. >=20 > We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, but th= ere is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, so we'd = propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 or 45 minu= tes long: >=20 > 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) > 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) > 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) > 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) > 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, 45m) >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-tempia-ippm-p3m >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Discussion; decision on call to adopt? > 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Discussion: decision on call to adopt? > 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) >=20 > Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those with = new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning talk slot= . >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Brian and Bill (chair hats) >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >=20 _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm ------=_Part_361497_2068564753.1457713484626 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1

IPv6 stats from = Google for the United States are 23% access this year - 12% last year. &nbs= p; High growth rate (even considering likely plateaus in the future).

We are actually researching = potential additions to PDM with FreeBSD folks.  So, IPv6 is very neces= sary for us.

<= div id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1457701940724_118862">Thanks for bringing this up, J= oachim.

Nalini 


F= rom: Joachim Fabini <joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at>
<= span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">To: ippm@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:14= AM
Subject: Re: [ippm= ] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires

Br= ian, IPPM,

Thumbs up, excellent work a= nd RFC-publishing performance. This brings me
to a somewh= at related topic: fixing of legacy shortcomings seems to not
be that thrilling and gains little attention/priority in ippm. The
process of finding new ippm topics may benefit from some
priority-elevation scheme. In particular, we must make sure t= o advance
work that a) ippm has committed to as part of R= FC approval processes
and/or b) approved RFCs depend on.<= br clear=3D"none">
(co-author hat off) Specifically I'm c= oncerned about the 2330-update for
IPv6 and IP options no= t even being on the agenda. During the GenArt
review of R= FC 7679 and 7680 the IESG asked ippm to fix the missing IPv6
support in RFC2330. When reading
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce= /current/msg14489.html it
is my understanding that th= ese two essential RFCs have passed the
standardization pr= ocess only because ippm proposed/committed to fix the
RFC= 2330 shortcomings wrt IPv6 in a separate document. This is
draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, which has not been adopted as WGitem and not even on the agenda for IETF-95.

It's a fundamental question of the ippm being credib= le. The same
question about IPv6 support will be asked ag= ain by the IESG latest when
the next IPv6-related ippm dr= aft is in their queue. The active-passive
RFC now is in A= UTH48 and references
draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep= , PDM-options may be next, so we
have at least two RFCs a= nd two almost-RFCs that reference and badly need
the IPv6= update.

>From my perspective the i= ppm work can and must prioritize new topics
that are in t= he attention and focus of ippm participants. Still, the
f= ixing of such substantial legacy issues like IPv6 should have at least
the same level of priority. Ippm must prioritize and complete= the
homework it has committed to while adopting earlier = RFCs to stay
credible vs. the IESG. And it is my feeling = that this needs to be
reflected somehow by ippm processes= and priorities.

Any opinions?

thanks
Joachim



On 11.03.201= 6 14:00, Brian Trammell wrote:
> Greetings, all,
>
> First, let us congratulate the IP= PM working group on its excellent productivity in finally-published-RFC ter= ms: we've seen five(!) documents published since Yokohama:
>
> - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis)>  A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metric= s (IPPM)
> - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis)>  A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metric= s (IPPM)
> - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec)
>  IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Ac= tive Measurement
>  Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way = Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
> - RFC 7718 (was = draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry)
>  Registries for= the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)
> - R= FC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor)
>  D= ifferentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion
= >  Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement
>  Protocol (TWAMP)
>
> In addition:
>
> - R= FC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered AUTH48
> - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved a= nd is in queue
>
> Well done, IP= PM!
>
>
> = With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to plan our= agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of active Working= Group drafts:
>
> - draft-ietf-= ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday.
> - d= raft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments.
> - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before = a second WGLC.
>
> We'll want ti= me on the agenda for all three of these.
>
> We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect= to see dratf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March:
>
> - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang
> - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry
>
> We'll want time on the agenda for these, too.
>
> Beyond that, we've reviewed discussi= on on the mailing list to see where the working group's energy seems to be = for additional documents. First, we have seen a lot of discussion on what w= e call the "hybrid/coloring cluster", so I think we should have a discussio= n about approaches here, how they fit together, and what if anything we sho= uld consider adopting in this space:
>
> - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m
> - draft-chen-ippm-c= oloring-based-ipfpm-framework
> - draft-fioccola-ippm-= rfc6812-alt-mark-ext
>
> We've a= lready talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like to propose a= single presentation about all three followed by a long discussion slot.>
> There's also been some discuss= ion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and it seems like this one might be c= lose enough to make an adoption call for too.
>
> All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to = reserve time for work that's actually already being discussed on the list, = so at the end of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work with= out any substantial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute = lightning talks, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new draf= ts having priority over ones that have already been presented.
>
> We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 ho= ur slot on Monday morning, but there is discussion about moving us back to = a 2 hour slot on Friday, so we'd propose the following agenda, with the las= t slot being either 15 or 45 minutes long:
>
> 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m)> 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry
>      WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m)> 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option
>      WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m)> 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics
>      new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mat= his, 10m)
> 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentati= on and Discussion (TBD, 45m)
>      dr= aft-tempia-ippm-p3m
>      draft-chen-= ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework
>    &nb= sp; draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext
>  =     Discussion; decision on call to adopt?
>= ; 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m)
&= gt;      Discussion: decision on call to adopt?
> 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so f= ar:
>      draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-ds= cp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky)
>      draf= t-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky)
>
> Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections h= ere. Those with new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lig= htning talk slot.
>
> Cheers,>
> Brian and Bill (chair hats)>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org=
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi= nfo/ippm

>

_____________________________= __________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/ippm


------=_Part_361497_2068564753.1457713484626-- From nobody Fri Mar 11 13:16:39 2016 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 D559712DBCD for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:16:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edzl1n8cazUS for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:16:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4593012DBC2 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:16:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l68so32975999wml.1 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:16:35 -0800 (PST) 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-transfer-encoding; bh=hPAQX5EqPxQigLu0ACI7eGbgIWRU6uWZyyQ1XA8Shog=; b=KrWPT3Vfjsb4HOIQOrHi8MYqaH1sV24zqMh74mMhNiv+RIPMp1q8pXM3pddyAGQi+U itdVPnrQLnEuPlYqhRUC8d5fjK/P2IK3GDSUiTgCDMNzxuwIZJeUEuC/z3P06zntcsmu JmSdOQGUHv8aiV1klU6WoxfgbdSInQxhCaNjeCpnicEz4IC1cSmf2QGhK2qdkJnxhjTO 8Ff7xw0N9tt38upnyY4Nb/mc5Gz0upkoXmwi3ianxgdkxRWUh3e+jAkfhQr9FoMU3RSd lu7Kn8uwYnQGpnafdkqPZFhvgqm44pnRs2+eFJ/xIli75RkPfSsoFaTgqJ4De8J5L780 vYog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hPAQX5EqPxQigLu0ACI7eGbgIWRU6uWZyyQ1XA8Shog=; b=fMzU2bWGGYZWM57L44WV64VKBAdl35xtMNdE/RlfAkayK4UKZFIo/rh5Or+WIq5D0Q 5YP85u8oIIfbSg0MQN6NYPOT7jW7y9ZN+x0ScEtk9WpifwJjSJyz3x5zVXUZSBHx8D3Y odwDokl7C8SGvRdrVMyz41K9yCqLocTLG7SNgr00Yt0CPedMt+BzUyRv4lhzmTz5spI5 WN9mzCt/f2Btz5Ptl0AFp0lFB7CtQyHubtcUuD4cEjHDVCzIOPNIyf98p/DU+4gz2N+l DYUuNZiB0QKdbuVueDFSsSBh4KPXgphiGj6lL50E9LhgTSqu8tp7rjU9Ycxh3msUa2fZ zuLg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIIs6bVWHqlRBOlfoDiWFmTGpvb6raFqYPdRvTEGq6gXYDL4U1Oi/3IFtVRGtmBdv3MYd8jgxJtQlWqIA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.227.69 with SMTP id a66mr4912226wmh.57.1457730993745; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:16:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.87.67 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:16:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 02:46:33 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Brian Trammell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: Peyush Gupta , Srivathsa S , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 11 Mar 2016 21:16:38 -0000 Hi Brian, Bill, We would like a 15min slot for "Monitoring Service KPIs using TWAMP". During the remote presentation in Yokohama, we received some feedback from Al, Nalini and Greg. We are planning to incorporate that feedback and present a delta of the changes. New draft will be ready by next weekend. We have already presented this work twice in the IPPM WG and would like the group to adopt it. Thanks Vinayak On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Brian Trammell wrote: > Greetings, all, > > First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent produc= tivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) documents publish= ed since Yokohama: > > - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) > A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) > A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) > IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement > Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) > - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) > Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) > - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) > Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion > Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement > Protocol (TWAMP) > > In addition: > > - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered AUTH48 > - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in queue > > Well done, IPPM! > > > With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to plan o= ur agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of active Worki= ng Group drafts: > > - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. > - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. > - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a second W= GLC. > > We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. > > We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see dratf= -ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: > > - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang > - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry > > We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. > > Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see where t= he working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. First, we h= ave seen a lot of discussion on what we call the "hybrid/coloring cluster",= so I think we should have a discussion about approaches here, how they fit= together, and what if anything we should consider adopting in this space: > > - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext > > We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like to = propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long discussion= slot. > > There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and i= t seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption call for to= o. > > All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time for= work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the end of= the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any substant= ial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute lightning talks,= and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new drafts having priori= ty over ones that have already been presented. > > We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, but th= ere is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, so we'd = propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 or 45 minu= tes long: > > 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) > 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry > WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) > 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option > WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) > 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics > new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) > 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, 45m) > draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext > Discussion; decision on call to adopt? > 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) > Discussion: decision on call to adopt? > 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: > draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) > draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) > > Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those with = new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning talk slot= . > > Cheers, > > Brian and Bill (chair hats) > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > From nobody Sat Mar 12 03:21:35 2016 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 BB88012D60F for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 03:21:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E-iw9K39f37W for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 03:21:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98ED12D603 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 03:21:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.27.103] (dynamic-94-247-222-033.catv.glattnet.ch [94.247.222.33]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86C4A1A0042; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:21:28 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E0952807-EDAB-47DB-8375-CAA73350AAEA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: <56E2EECC.8000702@tuwien.ac.at> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:21:27 +0100 Message-Id: <3283E27F-5A19-4ED8-919C-6FD1ABA548CF@trammell.ch> References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> <56E2EECC.8000702@tuwien.ac.at> To: joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:21:33 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E0952807-EDAB-47DB-8375-CAA73350AAEA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii hi Joachim, You raise good points. On the other hand, we have limited face to face agenda time to spend on = individual drafts which have not generated much (any?) discussion on the = mailing list since the previous face-to-face meeting. When we put the = agenda together, we let the mailing list be our guide, as discussed in = Yokohama. On the third hand, there was discussion of this approach in the final = processing on the bis drafts, so that kind of counts. (I'd suggest, personally, that "2330-stdform-typep" is not a very useful = draft name for letting people who know they care about IPv6 measurements = that this document is important to them. I guess there are two 3's in = the document name, and 3 + 3 =3D 6...?) As I understand it, what's happened since Yokohama that you'd like = face-to-face time to discuss is "document ready, call for adoption"? = There seems to be WG support for that, so we can certainly wedge ten = minutes in for that between model-based-metrics and the hybrid/coloring = cluster. Cheers, Brian (chair hat) > On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:14, Joachim Fabini = wrote: >=20 > Brian, IPPM, >=20 > Thumbs up, excellent work and RFC-publishing performance. This brings = me > to a somewhat related topic: fixing of legacy shortcomings seems to = not > be that thrilling and gains little attention/priority in ippm. The > process of finding new ippm topics may benefit from some > priority-elevation scheme. In particular, we must make sure to advance > work that a) ippm has committed to as part of RFC approval processes > and/or b) approved RFCs depend on. >=20 > (co-author hat off) Specifically I'm concerned about the 2330-update = for > IPv6 and IP options not even being on the agenda. During the GenArt > review of RFC 7679 and 7680 the IESG asked ippm to fix the missing = IPv6 > support in RFC2330. When reading > = https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg14489.html = it > is my understanding that these two essential RFCs have passed the > standardization process only because ippm proposed/committed to fix = the > RFC2330 shortcomings wrt IPv6 in a separate document. This is > draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, which has not been adopted as WG > item and not even on the agenda for IETF-95. >=20 > It's a fundamental question of the ippm being credible. The same > question about IPv6 support will be asked again by the IESG latest = when > the next IPv6-related ippm draft is in their queue. The active-passive > RFC now is in AUTH48 and references > draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, PDM-options may be next, so we > have at least two RFCs and two almost-RFCs that reference and badly = need > the IPv6 update. >=20 >> =46rom my perspective the ippm work can and must prioritize new = topics > that are in the attention and focus of ippm participants. Still, the > fixing of such substantial legacy issues like IPv6 should have at = least > the same level of priority. Ippm must prioritize and complete the > homework it has committed to while adopting earlier RFCs to stay > credible vs. the IESG. And it is my feeling that this needs to be > reflected somehow by ippm processes and priorities. >=20 > Any opinions? >=20 > thanks > Joachim >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 11.03.2016 14:00, Brian Trammell wrote: >> Greetings, all, >>=20 >> First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent = productivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) = documents published since Yokohama: >>=20 >> - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) >> A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) >> - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) >> A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) >> - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) >> IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement >> Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) >> - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) >> Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) >> - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) >> Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion >> Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement >> Protocol (TWAMP) >>=20 >> In addition: >>=20 >> - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered = AUTH48 >> - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in = queue >>=20 >> Well done, IPPM! >>=20 >>=20 >> With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to = plan our agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of = active Working Group drafts: >>=20 >> - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. >> - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. >> - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a = second WGLC. >>=20 >> We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. >>=20 >> We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see = dratf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: >>=20 >> - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang >> - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry >>=20 >> We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. >>=20 >> Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see = where the working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. = First, we have seen a lot of discussion on what we call the = "hybrid/coloring cluster", so I think we should have a discussion about = approaches here, how they fit together, and what if anything we should = consider adopting in this space: >>=20 >> - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m >> - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework >> - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >>=20 >> We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like = to propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long = discussion slot. >>=20 >> There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, = and it seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption = call for too. >>=20 >> All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time = for work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the = end of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any = substantial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute = lightning talks, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new = drafts having priority over ones that have already been presented. >>=20 >> We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, = but there is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, = so we'd propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 = or 45 minutes long: >>=20 >> 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) >> 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry >> WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) >> 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option >> WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) >> 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics >> new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) >> 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, = 45m) >> draft-tempia-ippm-p3m >> draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework >> draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >> Discussion; decision on call to adopt? >> 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) >> Discussion: decision on call to adopt? >> 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: >> draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) >> draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) >>=20 >> Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those = with new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning = talk slot. >>=20 >> Cheers, >>=20 >> Brian and Bill (chair hats) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm --Apple-Mail=_E0952807-EDAB-47DB-8375-CAA73350AAEA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW4/u4AAoJEIoSt78L6kajytkP/iEcDJW3oD7t+dG58cUMuPhX hE4LKIUtFopKEUJwn7gBC5ko1vmHrjJRP55TJxdDCtzeQORTWkW3VI7V4lPtzkPH UVmR2YZ5469rpC5sf3d3xYjZAFoPPQsOdwnJy6DAWo4a4OMg/WXQi+vD9lGGpE6Z 4PGAwd1mTLMXdwQUWZTKM2zZxR5x7xV04nzAQy86sXXAu0Rif/KQe7b1wHtQxUgd QsstdGNkybcn6mau9RMH1OUWrnOs1Ox07B000/OeVPiJVJ+PxjnAS8ts9dZ7X2wt k2HSyrMGln4i6u6m8CXPfA5IIZEUROjw55bFo0x20HUIA3ktPYaSFUTG96oq+P1M v28D1KB9FIdDtwaoDhoDWe/wCWRB9CjFlvR66OXEU+cOGvT+fheCvDz7S1PtNUkt hSlW0Xtti2f9VE5KWAC25bC5//g5RdW9Gp4QlUMQzbb3zObVJboejEGkGDYeJ0eC XdkI6dT/bs/c0o/dg9zxPD9m0OLnG4ru+GJOZZZmWs5cj0p7o0EQNYsp/BNIFJVD Yo5RA1uMoGYhct0PF7f6UpjzHkCbOWrgMhiw3PjDkmoWkYOhNI6XOeMfmzyYiCH6 tO0WCgxwAnD9OwNQtnLR4WXKcD9TgXSdnJEktC//9FWgUdNYKhbnaQ4D/zTT036o v49xQkb06qLWj5m/APnq =vPn7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E0952807-EDAB-47DB-8375-CAA73350AAEA-- From nobody Sat Mar 12 07:55:48 2016 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 D997512D675 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:55:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kBIIM5SxHC1t for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:55:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5F212D762 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:55:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF958121E38; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:00:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4978E01FD; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 10:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 10:55:42 -0500 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Brian Trammell , "joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at" Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 10:55:40 -0500 Thread-Topic: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires Thread-Index: AdF8UWDY1bcfFi7JQT+g6gfYvGGe1gAIpAYg Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCCE89@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> <56E2EECC.8000702@tuwien.ac.at> <3283E27F-5A19-4ED8-919C-6FD1ABA548CF@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <3283E27F-5A19-4ED8-919C-6FD1ABA548CF@trammell.ch> 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 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:55:47 -0000 Hi Brian and all, please see replies below, > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell ... > On the other hand, we have limited face to face agenda time to spend on > individual drafts which have not generated much (any?) discussion on the > mailing list since the previous face-to-face meeting. When we put the > agenda together, we let the mailing list be our guide, as discussed in > Yokohama. [ACM]=20 With the change in agenda-time criteria, my mistake=20 (in retrospect) was inviting many of the IPv6-interested=20 wg participants as co-authors when starting this draft last August. The co-authors plus Brian Carpenter and=20 Fred Baker discussed this draft at great length during the rush to prepare the 00 individual. Quickly collecting=20 input and experience was more important than having a pool of reviewers later. >=20 > On the third hand, there was discussion of this approach in the final > processing on the bis drafts, so that kind of counts. >=20 > (I'd suggest, personally, that "2330-stdform-typep" is not a very useful > draft name for letting people who know they care about IPv6 measurements > that this document is important to them. I guess there are two 3's in > the document name, and 3 + 3 =3D 6...?) [ACM]=20 Unfortunately, search engines don't seem to offer term addition, only union and order, maybe others. We took your advice, but in the title of the draft: WAS Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework: Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets NOW IP Options and IPv6 Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework: Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets (this is another case where the co-authors had a lively discussion with several different proposals... and WG comments on the new title are welcome= ) We can change the filename too, if adopted. >=20 > As I understand it, what's happened since Yokohama that you'd like face- > to-face time to discuss is "document ready, call for adoption"? There > seems to be WG support for that, so we can certainly wedge ten minutes > in for that between model-based-metrics and the hybrid/coloring cluster. >=20 [ACM]=20 We had a volunteer to review in Yokohama (I can see his face, works for=20 Comcast I think, John???) But we didn't ping him. mea culpa. Anyway, thanks Joachim for making your well-formulated argument (because we are a standards body, that means being willing to=20 maintain the standards that the wg is responsible for), and for granting some agenda time, Brian. regards, Al > Cheers, >=20 > Brian (chair hat) >=20 >=20 > > On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:14, Joachim Fabini > wrote: > > > > Brian, IPPM, > > > > Thumbs up, excellent work and RFC-publishing performance. This brings > me > > to a somewhat related topic: fixing of legacy shortcomings seems to > not > > be that thrilling and gains little attention/priority in ippm. The > > process of finding new ippm topics may benefit from some > > priority-elevation scheme. In particular, we must make sure to advance > > work that a) ippm has committed to as part of RFC approval processes > > and/or b) approved RFCs depend on. > > > > (co-author hat off) Specifically I'm concerned about the 2330-update > for > > IPv6 and IP options not even being on the agenda. During the GenArt > > review of RFC 7679 and 7680 the IESG asked ippm to fix the missing > IPv6 > > support in RFC2330. When reading > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf- > announce/current/msg14489.html it > > is my understanding that these two essential RFCs have passed the > > standardization process only because ippm proposed/committed to fix > the > > RFC2330 shortcomings wrt IPv6 in a separate document. This is > > draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, which has not been adopted as WG > > item and not even on the agenda for IETF-95. > > > > It's a fundamental question of the ippm being credible. The same > > question about IPv6 support will be asked again by the IESG latest > when > > the next IPv6-related ippm draft is in their queue. The active-passive > > RFC now is in AUTH48 and references > > draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, PDM-options may be next, so we > > have at least two RFCs and two almost-RFCs that reference and badly > need > > the IPv6 update. > > > >> From my perspective the ippm work can and must prioritize new topics > > that are in the attention and focus of ippm participants. Still, the > > fixing of such substantial legacy issues like IPv6 should have at > least > > the same level of priority. Ippm must prioritize and complete the > > homework it has committed to while adopting earlier RFCs to stay > > credible vs. the IESG. And it is my feeling that this needs to be > > reflected somehow by ippm processes and priorities. > > > > Any opinions? > > > > thanks > > Joachim > > > > > > > > On 11.03.2016 14:00, Brian Trammell wrote: > >> Greetings, all, > >> > >> First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent > productivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) > documents published since Yokohama: > >> > >> - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) > >> A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > >> - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) > >> A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > >> - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) > >> IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement > >> Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) > >> - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) > >> Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) > >> - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) > >> Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion > >> Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement > >> Protocol (TWAMP) > >> > >> In addition: > >> > >> - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered > AUTH48 > >> - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in > queue > >> > >> Well done, IPPM! > >> > >> > >> With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to > plan our agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of > active Working Group drafts: > >> > >> - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. > >> - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. > >> - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a > second WGLC. > >> > >> We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. > >> > >> We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see > dratf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: > >> > >> - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang > >> - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry > >> > >> We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. > >> > >> Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see > where the working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. > First, we have seen a lot of discussion on what we call the > "hybrid/coloring cluster", so I think we should have a discussion about > approaches here, how they fit together, and what if anything we should > consider adopting in this space: > >> > >> - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > >> - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > >> - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext > >> > >> We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like > to propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long > discussion slot. > >> > >> There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, > and it seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption > call for too. > >> > >> All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time > for work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the > end of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any > substantial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute > lightning talks, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new > drafts having priority over ones that have already been presented. > >> > >> We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, > but there is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, > so we'd propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 > or 45 minutes long: > >> > >> 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) > >> 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry > >> WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) > >> 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option > >> WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) > >> 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics > >> new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) > >> 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, > 45m) > >> draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > >> draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > >> draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext > >> Discussion; decision on call to adopt? > >> 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) > >> Discussion: decision on call to adopt? > >> 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: > >> draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) > >> draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) > >> > >> Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those > with new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning > talk slot. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Brian and Bill (chair hats) > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ippm mailing list > >> ippm@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ippm mailing list > > ippm@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Sat Mar 12 08:52:27 2016 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 6460D12D797 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 08:52:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k_VSAlQiDRb5 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 08:52:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B503712D6B0 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 08:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2:e97e:4f6d:5d4f:e29c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2:e97e:4f6d:5d4f:e29c]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDEA11A00D9; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 17:52:21 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EB722E4A-F6A2-4FCA-B014-110C3C56E8F4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 17:52:20 +0100 Message-Id: <1F8D111D-CB2E-43BA-B399-89679A4220B2@trammell.ch> References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> To: Vinayak Hegde X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: Peyush Gupta , Srivathsa S , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 16:52:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_EB722E4A-F6A2-4FCA-B014-110C3C56E8F4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii hi Vinayak, I haven't seen much discussion on these since Yokohama. Five minutes = should be enough to present deltas. We can put you down for a lightning = talk in the returning-work queue. Cheers, Brian (chair hat) > On 11 Mar 2016, at 22:16, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >=20 > Hi Brian, Bill, >=20 > We would like a 15min slot for "Monitoring Service KPIs using TWAMP". > During the remote presentation in Yokohama, we received some feedback > from Al, Nalini and Greg. We are planning to incorporate that feedback > and present a delta of the changes. New draft will be ready by next > weekend. We have already presented this work twice in the IPPM WG and > would like the group to adopt it. >=20 > Thanks > Vinayak >=20 > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Brian Trammell = wrote: >> Greetings, all, >>=20 >> First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent = productivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) = documents published since Yokohama: >>=20 >> - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) >> A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) >> - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) >> A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) >> - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) >> IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement >> Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) >> - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) >> Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) >> - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) >> Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion >> Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement >> Protocol (TWAMP) >>=20 >> In addition: >>=20 >> - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered = AUTH48 >> - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in = queue >>=20 >> Well done, IPPM! >>=20 >>=20 >> With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to = plan our agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of = active Working Group drafts: >>=20 >> - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. >> - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. >> - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a = second WGLC. >>=20 >> We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. >>=20 >> We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see = dratf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: >>=20 >> - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang >> - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry >>=20 >> We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. >>=20 >> Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see = where the working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. = First, we have seen a lot of discussion on what we call the = "hybrid/coloring cluster", so I think we should have a discussion about = approaches here, how they fit together, and what if anything we should = consider adopting in this space: >>=20 >> - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m >> - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework >> - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >>=20 >> We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like = to propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long = discussion slot. >>=20 >> There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, = and it seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption = call for too. >>=20 >> All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time = for work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the = end of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any = substantial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute = lightning talks, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new = drafts having priority over ones that have already been presented. >>=20 >> We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, = but there is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, = so we'd propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 = or 45 minutes long: >>=20 >> 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) >> 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry >> WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) >> 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option >> WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) >> 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics >> new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) >> 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, = 45m) >> draft-tempia-ippm-p3m >> draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework >> draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >> Discussion; decision on call to adopt? >> 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) >> Discussion: decision on call to adopt? >> 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: >> draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) >> draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) >>=20 >> Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those = with new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning = talk slot. >>=20 >> Cheers, >>=20 >> Brian and Bill (chair hats) >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >>=20 --Apple-Mail=_EB722E4A-F6A2-4FCA-B014-110C3C56E8F4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW5ElFAAoJEIoSt78L6kajM+AP/3l0VSGcmiXskhEgEevAdjJW 2CWBk4G37983naeYfDoqtVHpHYTh8Q3s4nVqd9mHhVSjFyiQQAfdKeiMqNivpmo2 EDM0yEUD1UENN3Dnfp/QceFZb0BzwU7g7JXmZyb8YKDfLTxxNMiDfRQ/4fGn0lk7 uZrOQ6VoVstXdb50HA6SiiMbpVbhfaoeO76wQuAxXbN1io1VIGpFdL5uiLhiWdzY 9g/YG5Ou8SjdHJdizexnTQhgad+2oEFgr/STJhbM3iL1Dzcc73F756MYu7984wsl z1cpQBKpFQ2TXoRHOnv87oyW+6rOPCq0FakKxQwSDfbj1lu4Lccjr/xcb9KJoVcV ldPzrlLLKM7v8tmnq/Ukhbwnp9pATp0NctCqmgfOBD63u5D5sCyzF4MdGRcMd7cd wFHYumU6FwnbNHGyj9+6tBOarBA4Azl4uX6NX0j8udngDIgCivVRWsYBY7VQAs0e XAXEpGKcSJ+zhkVdkxPXYrk3IXuJ//kb+VMYB6mu2qdVeRH3EfNB35z40RVjHKLL 1OzJhfkOvvFMIdO8NI6sAMUWC64gKMiHCjyKLBNlSeFO04REKjnYrrtEUyKessKF u9z+Domv5GA1GYcTIMrcNYRwJok2at2/idAFwejlwb9LDP3jOYgorvpvt82i+c7T zCvnVQ9pofjSqIi9dqKg =7ifV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_EB722E4A-F6A2-4FCA-B014-110C3C56E8F4-- From nobody Sat Mar 12 14:05:09 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FEDA12D887; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:05:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.16.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160312220508.17729.93834.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:05:08 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-00.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 22:05:08 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. Title : Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries Authors : Al Morton Marcelo Bagnulo Philip Eardley Kevin D'Souza Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-00.txt Pages : 62 Date : 2016-03-12 Abstract: This memo defines the Initial Entries for the Performance Metrics Registry. WG 00 is the same as Individual 04, which was updated 3 times since IETF-94. Version 04 * All section 4 parameters reference YANG types for alternate data formats. * Discussion has concluded that usecase(s) for machine parse-able registry columns are not needed. Still need: * suggestion of standard naming format for parameters. * revisions that follow section 4 changes in other proposed metrics. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Sun Mar 13 10:15:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E853412DD78; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:05:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Secretariat\"" To: , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.16.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160311230521.15028.42523.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:05:21 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:15:25 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] ippm - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 95 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:05:22 -0000 Dear Brian Trammell, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. ippm Session 1 (2:00:00) Friday, Morning Session I 1000-1200 Room Name: Quebracho B size: 75 --------------------------------------------- Request Information: --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: IP Performance Metrics Area Name: Transport Area Session Requester: Brian Trammell Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 50 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: tsvarea tsvwg tcpm taps bmwg lmap xrblock Second Priority: v6ops 6man 6lo sunset4 opsec cdni alto rmcat tcpinc Special Requests: Please try not to schedule opposite irtfopen, iccrg, maprg. --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Sun Mar 13 11:33:06 2016 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 17F1F12D6B8 for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:33:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iG0r5qso8q2z for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47B2812D62C for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id p65so76445946wmp.0 for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:33:02 -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-transfer-encoding; bh=r7r+jv053XLrRye2WPJJ7FNdN3CkMI9kNjMJWKNjIv0=; b=ZWN2jzEBoK/ZbObYElOR8q2tKIX+ygv0dL9Cv0/gWx2llIGz3PjhoIVMXHpAWDM92X 0mRefHEfUZEyXJI+jBxQ5PLwOSO1O0il31VzzdPEK6B88VDfv2PPmTXtDsiysCSRknam 7WO+Q2yRG2ehSSskN6MuI7MVrGNgQ8aik0yy/fcmo2aj3AfhyOuzSEv9bWQ6H5HEp+5T NXTVV4HpCqLNqpHf2jSiSFOqywal8Q70qfFI5Hj9phKlBQY7Yy4vXheBo2sKWh6WqUcY lkp903p7lswaf7/W3/t6K2bhIwr4VMsa8jIpOfbDmJ7IcPXQmxjmXGC0PrMVDB5geTdm l+rA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=r7r+jv053XLrRye2WPJJ7FNdN3CkMI9kNjMJWKNjIv0=; b=i2CM2O6iwQNxWMGGGsP+t2ssM/hfS0frzf7vg6YBRzcWjMb64cBijvDPCW3XwfOw1U dOC1kDZC7QEoxVZqNwP1P5440jDUeWqY091bNU0fK+HvnERk1jVPmUpPlLFi0AglEd6F dSUBjjwhYNg59IH53NtI8+FBpbsLrsCCFa0XIxBnQw7SZDc5RVEWhXLT/GtNj9/9BCrJ FkI9pHYJAU/n9v2aQO3bMpfi92vr0xrQrpyPvG3ZDKOoJWlkTXrWVzECeYHnpH0eqieS iG5sCxjgyI/HRmZHVH0vVrYYUaLGgK5/NDmJF11Efhx4MAawBy6ygcBhiLyLjpYfkk3R mn0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJYiPDBo4ssOJH+mi3cWBYjiBwl49WEx8pAWjfpzA7Q14Ja0piHvC5ieDuxiuE+/BxvMo9FU4cRofGNYQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.134.137 with SMTP id i131mr14482390wmd.62.1457893980764; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.87.67 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:33:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1F8D111D-CB2E-43BA-B399-89679A4220B2@trammell.ch> References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> <1F8D111D-CB2E-43BA-B399-89679A4220B2@trammell.ch> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:03:00 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Brian Trammell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: Peyush Gupta , Srivathsa S , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 13 Mar 2016 18:33:05 -0000 Thanks. That will work. Regards Vinayak On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Brian Trammell wrote: > hi Vinayak, > > I haven't seen much discussion on these since Yokohama. Five minutes shou= ld be enough to present deltas. We can put you down for a lightning talk in= the returning-work queue. > > Cheers, > > Brian (chair hat) > >> On 11 Mar 2016, at 22:16, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, Bill, >> >> We would like a 15min slot for "Monitoring Service KPIs using TWAMP". >> During the remote presentation in Yokohama, we received some feedback >> from Al, Nalini and Greg. We are planning to incorporate that feedback >> and present a delta of the changes. New draft will be ready by next >> weekend. We have already presented this work twice in the IPPM WG and >> would like the group to adopt it. >> >> Thanks >> Vinayak >> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Brian Trammell wrote= : >>> Greetings, all, >>> >>> First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent prod= uctivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) documents publi= shed since Yokohama: >>> >>> - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) >>> A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) >>> - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) >>> A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) >>> - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) >>> IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement >>> Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) >>> - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) >>> Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) >>> - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) >>> Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion >>> Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement >>> Protocol (TWAMP) >>> >>> In addition: >>> >>> - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered AUTH4= 8 >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in queue >>> >>> Well done, IPPM! >>> >>> >>> With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to plan= our agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of active Wor= king Group drafts: >>> >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a second= WGLC. >>> >>> We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. >>> >>> We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see dra= tf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: >>> >>> - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang >>> - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry >>> >>> We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. >>> >>> Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see where= the working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. First, we= have seen a lot of discussion on what we call the "hybrid/coloring cluster= ", so I think we should have a discussion about approaches here, how they f= it together, and what if anything we should consider adopting in this space= : >>> >>> - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m >>> - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework >>> - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >>> >>> We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like t= o propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long discussi= on slot. >>> >>> There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and= it seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption call for = too. >>> >>> All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time f= or work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the end = of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any substa= ntial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute lightning talk= s, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new drafts having prio= rity over ones that have already been presented. >>> >>> We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, but = there is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, so we'= d propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 or 45 mi= nutes long: >>> >>> 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) >>> 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry >>> WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) >>> 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option >>> WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) >>> 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics >>> new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) >>> 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, 45m) >>> draft-tempia-ippm-p3m >>> draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework >>> draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >>> Discussion; decision on call to adopt? >>> 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) >>> Discussion: decision on call to adopt? >>> 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: >>> draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) >>> draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) >>> >>> Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those wit= h new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning talk sl= ot. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Brian and Bill (chair hats) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ippm mailing list >>> ippm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >>> > From nobody Mon Mar 14 01:16:35 2016 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 8633612DA50 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:16:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iDHxOOVd17ud for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at (xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.67.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037FF12DA4C for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF20F95EAD9D8; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:16:25 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nt.tuwien.ac.at Received: from xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mXznLxXIH5fA; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:16:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [128.131.67.239] (jason.nt.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.67.239]) by xserve.nt.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DD5E95EAD9C8; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:16:25 +0100 (CET) References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> <56E2EECC.8000702@tuwien.ac.at> <3283E27F-5A19-4ED8-919C-6FD1ABA548CF@trammell.ch> To: Brian Trammell From: Joachim Fabini Message-ID: <56E67356.9020905@tuwien.ac.at> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:16:22 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3283E27F-5A19-4ED8-919C-6FD1ABA548CF@trammell.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:16:33 -0000 Hi Brian, thanks for your elaborated answer. A short disclaimer as intro: I intentionally took my co-author hat off when writing my initial post. Although our draft is the initial trigger, my focus was on pointing out some extension to improve the proposed process. Some ippm drafts that do not gather large interest in the group may be of strategic importance to ippm. It's imho the responsibility of chairs to prioritize the resolution of such dependencies (and the responsibility of authors to notify chairs if they spot out such dependencies ;). Specific comments inline. On 12.03.2016 12:21, Brian Trammell wrote: > You raise good points. > On the other hand, we have limited face to face agenda time to spend on individual drafts which have not generated much (any?) discussion on the mailing list since the previous face-to-face meeting. When we put the agenda together, we let the mailing list be our guide, as discussed in Yokohama. Absolutely agree whenever we talk about typical "new" work. ippm should focus on protocols that gather interest in the group. > On the third hand, there was discussion of this approach in the final processing on the bis drafts, so that kind of counts. Yes, that's what we said to the IESG that we will do. > (I'd suggest, personally, that "2330-stdform-typep" is not a very useful draft name for letting people who know they care about IPv6 measurements that this document is important to them. I guess there are two 3's in the document name, and 3 + 3 = 6...?) Agreed, as you pointed out in Yokohama: someone who has not read 2330 in detail will never infer from the draft name on its content. If adopted we must rename it (your proposal reads fine for me). > As I understand it, what's happened since Yokohama that you'd like face-to-face time to discuss is "document ready, call for adoption"? There seems to be WG support for that, so we can certainly wedge ten minutes in for that between model-based-metrics and the hybrid/coloring cluster. Putting my co-author hat on: Yes, I believe that we must start the work on the IPv6-update asap. This way we can support (and not unneccessarily delay) approval of ippm work that is now in the IESG/Editor queue. Ideally some non-co-author ippm participants should read the (short) draft and comment at the BA meeting. Any volunteers? Thanks again, Joachim >> On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:14, Joachim Fabini wrote: >> >> Brian, IPPM, >> >> Thumbs up, excellent work and RFC-publishing performance. This brings me >> to a somewhat related topic: fixing of legacy shortcomings seems to not >> be that thrilling and gains little attention/priority in ippm. The >> process of finding new ippm topics may benefit from some >> priority-elevation scheme. In particular, we must make sure to advance >> work that a) ippm has committed to as part of RFC approval processes >> and/or b) approved RFCs depend on. >> >> (co-author hat off) Specifically I'm concerned about the 2330-update for >> IPv6 and IP options not even being on the agenda. During the GenArt >> review of RFC 7679 and 7680 the IESG asked ippm to fix the missing IPv6 >> support in RFC2330. When reading >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg14489.html it >> is my understanding that these two essential RFCs have passed the >> standardization process only because ippm proposed/committed to fix the >> RFC2330 shortcomings wrt IPv6 in a separate document. This is >> draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, which has not been adopted as WG >> item and not even on the agenda for IETF-95. >> >> It's a fundamental question of the ippm being credible. The same >> question about IPv6 support will be asked again by the IESG latest when >> the next IPv6-related ippm draft is in their queue. The active-passive >> RFC now is in AUTH48 and references >> draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep, PDM-options may be next, so we >> have at least two RFCs and two almost-RFCs that reference and badly need >> the IPv6 update. >> >>> From my perspective the ippm work can and must prioritize new topics >> that are in the attention and focus of ippm participants. Still, the >> fixing of such substantial legacy issues like IPv6 should have at least >> the same level of priority. Ippm must prioritize and complete the >> homework it has committed to while adopting earlier RFCs to stay >> credible vs. the IESG. And it is my feeling that this needs to be >> reflected somehow by ippm processes and priorities. >> >> Any opinions? >> >> thanks >> Joachim >> >> >> >> On 11.03.2016 14:00, Brian Trammell wrote: >>> Greetings, all, >>> >>> First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent productivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) documents published since Yokohama: >>> >>> - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) >>> A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) >>> - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) >>> A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) >>> - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) >>> IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement >>> Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) >>> - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) >>> Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) >>> - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) >>> Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion >>> Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement >>> Protocol (TWAMP) >>> >>> In addition: >>> >>> - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered AUTH48 >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in queue >>> >>> Well done, IPPM! >>> >>> >>> With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to plan our agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of active Working Group drafts: >>> >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a second WGLC. >>> >>> We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. >>> >>> We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see dratf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: >>> >>> - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang >>> - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry >>> >>> We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. >>> >>> Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see where the working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. First, we have seen a lot of discussion on what we call the "hybrid/coloring cluster", so I think we should have a discussion about approaches here, how they fit together, and what if anything we should consider adopting in this space: >>> >>> - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m >>> - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework >>> - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >>> >>> We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like to propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long discussion slot. >>> >>> There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and it seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption call for too. >>> >>> All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time for work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the end of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any substantial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute lightning talks, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new drafts having priority over ones that have already been presented. >>> >>> We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, but there is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, so we'd propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 or 45 minutes long: >>> >>> 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) >>> 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry >>> WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) >>> 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option >>> WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) >>> 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics >>> new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) >>> 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, 45m) >>> draft-tempia-ippm-p3m >>> draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework >>> draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext >>> Discussion; decision on call to adopt? >>> 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) >>> Discussion: decision on call to adopt? >>> 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: >>> draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) >>> draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) >>> >>> Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those with new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning talk slot. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Brian and Bill (chair hats) >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ippm mailing list >>> ippm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > From nobody Mon Mar 14 05:51:31 2016 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 3CC9312D5A8 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:51:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A_J5IJy3DDeu for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm10-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm10-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8B6012D9C1 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:51:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1457959887; bh=9xHuvUrepPUVThIlprtpcSF1O4CCrCEaTzgCQQ0tsSw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=P17ZxZK2Jxmb9udPoM41LSt9oFDuzC/ETJfyobRWVjMXpwBGv35VtpxOkBtUKkBMVONE9WFXOQlCul0ZSzH5cv1AjSDhhcXnJWLw3w2tLSaOWxk0bVZvX2NAhOTDhrdkHMY0XfO8iFfTadO/fFjHNFr5uPuoWdZhNMfx+XC8GD8eAWliHAaFXg8rXgO6wxhHW6AutcWKOdgvzvBOGtDTxLEmE/afdG0/2gFlEivwsOnf2wv7yaLd2yVkGvLslEMMWc7gYuU1KYUlPNU/f20tLPTl2CU21PhS+yLtyrK4R0xKZ3jmmW4FqgY2IHM1o7E9QMEXVZfye2HWghz0wlY19w== Received: from [98.138.100.116] by nm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Mar 2016 12:51:27 -0000 Received: from [98.138.88.234] by tm107.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Mar 2016 12:51:27 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1034.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Mar 2016 12:51:27 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 168352.17118.bm@omp1034.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: yPq0xbEVM1nSnGR9IcWmWb5nUrHDr_zRM6PZfhsaec0WzlWAWVObGP_g0BdbEqF 5PhM9q8wsqv5zMgz9PYtEyYz1gkhX02OgtLeXRkgeiRW85mzOKLF9OaINEM6Tfn5ggOdaRd07jGB JZh1GOAwBABv5ZegKbgMnnR71u.sbsCNDUAGa_b2KXpYXSBaLzTlu0l.zZAue8qyBiKZM7U4MlSw Vd264UH83VaiK_MHDNL_Q5ONkMuCwPRNeKTLjMDz86LDFWxL4CizUGevnkwTk76XzWFvSz_U6X4Y hUiDW6vXRAR8VnO475VYOE_7lymNDyrj91PlE.iO56QoAIpTBktABPRR1bQecZRQLWwRHGDnRGKJ C2mawOK1AsD_qgFCP.Od.s4YrwCFEfBrj3kGTM7YFsKinDCig0pSvj7pwRpUbaUvihF7g4S6sUrx Py7Gd5ddgS9P_N_Dq8MKG8_plbCM1sz1KmwomXXN6OREeM_nh5LTEoAxxW8q..yu5lA2.N7eoZN_ RwVWu7cu7Q.pkQgqBPEzLnUI- Received: by 98.138.101.168; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:51:26 +0000 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:51:25 +0000 (UTC) From: To: "joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at" , Brian Trammell Message-ID: <1532830142.844245.1457959885118.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <56E67356.9020905@tuwien.ac.at> References: <56E67356.9020905@tuwien.ac.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_844244_1886217552.1457959885114" Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:51:30 -0000 ------=_Part_844244_1886217552.1457959885114 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Although our draft is the initial trigger, my focus was on pointing out >some extension to improve the proposed process. >Some ippm drafts that do not gather large interest in the group may be >of strategic importance to ippm. =C2=A0 Guys, do we have other older RFCs which need IPv6 support (or something els= e) added? Nalini ------=_Part_844244_1886217552.1457959885114 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



>Alt= hough our draft is the initial trigger, my focus was on pointing out
&= gt;some extension to improve the proposed process.
>So= me ippm drafts that do not gather large interest in the group may be
>of strategic importance to ippm.  

Guys, do= we have other older RFCs which need IPv6 support (or something else) added= ?

Nalini
------=_Part_844244_1886217552.1457959885114-- From nobody Mon Mar 14 05:55:03 2016 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 8E3DB12DA74 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:55:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zDy4b6Bqr2XB for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975E312DA71 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.255.18]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955C01227EB; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:59:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED55E0030; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:54:55 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: "nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com" , "joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at" , Brian Trammell Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:54:54 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires Thread-Index: AdF98ER3H0pcVLvNRe6rzWmfe41GhgAACubw Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCCEB1@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <56E67356.9020905@tuwien.ac.at> <1532830142.844245.1457959885118.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1532830142.844245.1457959885118.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCCEB1NJFPSRVEXG0re_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 14 Mar 2016 12:55:01 -0000 --_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCCEB1NJFPSRVEXG0re_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgTmFsaW5pLA0KDQpCeSBhdWdtZW50aW5nIHRoZSBmcmFtZXdvcmssIHdlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBh dWdtZW50aW5nDQphbGwgdGhlIG1ldHJpY3MgUkZDcyBpbiBhbiBlZmZpY2llbnQgd2F5Lg0KDQpP V0FNUCBhbmQgVFdBTVAgYXJlIHY2LXJlYWR5LCBhZmFpay4NCg0KVGhhdCBtaWdodCBsZWF2ZSBz b21ldGhpbmcsIGJ1dCA/Pz8NCkFsDQoNCkZyb206IGlwcG0gW21haWx0bzppcHBtLWJvdW5jZXNA aWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBuYWxpbmkuZWxraW5zQGluc2lkZXRoZXN0YWNrLmNvbQ0K U2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAxNCwgMjAxNiA4OjUxIEFNDQpUbzogam9hY2hpbS5mYWJpbmlA dHV3aWVuLmFjLmF0OyBCcmlhbiBUcmFtbWVsbA0KQ2M6IGlwcG1AaWV0Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6 IFJlOiBbaXBwbV0gSVBQTSBXRyBTdGF0dXMgYW5kIEFnZW5kYSBmb3IgSUVURiA5NSBCdWVub3Mg QWlyZXMNCg0KDQoNCj5BbHRob3VnaCBvdXIgZHJhZnQgaXMgdGhlIGluaXRpYWwgdHJpZ2dlciwg bXkgZm9jdXMgd2FzIG9uIHBvaW50aW5nIG91dA0KPnNvbWUgZXh0ZW5zaW9uIHRvIGltcHJvdmUg dGhlIHByb3Bvc2VkIHByb2Nlc3MuDQo+U29tZSBpcHBtIGRyYWZ0cyB0aGF0IGRvIG5vdCBnYXRo ZXIgbGFyZ2UgaW50ZXJlc3QgaW4gdGhlIGdyb3VwIG1heSBiZQ0KPm9mIHN0cmF0ZWdpYyBpbXBv cnRhbmNlIHRvIGlwcG0uDQoNCkd1eXMsIGRvIHdlIGhhdmUgb3RoZXIgb2xkZXIgUkZDcyB3aGlj aCBuZWVkIElQdjYgc3VwcG9ydCAob3Igc29tZXRoaW5nIGVsc2UpIGFkZGVkPw0KDQpOYWxpbmkN Cg== --_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCCEB1NJFPSRVEXG0re_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij48bWV0YSBuYW1lPUdlbmVyYXRvciBjb250ZW50 PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNCAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+PHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZv bnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglw YW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJ e2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJIZWx2ZXRpY2EgTmV1ZSI7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8N CnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBpbjsN CgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWls eToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsN Cgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9u OnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQphOnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNv LXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5k ZXJsaW5lO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTE3DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLXJl cGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7DQoJY29sb3I6YmxhY2s7fQ0KLk1zb0No cERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBw dDt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAxMS4waW47DQoJbWFyZ2luOjEu MGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2Vj dGlvbjE7fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlZGVm YXVsdHMgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48 IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0Ij4NCjxv OmlkbWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KPC9vOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0PjwveG1sPjwh W2VuZGlmXS0tPjwvaGVhZD48Ym9keSBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIGxpbms9Ymx1ZSB2bGluaz1wdXJwbGU+ PGRpdiBjbGFzcz1Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdm b250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPkhp IE5hbGluaSw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7Y29sb3I6Ymxh Y2snPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijtjb2xvcjpi bGFjayc+QnkgYXVnbWVudGluZyB0aGUgZnJhbWV3b3JrLCB3ZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgYXVnbWVudGlu ZzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+YWxs IHRoZSBtZXRyaWNzIFJGQ3MgaW4gYW4gZWZmaWNpZW50IHdheS48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+T1dBTVAgYW5kIFRXQU1QIGFyZSB2 Ni1yZWFkeSwgYWZhaWsuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciO2Nv bG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7 Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPlRoYXQgbWlnaHQgbGVhdmUgc29tZXRoaW5nLCBidXQgPz8/PG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEx LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz5BbDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4w cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkIGJs dWUgMS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBpbiA0LjBwdCc+PGRpdj48ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSdib3Jk ZXI6bm9uZTtib3JkZXItdG9wOnNvbGlkICNCNUM0REYgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzozLjBwdCAwaW4g MGluIDBpbic+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAu MHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxz cGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNl cmlmIic+IGlwcG0gW21haWx0bzppcHBtLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIDxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBP ZiA8L2I+bmFsaW5pLmVsa2luc0BpbnNpZGV0aGVzdGFjay5jb208YnI+PGI+U2VudDo8L2I+IE1v bmRheSwgTWFyY2ggMTQsIDIwMTYgODo1MSBBTTxicj48Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IGpvYWNoaW0uZmFiaW5p QHR1d2llbi5hYy5hdDsgQnJpYW4gVHJhbW1lbGw8YnI+PGI+Q2M6PC9iPiBpcHBtQGlldGYub3Jn PGJyPjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBSZTogW2lwcG1dIElQUE0gV0cgU3RhdHVzIGFuZCBBZ2VuZGEg Zm9yIElFVEYgOTUgQnVlbm9zIEFpcmVzPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2 PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD48ZGl2PjxkaXYgaWQ9Inl1 aV8zXzE2XzBfMV8xNDU3OTU5Mzc1NTYzXzE1MTc0Ij48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9 J2JhY2tncm91bmQ6d2hpdGUnPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiSGVsdmV0aWNhIE5l dWUiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0O2JhY2tncm91bmQ6 d2hpdGUnPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiSGVsdmV0aWNhIE5ldWUiO2NvbG9yOmJs YWNrJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdiBpZD0ieXVpXzNfMTZf MF8xXzE0NTc5NTkzNzU1NjNfMTUxNTkiPjxkaXYgaWQ9Inl1aV8zXzE2XzBfMV8xNDU3OTU5Mzc1 NTYzXzE1MTU4Ij48ZGl2IGlkPSJ5dWlfM18xNl8wXzFfMTQ1Nzk1OTM3NTU2M18xNTE1NyI+PGRp diBpZD0ieXVpXzNfMTZfMF8xXzE0NTc5NTkzNzU1NjNfMTUxNzciPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bCBzdHlsZT0nYmFja2dyb3VuZDp3aGl0ZSc+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJIZWx2 ZXRpY2EgTmV1ZSI7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZndDtBbHRob3VnaCBvdXIgZHJhZnQgaXMgdGhlIGlu aXRpYWwgdHJpZ2dlciwgbXkgZm9jdXMgd2FzIG9uIHBvaW50aW5nIG91dDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9z cGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2IGlkPSJ5dWlfM18xNl8wXzFfMTQ1Nzk1OTM3NTU2M18xNTE3NyI+ PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdiYWNrZ3JvdW5kOndoaXRlJz48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0n Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkhlbHZldGljYSBOZXVlIjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jmd0O3NvbWUgZXh0ZW5z aW9uIHRvIGltcHJvdmUgdGhlIHByb3Bvc2VkIHByb2Nlc3MuPGJyPiZndDtTb21lIGlwcG0gZHJh ZnRzIHRoYXQgZG8gbm90IGdhdGhlciBsYXJnZSBpbnRlcmVzdCBpbiB0aGUgZ3JvdXAgbWF5IGJl PGJyPiZndDtvZiBzdHJhdGVnaWMgaW1wb3J0YW5jZSB0byBpcHBtLiAmbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdiBpZD0ieXVpXzNfMTZfMF8xXzE0NTc5NTkzNzU1NjNfMTUx NzciPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nYmFja2dyb3VuZDp3aGl0ZSc+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJIZWx2ZXRpY2EgTmV1ZSI7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7 PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2IGlkPSJ5dWlfM18xNl8wXzFfMTQ1Nzk1OTM3NTU2 M18xNTE3NyI+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdiYWNrZ3JvdW5kOndoaXRlJz48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkhlbHZldGljYSBOZXVlIjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+R3V5cywg ZG8gd2UgaGF2ZSBvdGhlciBvbGRlciBSRkNzIHdoaWNoIG5lZWQgSVB2NiBzdXBwb3J0IChvciBz b21ldGhpbmcgZWxzZSkgYWRkZWQ/PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXYgaWQ9 Inl1aV8zXzE2XzBfMV8xNDU3OTU5Mzc1NTYzXzE1MTc3Ij48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5 bGU9J2JhY2tncm91bmQ6d2hpdGUnPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiSGVsdmV0aWNh IE5ldWUiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRp diBpZD0ieXVpXzNfMTZfMF8xXzE0NTc5NTkzNzU1NjNfMTUxNzciPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bCBzdHlsZT0nYmFja2dyb3VuZDp3aGl0ZSc+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJIZWx2 ZXRpY2EgTmV1ZSI7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPk5hbGluaTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rp dj48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48L2JvZHk+PC9odG1sPg== --_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCCEB1NJFPSRVEXG0re_-- From nobody Mon Mar 14 10:42:06 2016 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 1661712DC0C; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:42:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.222 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yo9cv0Im1tc8; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from teledg002ba020.telecomitalia.it (teledg002ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A04D12DC1F; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TELCAH006BA020.telecomitalia.local (10.188.101.224) by teledg002ba020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.101.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.266.1; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:41:42 +0100 Received: from TELMBB001BA020.telecomitalia.local ([169.254.2.43]) by telcah006ba020.telecomitalia.local ([10.188.101.224]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:41:41 +0100 From: Fioccola Giuseppe To: Brian Trammell , "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires Thread-Index: AQHRe5Yb2eBUaP6Tt0SZCsAuuJgSFp9YtIvg Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:41:41 +0000 Message-ID: <23126F6FC5CA3E44916CF99D4E0B878B44F9962A@TELMBB001BA020.telecomitalia.local> References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: it-IT X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.188.101.195] x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: [ippm] R: IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 14 Mar 2016 17:42:04 -0000 Brian and Bill, Many thanks for the opportunity. A discussion on next steps for the three "coloring" drafts is a good point. We are updating the drafts after comments received from mailing list and we= will send the presentation soon. Regards, Giuseppe -----Messaggio originale----- Da: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di Brian Trammell Inviato: venerd=EC 11 marzo 2016 14:01 A: ippm@ietf.org Oggetto: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires Greetings, all, First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent producti= vity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) documents published= since Yokohama: - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Pe= rformance Metrics (IPPM) - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Per= formance Metrics (IPPM) - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement Protoc= ol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) Registries for the One-Way= Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) Differentiated Service Cod= e Point and Explicit Congestion Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Act= ive Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) In addition: - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered AUTH48 - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in queue Well done, IPPM! With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to plan our= agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of active Working= Group drafts: - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a second WGL= C. We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see dratf-i= etf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see where the= working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. First, we hav= e seen a lot of discussion on what we call the "hybrid/coloring cluster", s= o I think we should have a discussion about approaches here, how they fit t= ogether, and what if anything we should consider adopting in this space: - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like to pr= opose a single presentation about all three followed by a long discussion s= lot. There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and it = seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption call for too. All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time for w= ork that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the end of t= he agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any substantia= l discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute lightning talks, a= nd allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new drafts having priority= over ones that have already been presented. We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, but ther= e is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, so we'd pr= opose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 or 45 minute= s long: 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, 45m) draft-tempia-ippm-p3m draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext Discussion; decision on call to adopt? 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) Discussion: decision on call to adopt? 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those with ne= w work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning talk slot. Cheers, Brian and Bill (chair hats) 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 nobody Tue Mar 15 01:58:24 2016 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 0149312D968 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:58:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PrWtiBjmYrz7 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B8212D514 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2:5cab:c906:7d10:2cab] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2:5cab:c906:7d10:2cab]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 305A61A0277; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:58:12 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C5566C72-01B0-48E8-9C8B-2F0B97A4A654"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:58:11 +0100 Message-Id: References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> <1F8D111D-CB2E-43BA-B399-89679A4220B2@trammell.ch> To: Srivathsa S X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: Peyush Gupta , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 15 Mar 2016 08:58:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C5566C72-01B0-48E8-9C8B-2F0B97A4A654 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii hi Srivathsa, > On 15 Mar 2016, at 04:20, Srivathsa S wrote: >=20 > Hi Brian, >=20 > Just wanted to point out something. > In the last 2 meetings our drafts were the last to be presented. As = the time was less and people were in a hurry to leave/finish the = meeting, not much discussion could happen. Infact in the first meeting I = just got 3 minutes to brief about the draft...I understand that as = chairs you are doing your best to keep discussions on time, but = sometimes discussions does take more time... There are two issues here: we're trying to keep the discussions on time, = and we are trying to make better use of the time that we have for = current working group documents as well as documents for which there is = demonstrated interest in eventual adoption, based on discussion on the = mailing list. > Atleast this time, can you please prioritize our presentation/talk in = the middle part of the meeting so that we can take questions and or = people would have little more time to ponder over these drafts? I can't find much substantive discussion on these drafts in the mailing = list archive since Yokohama, certainly not as much as those drafts which = have been placed in the main part of the agenda. On review of the list = archive, the only reply that I can see is an open question as to whether = or not TWAMP is appropriate as a basis for the work you're presenting. > We are trying to give a different dimension to TWAMP so that its full = potential can be utilized to measure lot more things which are the need = of the hour. I personally appreciate the goals you've set out for this work. But as = chair, I would like to see the question about applicability hashed out a = bit more in mailing list discussion to see if there's anything the WG as = a whole would like to consider eventually adopting here. Having new work = which is on charter is not enough to guarantee eventual adoption: the = working group has to consider it useful enough to contribute to and = review the documents after adoption, and you have to make the case to = the working group as to why it's important. Until then, I'm sorry, but what we can we can offer is five minutes in = the lightning talk session at the end of the agenda to present deltas. Regards, Brian > Regards, > Srivathsa >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Vinayak Hegde = wrote: > Thanks. That will work. >=20 > Regards > Vinayak >=20 > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Brian Trammell = wrote: > > hi Vinayak, > > > > I haven't seen much discussion on these since Yokohama. Five minutes = should be enough to present deltas. We can put you down for a lightning = talk in the returning-work queue. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Brian (chair hat) > > > >> On 11 Mar 2016, at 22:16, Vinayak Hegde wrote: > >> > >> Hi Brian, Bill, > >> > >> We would like a 15min slot for "Monitoring Service KPIs using = TWAMP". > >> During the remote presentation in Yokohama, we received some = feedback > >> from Al, Nalini and Greg. We are planning to incorporate that = feedback > >> and present a delta of the changes. New draft will be ready by next > >> weekend. We have already presented this work twice in the IPPM WG = and > >> would like the group to adopt it. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Vinayak > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Brian Trammell = wrote: > >>> Greetings, all, > >>> > >>> First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent = productivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) = documents published since Yokohama: > >>> > >>> - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis) > >>> A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > >>> - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis) > >>> A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) > >>> - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec) > >>> IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement > >>> Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) > >>> - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry) > >>> Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) > >>> - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor) > >>> Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion > >>> Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement > >>> Protocol (TWAMP) > >>> > >>> In addition: > >>> > >>> - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered = AUTH48 > >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in = queue > >>> > >>> Well done, IPPM! > >>> > >>> > >>> With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to = plan our agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of = active Working Group drafts: > >>> > >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday. > >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments. > >>> - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a = second WGLC. > >>> > >>> We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these. > >>> > >>> We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to = see dratf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March: > >>> > >>> - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang > >>> - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry > >>> > >>> We'll want time on the agenda for these, too. > >>> > >>> Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see = where the working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. = First, we have seen a lot of discussion on what we call the = "hybrid/coloring cluster", so I think we should have a discussion about = approaches here, how they fit together, and what if anything we should = consider adopting in this space: > >>> > >>> - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > >>> - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > >>> - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext > >>> > >>> We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would = like to propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long = discussion slot. > >>> > >>> There's also been some discussion on = draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and it seems like this one might be close = enough to make an adoption call for too. > >>> > >>> All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve = time for work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at = the end of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without = any substantial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute = lightning talks, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new = drafts having priority over ones that have already been presented. > >>> > >>> We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, = but there is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, = so we'd propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 = or 45 minutes long: > >>> > >>> 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m) > >>> 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry > >>> WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m) > >>> 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option > >>> WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m) > >>> 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics > >>> new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m) > >>> 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, = 45m) > >>> draft-tempia-ippm-p3m > >>> draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework > >>> draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext > >>> Discussion; decision on call to adopt? > >>> 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m) > >>> Discussion: decision on call to adopt? > >>> 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far: > >>> draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky) > >>> draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky) > >>> > >>> Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. = Those with new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a = lightning talk slot. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Brian and Bill (chair hats) > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ippm mailing list > >>> ippm@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > >>> > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Regards, > Srivathsa --Apple-Mail=_C5566C72-01B0-48E8-9C8B-2F0B97A4A654 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW586jAAoJEIoSt78L6kajNnoP/je9Eeq/K/1fah8anPjPPfgH 0pIxV56mK5WczF37tmbzwQu9lJMvAOGau1qcMyyjRP2gC0+h/lrW7nBtdu8txW/N tcKfOcTdi7VNcQI6s+xMNHsuY1BHWPdh+OkoAcZilnthuafH34KGtyjWj4KUAbQy 7dfpIQ1An8yaCTrTx/F77ZCryoAuq7E0GOnqrMaB7l6GPGU1dy6V3ttrHyLJq5n1 PAS19NAe5PyCP/UgHtu+ykYuZQFfvkmOgcdFmjJHhPPo3JhRSUDJ2d9aw88MV+SC 4aC0NH3rTfl+IeZiEQM8x5toUpLX6rVDmwFl471hU8KL6hCxc8PWlrh50Vos3SAv sAAYX4dZz0Z+exgcUcw9S67p2NJn5jM89O/ZUD6RX1dO4H7c6PkuoEEr9jIVGjEu xKli0iAAF3O8BEx4f++C8mQmEoOaKnpob5eEo9mqM5ojei5GxVKBGBbnYfUq3x/U 8xG2kqAS5d/VLbUcUvl0SKRM2azFMph7mSYCM/T3oiZXJZ7l6tliwaluW9wNG1BR 9TqKh6MTNc4+hMLr7GBWAu6jostC53hC15fTZ+5uLKh4HEJ38qJBOr6GnGxCv8uJ JifbqpROyGtrL79xssiTf5vOEvZSIzdBfjtsxCIsB30lNKJxJMjaIKkFASO/gO43 gRrATX5pMdzAw5Nhg6QS =TSr8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_C5566C72-01B0-48E8-9C8B-2F0B97A4A654-- From nobody Sat Mar 19 11:04:33 2016 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 3498912D61A; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:04:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KnMIeoIuMBty; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E2B12D52B; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6B3122B8B; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 14:09:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A589E01A6; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 14:04:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 14:04:29 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: IPPM Chairs , "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 14:04:27 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ippm] IPPM WGLC of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option Thread-Index: AdF4AOYx2Tc3srNvREq/yPg/wDMplwKBt6uA Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCD4BB@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCD4BBNJFPSRVEXG0re_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WGLC of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 18:04:32 -0000 --_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCD4BBNJFPSRVEXG0re_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've read several versions, it's good, and I'm late in saying so... Al From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bill Cerveny Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 6:36 PM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] IPPM WGLC of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option Dear IPPM WG participants: WG last call on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option begins today, and will conc= lude Friday, March 18, 2016. Please send any comments (including "I've read= it and it's good" :) ) to the ippm@ietf.org list. For reference, draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option can be found at: https://dat= atracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option/ Abstract To assess performance problems, measurements based on optional sequence numbers and timing may be embedded in each packet. Such measurements may be interpreted in real-time or after the fact. An implementation of the existing IPv6 Destination Options extension header, the Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Options extension header as well as the field limits, calculations, and usage of the PDM in measurement are included in this document. Thanks, Bill Cerveny IPPM WG co-chair --_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCD4BBNJFPSRVEXG0re_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I’ve read seve= ral versions, it’s good,

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black'>and I= ’m late in saying so...

Al=

 

<= div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0= in 0in'>

From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Bill Cerveny
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 6:36 PMTo: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] IPPM WGLC of draft-iet= f-ippm-6man-pdm-option

 

Dear IPPM WG participants:=

 

WG last call on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option begins today,= and will conclude Friday, March 18, 2016. Please send any comments (includ= ing "I've read it and it's good" :) ) to the ippm@ietf.org list.

 

For refer= ence, draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option can be found at: https://data= tracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option/

 

Abstract

 

 

   To assess performance problems,  measurement= s based on optional

  &n= bsp;sequence numbers and timing may be embedded in each packet.  Such<= o:p>

   measurements may= be interpreted in real-time or after the fact. An

   implementation of the existing IPv6 Dest= ination Options extension

&nb= sp;  header, the Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination<= o:p>

   Options extensio= n header as well as the field limits, calculations,

   and usage of the PDM in measurement are= included in this document.

 

 =

Thanks,

 

Bill Ce= rveny

IPPM WG co-chair

 

= --_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCD4BBNJFPSRVEXG0re_-- From nobody Sun Mar 20 20:16:38 2016 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 DAD8D12D64C; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 20:16:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GLDWWRM29G9E; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 20:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0106.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4CF812D526; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 20:16:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Qq8IkXvkLdHHakKR2Rrc5iAhlQTr9jd/DP7nH4ZeB1U=; b=RdtuHY8iARPy8kEiKDKdwr34NgAoDmEhljp7LrYDSvbi5lE2SwBurIowwT8Eak4WBxXh2P2IAzYwHFZSWGqdS4V03F1tOVNbhCdRMvI3J3isP6+PujFEvFKQmtVKw8EGLdTVNiUa6UckAR+lCOtmqHo0i7yj3tsDStO2fOdgEGk= Received: from BY2PR0501MB2133.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.198.19) by BY2PR0501MB2136.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.198.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.434.16; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 03:16:08 +0000 Received: from BY2PR0501MB2133.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.198.19]) by BY2PR0501MB2133.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.198.19]) with mapi id 15.01.0434.021; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 03:16:07 +0000 From: Srivathsa Sarangapani To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" , IPPM Chairs , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] IPPM WGLC of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option Thread-Index: AQHRgyACxqYHqNVicUKN0dOo0xOWBg== Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 03:16:07 +0000 Message-ID: <5B37CBAD-985C-4C48-854B-8DA36FC037EF@juniper.net> References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCD4BB@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCD4BB@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.160212 authentication-results: att.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;att.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.11] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d73d8337-4e2d-4e42-7497-08d351372516 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0501MB2136; 5:cfuP8BD/b2w8YBnpbI4zO1IykdeykyjulxIo0UH66Bcg0KgRUyq6A4r/egkNMnlC1cBuQ02qAVVOFRG0MDyM4p9kLmDb3zlUzk55fVJzi461zLwiy53laf4A7gemcEDRsy5/1ZUGueOrzztKhAOnLw==; 24:iOPXwOA9rKZwS5f+f6CN1MNLVPZpIqb5WotZ1jgOvfwUgA1noXft2opxXKeSijaPzkgQqqqeqRZbety9oZ2YYZ9ppyrMtHOK+HWBjt/wVPc= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR0501MB2136; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:BY2PR0501MB2136; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0501MB2136; x-forefront-prvs: 0888B1D284 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(377454003)(164054003)(5001770100001)(83716003)(4001350100001)(86362001)(189998001)(36756003)(5004730100002)(82746002)(83506001)(3660700001)(5002640100001)(19617315012)(107886002)(3280700002)(230783001)(81166005)(2501003)(87936001)(19625215002)(102836003)(1220700001)(5008740100001)(106116001)(76176999)(50986999)(54356999)(33656002)(122556002)(19300405004)(2900100001)(2950100001)(6116002)(77096005)(92566002)(10400500002)(99286002)(790700001)(586003)(15975445007)(19580405001)(19580395003)(16236675004)(66066001)(217873001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0501MB2136; H:BY2PR0501MB2133.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5B37CBAD985C4C48854B8DA36FC037EFjunipernet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Mar 2016 03:16:07.6182 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0501MB2136 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WGLC of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 21 Mar 2016 03:16:35 -0000 --_000_5B37CBAD985C4C48854B8DA36FC037EFjunipernet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSd2ZSByZWFkIGl0IGFuZCBpdCdzIGdvb2QuDQoNCuKAlA0KUmVnYXJkcywNClZhdGhzYQ0KDQoN CkZyb206ICJNT1JUT04sIEFMRlJFRCBDIChBTCkiIDxhY21vcnRvbkBhdHQuY29tPG1haWx0bzph Y21vcnRvbkBhdHQuY29tPj4NCkRhdGU6IFNhdHVyZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAxOSwgMjAxNiBhdCAxMToz NCBQTQ0KVG86IElQUE0gQ2hhaXJzIDxpcHBtLWNoYWlyc0BpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86aXBwbS1j aGFpcnNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+PiwgImlwcG1AaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmlwcG1AaWV0Zi5vcmc+IiA8 aXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86aXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZz4+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2lwcG1d IElQUE0gV0dMQyBvZiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0tNm1hbi1wZG0tb3B0aW9uDQoNCknigJl2ZSBy ZWFkIHNldmVyYWwgdmVyc2lvbnMsIGl04oCZcyBnb29kLA0KYW5kIEnigJltIGxhdGUgaW4gc2F5 aW5nIHNvLi4uDQpBbA0KDQpGcm9tOiBpcHBtIFttYWlsdG86aXBwbS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3Jn XSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgQmlsbCBDZXJ2ZW55DQpTZW50OiBTdW5kYXksIE1hcmNoIDA2LCAyMDE2 IDY6MzYgUE0NClRvOiBpcHBtQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzppcHBtQGlldGYub3JnPg0KU3ViamVj dDogW2lwcG1dIElQUE0gV0dMQyBvZiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0tNm1hbi1wZG0tb3B0aW9uDQoN CkRlYXIgSVBQTSBXRyBwYXJ0aWNpcGFudHM6DQoNCldHIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRm LWlwcG0tNm1hbi1wZG0tb3B0aW9uIGJlZ2lucyB0b2RheSwgYW5kIHdpbGwgY29uY2x1ZGUgRnJp ZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAxOCwgMjAxNi4gUGxlYXNlIHNlbmQgYW55IGNvbW1lbnRzIChpbmNsdWRpbmcg IkkndmUgcmVhZCBpdCBhbmQgaXQncyBnb29kIiA6KSApIHRvIHRoZSBpcHBtQGlldGYub3JnPG1h aWx0bzppcHBtQGlldGYub3JnPiBsaXN0Lg0KDQpGb3IgcmVmZXJlbmNlLCBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlw cG0tNm1hbi1wZG0tb3B0aW9uIGNhbiBiZSBmb3VuZCBhdDogaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5p ZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pcHBtLTZtYW4tcGRtLW9wdGlvbi8NCg0KQWJzdHJhY3QN Cg0KDQogICBUbyBhc3Nlc3MgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgcHJvYmxlbXMsICBtZWFzdXJlbWVudHMgYmFz ZWQgb24gb3B0aW9uYWwNCiAgIHNlcXVlbmNlIG51bWJlcnMgYW5kIHRpbWluZyBtYXkgYmUgZW1i ZWRkZWQgaW4gZWFjaCBwYWNrZXQuICBTdWNoDQogICBtZWFzdXJlbWVudHMgbWF5IGJlIGludGVy cHJldGVkIGluIHJlYWwtdGltZSBvciBhZnRlciB0aGUgZmFjdC4gQW4NCiAgIGltcGxlbWVudGF0 aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBleGlzdGluZyBJUHY2IERlc3RpbmF0aW9uIE9wdGlvbnMgZXh0ZW5zaW9uDQog ICBoZWFkZXIsIHRoZSBQZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBhbmQgRGlhZ25vc3RpYyBNZXRyaWNzIChQRE0pIERl c3RpbmF0aW9uDQogICBPcHRpb25zIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBoZWFkZXIgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyB0aGUgZmll bGQgbGltaXRzLCBjYWxjdWxhdGlvbnMsDQogICBhbmQgdXNhZ2Ugb2YgdGhlIFBETSBpbiBtZWFz dXJlbWVudCBhcmUgaW5jbHVkZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudC4NCg0KDQpUaGFua3MsDQoNCkJp bGwgQ2VydmVueQ0KSVBQTSBXRyBjby1jaGFpcg0KDQo= --_000_5B37CBAD985C4C48854B8DA36FC037EFjunipernet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdy YXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgLXdlYmtpdC1saW5lLWJy ZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsgY29sb3I6IHJnYigwLCAwLCAwKTsgZm9udC1zaXplOiAx NHB4OyBmb250LWZhbWlseTogJ0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3Jywgc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsiPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxk aXY+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuLHNlcmlmIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1z aXplOiAxNnB4OyI+SSd2ZSByZWFkIGl0IGFuZCBpdCdzIGdvb2QuPC9zcGFuPjwvZm9udD48L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXY+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuLHNlcmlmIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0i Zm9udC1zaXplOiAxNnB4OyI+PGJyPg0KPC9zcGFuPjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+4oCUJm5i c3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjogcmdiKDAsIDAsIDApOyBmb250LWZhbWlseTog J0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3Jywgc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsgZm9udC1zaXplOiAxNHB4OyI+DQo8ZGl2IGlkPSJN QUNfT1VUTE9PS19TSUdOQVRVUkUiPg0KPGRpdj5SZWdhcmRzLDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5WYXRoc2E8 L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+PGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IHN0 eWxlPSJjb2xvcjogcmdiKDAsIDAsIDApOyBmb250LWZhbWlseTogJ0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3Jywgc2Fu cy1zZXJpZjsgZm9udC1zaXplOiAxNHB4OyI+DQo8YnI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxzcGFuIGlkPSJPTEtf U1JDX0JPRFlfU0VDVElPTiIgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOiByZ2IoMCwgMCwgMCk7IGZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiAnQ291cmllciBOZXcnLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmOyBmb250LXNpemU6IDE0cHg7Ij4NCjxkaXYgc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7IGZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMnB0OyB0ZXh0LWFsaWduOmxlZnQ7 IGNvbG9yOmJsYWNrOyBCT1JERVItQk9UVE9NOiBtZWRpdW0gbm9uZTsgQk9SREVSLUxFRlQ6IG1l ZGl1bSBub25lOyBQQURESU5HLUJPVFRPTTogMGluOyBQQURESU5HLUxFRlQ6IDBpbjsgUEFERElO Ry1SSUdIVDogMGluOyBCT1JERVItVE9QOiAjYjVjNGRmIDFwdCBzb2xpZDsgQk9SREVSLVJJR0hU OiBtZWRpdW0gbm9uZTsgUEFERElORy1UT1A6IDNwdCI+DQo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC13ZWln aHQ6Ym9sZCI+RnJvbTogPC9zcGFuPiZxdW90O01PUlRPTiwgQUxGUkVEIEMgKEFMKSZxdW90OyAm bHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmFjbW9ydG9uQGF0dC5jb20iPmFjbW9ydG9uQGF0dC5jb208L2E+ Jmd0Ozxicj4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5EYXRlOiA8L3NwYW4+U2F0 dXJkYXksIE1hcmNoIDE5LCAyMDE2IGF0IDExOjM0IFBNPGJyPg0KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQt d2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQiPlRvOiA8L3NwYW4+SVBQTSBDaGFpcnMgJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpp cHBtLWNoYWlyc0BpZXRmLm9yZyI+aXBwbS1jaGFpcnNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+Jmd0OywgJnF1b3Q7 PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmlwcG1AaWV0Zi5vcmciPmlwcG1AaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+JnF1b3Q7ICZs dDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86aXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZyI+aXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJy Pg0KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtd2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQiPlN1YmplY3Q6IDwvc3Bhbj5SZTogW2lw cG1dIElQUE0gV0dMQyBvZiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0tNm1hbi1wZG0tb3B0aW9uPGJyPg0KPC9k aXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiB4bWxuczp2PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3Nv ZnQtY29tOnZtbCIgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2Zm aWNlIiB4bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3b3JkIiB4bWxu czptPSJodHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEyL29tbWwiIHht bG5zPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVy YXRvciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTQgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0 eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNl DQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9 DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2 Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250 LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0K YTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29s b3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5N c29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xsb3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVy cGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTcNCgl7 bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29uYWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3 IjsNCgljb2xvcjpibGFjazt9DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpleHBv cnQtb25seTsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXpl OjguNWluIDExLjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW46MS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW47fQ0KZGl2Lldv cmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3Rl IG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAy NiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hh cGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+ DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+DQo8ZGl2IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBs aW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxlIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+DQo8 cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOiAxMXB0OyBmb250LWZh bWlseTogJ0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JzsgY29sb3I6IGJsYWNrOyI+SeKAmXZlIHJlYWQgc2V2ZXJhbCB2 ZXJzaW9ucywgaXTigJlzIGdvb2QsDQo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOiAxMXB0OyBmb250LWZhbWlseTogJ0Nv dXJpZXIgTmV3JzsgY29sb3I6IGJsYWNrOyI+YW5kIEnigJltIGxhdGUgaW4gc2F5aW5nIHNvLi4u PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTogMTFwdDsgZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6ICdDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyc7IGNvbG9yOiBibGFj azsiPkFsPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTogMTFwdDsgZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6ICdDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyc7IGNvbG9y OiBibGFjazsiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRl cjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkIGJsdWUgMS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBpbiA0 LjBwdCI+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBzdHlsZT0iYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7Ym9yZGVyLXRvcDpzb2xpZCAj QjVDNERGIDEuMHB0O3BhZGRpbmc6My4wcHQgMGluIDBpbiAwaW4iPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTogMTBwdDsgZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IFRhaG9t YSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsiPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOiAx MHB0OyBmb250LWZhbWlseTogVGFob21hLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmOyI+IGlwcG0gWzxhIGhyZWY9Im1h aWx0bzppcHBtLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmciPm1haWx0bzppcHBtLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8 L2E+XQ0KPGI+T24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIDwvYj5CaWxsIENlcnZlbnk8YnI+DQo8Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4g U3VuZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAwNiwgMjAxNiA2OjM2IFBNPGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiA8YSBocmVmPSJt YWlsdG86aXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZyI+aXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT48YnI+DQo8Yj5TdWJqZWN0Ojwv Yj4gW2lwcG1dIElQUE0gV0dMQyBvZiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0tNm1hbi1wZG0tb3B0aW9uPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+RGVhciBJUFBNIFdH IHBhcnRpY2lwYW50czo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFs Ij48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPldHIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0tNm1hbi1wZG0tb3B0aW9uIGJlZ2lu cyB0b2RheSwgYW5kIHdpbGwgY29uY2x1ZGUgRnJpZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAxOCwgMjAxNi4gUGxlYXNl IHNlbmQgYW55IGNvbW1lbnRzIChpbmNsdWRpbmcgJnF1b3Q7SSd2ZSByZWFkIGl0IGFuZCBpdCdz IGdvb2QmcXVvdDsgOikgKSB0byB0aGUmbmJzcDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86aXBwbUBpZXRmLm9y ZyI+aXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mbmJzcDtsaXN0LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+Rm9yIHJlZmVyZW5jZSwgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pcHBtLTZtYW4t cGRtLW9wdGlvbiBjYW4gYmUgZm91bmQgYXQ6Jm5ic3A7PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJh Y2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pcHBtLTZtYW4tcGRtLW9wdGlvbi8iPmh0dHBz Oi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtaXBwbS02bWFuLXBkbS1vcHRp b24vPC9hPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9y bWFsIj5BYnN0cmFjdDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9y bWFsIj4mbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7VG8gYXNzZXNzIHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIHByb2JsZW1zLCAmbmJzcDtt ZWFzdXJlbWVudHMgYmFzZWQgb24gb3B0aW9uYWw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp dj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDtzZXF1ZW5jZSBudW1iZXJzIGFu ZCB0aW1pbmcgbWF5IGJlIGVtYmVkZGVkIGluIGVhY2ggcGFja2V0LiAmbmJzcDtTdWNoPG86cD48 L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj4mbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7bWVhc3VyZW1lbnRzIG1heSBiZSBpbnRlcnByZXRlZCBpbiByZWFsLXRpbWUgb3IgYWZ0ZXIg dGhlIGZhY3QuIEFuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj4mbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7aW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nIElQdjYg RGVzdGluYXRpb24gT3B0aW9ucyBleHRlbnNpb248bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp dj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDtoZWFkZXIsIHRoZSBQZXJmb3Jt YW5jZSBhbmQgRGlhZ25vc3RpYyBNZXRyaWNzIChQRE0pIERlc3RpbmF0aW9uPG86cD48L286cD48 L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj4mbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7T3B0 aW9ucyBleHRlbnNpb24gaGVhZGVyIGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgdGhlIGZpZWxkIGxpbWl0cywgY2FsY3Vs YXRpb25zLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwO2FuZCB1c2FnZSBvZiB0aGUgUERNIGluIG1lYXN1cmVtZW50IGFyZSBp bmNsdWRlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9k aXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+VGhhbmtzLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0K PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+ DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5CaWxsIENlcnZlbnk8bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPklQUE0gV0cgY28t Y2hhaXI8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9zcGFuPg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_5B37CBAD985C4C48854B8DA36FC037EFjunipernet_-- From nobody Mon Mar 21 05:47:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16BB312D76D; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:47:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160321124713.31916.6865.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:47:13 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:47:13 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. Title : Registry for Performance Metrics Authors : Marcelo Bagnulo Benoit Claise Philip Eardley Al Morton Aamer Akhter Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-06.txt Pages : 27 Date : 2016-03-21 Abstract: This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics registry and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This document also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric requesters and reviewers. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 21 08:33:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191B112D8B4; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160321153303.31945.9473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 08:33:03 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-00.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:33:03 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics of the IETF. Title : Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Data Model Authors : Ruth Civil Al Morton Lianshu Zheng Reshad Rahman Mahesh Jethanandani Kostas Pentikousis Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-00.txt Pages : 58 Date : 2016-03-21 Abstract: This document specifies a data model for client and server implementations of the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP). We define the TWAMP data model through Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams and formally specify it using YANG. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 21 09:01:08 2016 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 8FB6912D8F8 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:01:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4qSJYKUOBx3D for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911A912D8F6 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FB812177B; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F39E004F; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:00:28 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Gregory Mirsky , Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:00:27 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Adoption of initial registry and TWAMP model drafts Thread-Index: AQHRdWaybEskv5fROE6ZnywYPYLX559H45uwgBxB3mA= Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCD559@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <4EEEB530-A331-46E7-A87F-E7338564DE1A@trammell.ch> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112219F6DFF@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112219F6DFF@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> 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 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption of initial registry and TWAMP model drafts X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 21 Mar 2016 16:01:02 -0000 IPPM,=20 We have submitted the new draft covering (most) comments over the last few months and the discussion during adoption: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/ Hi Greg,=20 We addressed your comment pertaining to dynamic port range=20 restriction in this version. However, two of us searched hard drives and archives and were unable to locate additional comments/mail from you since November. However, I have been subconsciously searching soft memory, and I have a recollection of a question from you about including the other/new TWAMP feature RFCs in this draft. Perhaps this is one of the comments you are referring to? =20 It was our intention to cover optional features, and the model includes many of them.=20 Several new features have been approved and published since=20 we started, so we should include those in the next revision.=20 We'll also need to identify a simple extension mechanism, since ideas for new features continue to appear. regards, Al (for the co-authors) > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 11:16 AM > To: Brian Trammell; ippm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption of initial registry and TWAMP model drafts >=20 > Hi Brian, et. al, > I've sent comments to the TWAMP YANG model draft during WG adoption > call. Only one comment received acknowledgement from authors, thank you > Reshad. None of comments been addressed. Would authors be kind to review > the comments, respond on the list and make necessary changes? >=20 > Regards, > Greg >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:06 AM > To: ippm@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] Adoption of initial registry and TWAMP model drafts >=20 > Greetings, all, >=20 > Making a belated call for adoption: we have adopted two new milestones. >=20 > April 2016: submit a Standards Track document to the IESG for a YANG > model for managing TWAMP clients and servers (based on draft-cmzrjp...) >=20 > and >=20 > July 2016: submit a Standards Track document to the IESG defining > initial contents of performance metric registry (based on draft-morton- > ippm-initial-registry) >=20 > Authors: please submit ietf-00 revisions of these documents for > discussion at the meeting in Buenos Aires. >=20 > Many thanks, best regards, >=20 > Brian (chair hat) >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Tue Mar 22 05:39:30 2016 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 18AC112D632; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 05:39:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zxhZ742TL9Jb; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 05:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (usplmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5389712D55A; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 05:39:27 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f79fa6d0000057a9-89-56f13cdc001a Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usplmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 83.AA.22441.CDC31F65; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:38:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB106.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.123]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:39:25 -0400 From: Steve Baillargeon To: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" , "i-d-announce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHRg4cGOrzI+r5dOUu5taKOypN9I59lZNxg Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:39:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160321153303.31945.9473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160321153303.31945.9473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiO4dm49hBnfOm1ss2fWc2eLD3VyL ngfvmB2YPZYs+ckUwBjFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlbHr2iPGgt9iFSdftrI3MN4U7GLk4JAQMJFo XZfSxcgJZIpJXLi3nq2LkYtDSOAIo8T6iZehnOVAzoRFTCBVbAIWEuvnLmMGsUUEciTu/n7K AmIzCyhL7H01nxHEFhZwlJhxfAcryAIRASeJjpZICNNI4vELVpAKFgFViYcbjoJN4RXwlTj2 5AbYdCEBB4m+/i9gNZxAU5bf/Q4WZxSQldh99joTxCZxiVtP5jNB3CwgsWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/ rBC2ksTH3/PZIep1JBbs/sQGYWtLLFv4GmqvoMTJmU9YJjCKzUIydhaSlllIWmYhaVnAyLKK kaO0uCAnN93IcBMjMD6OSbA57mDc2+t5iFGAg1GJh9dg64cwIdbEsuLK3EOMEhzMSiK8260/ hgnxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLn/fbxcpiQQHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qBcdmx+zO3 zHlbVt3Crni6ruzkMvYEVYmJrOvmzPm4/6yMM5/Rz5AiCfcJzkfUzb/Y9M30vR4etXrFReG/ PkadFVU1xZ8Uam/8i+c26biZx7djjq68gzr7m5WNjkxZG//p62R8at3wWrBy8ol/nXOistp9 91btk2YXFbjA4+V7Xmvj3rk+F1t3KrEUZyQaajEXFScCAMPKBYKLAgAA Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-00.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 22 Mar 2016 12:39:29 -0000 Hi I see the following paragraph: reflector-udp-port This parameter defines the UDP port number that will be used by the Session= -Reflector for this TWAMP-Test session. The number is restricted to the dyn= amic port range (49152 ..65535). This value will be placed in the Receiver = Port field of the Request-TW-Session message. If this value is not set, the= device SHALL use the same port number as defined in the server-tcp-port pa= rameter of this twamp-session-request's parent twamp-client-ctrl-connection= . There is a an exception to the rule when this range is already allocated by= the reflector. This is the case when the reflector is a 3GPP radio node. More specially the WCDMA radio access technology uses the complete dynamic = port range where each WCDMA bearer is allocated a dynamic UDP port. To resolve this problem, it is best for the 3GPP radio node to completely a= void the dynamic port range and allocate one or a few available ports from = the user port range(1024-49151). Is it possible to change the reflector-udp-port from 1024 to 65535 and indi= cate a dynamic/private port is usually recommended? Regards Steve Baillargeon=20 -----Original Message----- From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf= .org Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 11:33 AM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-00.txt 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 of the IETF. Title : Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Data = Model Authors : Ruth Civil Al Morton Lianshu Zheng Reshad Rahman Mahesh Jethanandani Kostas Pentikousis Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-00.txt Pages : 58 Date : 2016-03-21 Abstract: This document specifies a data model for client and server implementations of the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP). We define the TWAMP data model through Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams and formally specify it using YANG. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Tue Mar 22 09:30:15 2016 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 A7A8A12DB42 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:30:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mUQkkAh4Jts7 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from teledg001ba020.telecomitalia.it (teledg001ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 395EE12D165 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TELCAH004BA020.telecomitalia.local (10.188.101.220) by teledg001ba020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.101.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.266.1; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:29:36 +0100 Received: from TELMBA001BA020.telecomitalia.local ([169.254.1.143]) by telcah004ba020.telecomitalia.local ([10.188.101.220]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:29:35 +0100 From: Fioccola Giuseppe To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-tempia-ippm-p3m-03.txt Thread-Index: AQHRg4gsFeP4kotgJE23pSdbYHfF+59kEUPQ Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:29:34 +0000 Message-ID: <23126F6FC5CA3E44916CF99D4E0B878B543A3245@TELMBA001BA020.telecomitalia.local> References: <20160321154142.31944.16716.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160321154142.31944.16716.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: it-IT X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.188.101.195] x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-tempia-ippm-p3m@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [ippm] I: New Version Notification for draft-tempia-ippm-p3m-03.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 22 Mar 2016 16:30:13 -0000 SGkgSVBQTWVycywNCldlIHB1Ymxpc2hlZCBhIG5ldyByZXZpc2lvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC10ZW1waWEt aXBwbS1wM20uIEluIGFkZGl0aW9uIHRvIGFkZHJlc3NpbmcgcmV2aWV3IGNvbW1lbnRzLCBpdCBs aXN0cyB0aGUgbWFya2luZyBtZXRob2QgdXNlIGNhc2VzLg0KQXMgYWx3YXlzIHlvdXIgc3VnZ2Vz dGlvbnMgYXJlIHdlbGNvbWUuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCg0KR2l1c2VwcGUNCg0KLS0tLS1NZXNzYWdn aW8gb3JpZ2luYWxlLS0tLS0NCkRhOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpp bnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQpJbnZpYXRvOiBsdW5lZMOsIDIxIG1hcnpvIDIwMTYg MTY6NDINCkE6IENhc3RhbGRlbGxpIEx1Y2EgTWFyaWE7IENhcGVsbG8gQWxlc3NhbmRybzsgQ29j aWdsaW8gTWF1cm87IEZpb2Njb2xhIEdpdXNlcHBlOyBBbGJlcnRvIFRlbXBpYSBCb25kYQ0KT2dn ZXR0bzogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC10ZW1waWEtaXBwbS1wM20t MDMudHh0DQoNCg0KQSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LXRlbXBpYS1pcHBtLXAzbS0w My50eHQgaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBieSBHaXVzZXBwZSBGaW9jY29s YSBhbmQgcG9zdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBJRVRGIHJlcG9zaXRvcnkuDQoNCk5hbWU6ICAgICAgICAgICBk cmFmdC10ZW1waWEtaXBwbS1wM20NClJldmlzaW9uOiAgICAgICAwMw0KVGl0bGU6ICAgICAgICAg IEEgcGFja2V0IGJhc2VkIG1ldGhvZCBmb3IgcGFzc2l2ZSBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBtb25pdG9yaW5n DQpEb2N1bWVudCBkYXRlOiAgMjAxNi0wMy0yMQ0KR3JvdXA6ICAgICAgICAgIEluZGl2aWR1YWwg U3VibWlzc2lvbg0KUGFnZXM6ICAgICAgICAgIDI0DQpVUkw6ICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly93 d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LXRlbXBpYS1pcHBtLXAzbS0wMy50eHQN ClN0YXR1czogICAgICAgICBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC10 ZW1waWEtaXBwbS1wM20vDQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9o dG1sL2RyYWZ0LXRlbXBpYS1pcHBtLXAzbS0wMw0KRGlmZjogICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3 LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJsMj1kcmFmdC10ZW1waWEtaXBwbS1wM20tMDMNCg0KQWJzdHJh Y3Q6DQogICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGRlc2NyaWJlcyBhIHBhc3NpdmUgbWV0aG9kIHRvIHBlcmZv cm0gcGFja2V0IGxvc3MsDQogICBkZWxheSBhbmQgaml0dGVyIG1lYXN1cmVtZW50cyBvbiBsaXZl IHRyYWZmaWMuICBUaGlzIG1ldGhvZCBpcyBiYXNlZA0KICAgb24gQWx0ZXJuYXRlIE1hcmtpbmcg KENvbG9yaW5nKSB0ZWNobmlxdWUuICBBIHJlcG9ydCBvbiB0aGUNCiAgIG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIGV4 cGVyaW1lbnQgZG9uZSBhdCBUZWxlY29tIEl0YWxpYSBpcyBleHBsYWluZWQgaW4gb3JkZXINCiAg IHRvIGdpdmUgYW4gZXhhbXBsZSBhbmQgc2hvdyB0aGUgbWV0aG9kIGFwcGxpY2FiaWxpdHkuICBU aGlzIHRlY2huaXF1ZQ0KICAgY2FuIGJlIGFwcGxpZWQgaW4gdmFyaW91cyBzaXR1YXRpb25zIGFz IGRldGFpbGVkIGluIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQuDQogICBUaGUgcHJldmlvdXMgSUVURiBkcmFmdHMg YWJvdXQgdGhpcyB0ZWNobmlxdWUgd2VyZToNCiAgIFtJLUQuY29jaWdsaW8tbWJvbmVkLW11bHRp Y2FzdC1wbV0gYW5kIFtJLUQudGVtcGlhLW9wc2F3Zy1wM21dLg0KDQoNCg0KDQpQbGVhc2Ugbm90 ZSB0aGF0IGl0IG1heSB0YWtlIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIG1pbnV0ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiBz dWJtaXNzaW9uIHVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1saXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFi bGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcuDQoNClRoZSBJRVRGIFNlY3JldGFyaWF0DQoNCg0KUXVlc3Rv IG1lc3NhZ2dpbyBlIGkgc3VvaSBhbGxlZ2F0aSBzb25vIGluZGlyaXp6YXRpIGVzY2x1c2l2YW1l bnRlIGFsbGUgcGVyc29uZSBpbmRpY2F0ZS4gTGEgZGlmZnVzaW9uZSwgY29waWEgbyBxdWFsc2lh c2kgYWx0cmEgYXppb25lIGRlcml2YW50ZSBkYWxsYSBjb25vc2NlbnphIGRpIHF1ZXN0ZSBpbmZv cm1hemlvbmkgc29ubyByaWdvcm9zYW1lbnRlIHZpZXRhdGUuIFF1YWxvcmEgYWJiaWF0ZSByaWNl dnV0byBxdWVzdG8gZG9jdW1lbnRvIHBlciBlcnJvcmUgc2lldGUgY29ydGVzZW1lbnRlIHByZWdh dGkgZGkgZGFybmUgaW1tZWRpYXRhIGNvbXVuaWNhemlvbmUgYWwgbWl0dGVudGUgZSBkaSBwcm92 dmVkZXJlIGFsbGEgc3VhIGRpc3RydXppb25lLCBHcmF6aWUuDQoNClRoaXMgZS1tYWlsIGFuZCBh bnkgYXR0YWNobWVudHMgaXMgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsIGFuZCBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBwcml2aWxlZ2Vk IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGludGVuZGVkIGZvciB0aGUgYWRkcmVzc2VlKHMpIG9ubHkuIERpc3NlbWlu YXRpb24sIGNvcHlpbmcsIHByaW50aW5nIG9yIHVzZSBieSBhbnlib2R5IGVsc2UgaXMgdW5hdXRo b3Jpc2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcmVjaXBpZW50LCBwbGVhc2UgZGVs ZXRlIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgYW55IGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIGFuZCBhZHZpc2UgdGhlIHNlbmRl ciBieSByZXR1cm4gZS1tYWlsLCBUaGFua3MuDQoNCg== From nobody Tue Mar 22 09:36:01 2016 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 CB62E12DB78 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.222 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jbejmPRD3-kg for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from teledg002ba020.telecomitalia.it (teledg002ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73CE812DB5D for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TELCAH005BA020.telecomitalia.local (10.188.101.222) by teledg002ba020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.101.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.266.1; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:35:54 +0100 Received: from TELMBA001BA020.telecomitalia.local ([169.254.1.143]) by telcah005ba020.telecomitalia.local ([10.188.101.222]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:35:54 +0100 From: Fioccola Giuseppe To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHRg4h1i1jyWqz8nEicirgrxg9hbZ9kEUkw Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:35:53 +0000 Message-ID: <23126F6FC5CA3E44916CF99D4E0B878B543A3256@TELMBA001BA020.telecomitalia.local> References: <20160321154342.31945.87712.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160321154342.31945.87712.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: it-IT X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.188.101.195] x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [ippm] I: New Version Notification for draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext-01.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 22 Mar 2016 16:36:00 -0000 SGkgSVBQTWVycywNCkluIHRoaXMgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gdGhlIHByaW1hcnkgY2hhbmdlIHRvIGRy YWZ0LWZpb2Njb2xhLWlwcG0tcmZjNjgxMi1hbHQtbWFyay1leHQgaXMgaW4gdGhlIERlbGF5IG1l YXN1cmVtZW50IHNlY3Rpb24sIHRoYXQgd2UgdXBkYXRlIGFmdGVyIGxhdGVzdCBjb21tZW50cy4N ClN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zIGFyZSBhbHdheXMgd2VsY29tZS4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KDQpHaXVzZXBwZQ0K DQotLS0tLU1lc3NhZ2dpbyBvcmlnaW5hbGUtLS0tLQ0KRGE6IGludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRm Lm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10NCkludmlhdG86IGx1bmVkw6wg MjEgbWFyem8gMjAxNiAxNjo0NA0KQTogRmlvY2NvbGEgR2l1c2VwcGU7IE1vdWxpIENoYW5kcmFt b3VsaTsgQWxleGFuZGVyIENsZW1tOyBDb2NpZ2xpbyBNYXVybzsgQWxleCBDbGVtbTsgQ2FwZWxs byBBbGVzc2FuZHJvDQpPZ2dldHRvOiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIGRyYWZ0 LWZpb2Njb2xhLWlwcG0tcmZjNjgxMi1hbHQtbWFyay1leHQtMDEudHh0DQoNCg0KQSBuZXcgdmVy c2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LWZpb2Njb2xhLWlwcG0tcmZjNjgxMi1hbHQtbWFyay1leHQtMDEu dHh0DQpoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5IEdpdXNlcHBlIEZpb2Njb2xh IGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCg0KTmFtZTogICAgICAgICAgIGRy YWZ0LWZpb2Njb2xhLWlwcG0tcmZjNjgxMi1hbHQtbWFyay1leHQNClJldmlzaW9uOiAgICAgICAw MQ0KVGl0bGU6ICAgICAgICAgIEFsdGVybmF0ZSBNYXJraW5nIEV4dGVuc2lvbiB0byBDaXNjbyBT TEEgUHJvdG9jb2wgUkZDNjgxMg0KRG9jdW1lbnQgZGF0ZTogIDIwMTYtMDMtMjENCkdyb3VwOiAg ICAgICAgICBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NClBhZ2VzOiAgICAgICAgICAxOQ0KVVJMOiAg ICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1maW9j Y29sYS1pcHBtLXJmYzY4MTItYWx0LW1hcmstZXh0LTAxLnR4dA0KU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgIGh0 dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWZpb2Njb2xhLWlwcG0tcmZjNjgx Mi1hbHQtbWFyay1leHQvDQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9o dG1sL2RyYWZ0LWZpb2Njb2xhLWlwcG0tcmZjNjgxMi1hbHQtbWFyay1leHQtMDENCkRpZmY6ICAg ICAgICAgICBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9yZmNkaWZmP3VybDI9ZHJhZnQtZmlvY2NvbGEt aXBwbS1yZmM2ODEyLWFsdC1tYXJrLWV4dC0wMQ0KDQpBYnN0cmFjdDoNCiAgIENpc2NvJ3MgU2Vy dmljZS1MZXZlbCBBc3N1cmFuY2UgUHJvdG9jb2wgKENpc2NvJ3MgU0xBIFByb3RvY29sKSBSRkMN CiAgIDY4MTIgW1JGQzY4MTJdIGlzIGEgUGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgTWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgcHJvdG9jb2wg dGhhdCBoYXMgYmVlbg0KICAgd2lkZWx5IGRlcGxveWVkLiAgVGhlIHByb3RvY29sIGlzIHVzZWQg dG8gbWVhc3VyZSBzZXJ2aWNlLWxldmVsDQogICBwYXJhbWV0ZXJzIHN1Y2ggYXMgbmV0d29yayBs YXRlbmN5LCBkZWxheSB2YXJpYXRpb24sIGFuZCBwYWNrZXQvZnJhbWUNCiAgIGxvc3MuICBUaGlz IGRvY3VtZW50IGRlc2NyaWJlcyBhbiBleHRlbnNpb24gdG8gdGhlIENpc2NvIFNMQSBQcm90b2Nv bA0KICAgTWVhc3VyZW1lbnQtVHlwZSBVRFAtTWVhc3VyZW1lbnQsIGluIG9yZGVyIHRvIGltcGxl bWVudCBhbHRlcm5hdGUNCiAgIG1hcmtpbmcgbWV0aG9kb2xvZ3kgZGV0YWlsZWQgaW4gW0ktRC50 ZW1waWEtaXBwbS1wM21dLiAgVGhlIGV4dGVuc2lvbg0KICAgaXMgdXNlZCB0byBtZWFzdXJlIHNl cnZpY2UgbGV2ZWwgcGFyYW1ldGVycyBieSBtYXJraW5nIHRlc3QgdHJhZmZpYy4NCg0KDQoNCg0K DQpQbGVhc2Ugbm90ZSB0aGF0IGl0IG1heSB0YWtlIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIG1pbnV0ZXMgZnJvbSB0 aGUgdGltZSBvZiBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIHVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1saXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBkaWZm IGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcuDQoNClRoZSBJRVRGIFNlY3JldGFyaWF0 DQoNCg0KUXVlc3RvIG1lc3NhZ2dpbyBlIGkgc3VvaSBhbGxlZ2F0aSBzb25vIGluZGlyaXp6YXRp IGVzY2x1c2l2YW1lbnRlIGFsbGUgcGVyc29uZSBpbmRpY2F0ZS4gTGEgZGlmZnVzaW9uZSwgY29w aWEgbyBxdWFsc2lhc2kgYWx0cmEgYXppb25lIGRlcml2YW50ZSBkYWxsYSBjb25vc2NlbnphIGRp IHF1ZXN0ZSBpbmZvcm1hemlvbmkgc29ubyByaWdvcm9zYW1lbnRlIHZpZXRhdGUuIFF1YWxvcmEg YWJiaWF0ZSByaWNldnV0byBxdWVzdG8gZG9jdW1lbnRvIHBlciBlcnJvcmUgc2lldGUgY29ydGVz ZW1lbnRlIHByZWdhdGkgZGkgZGFybmUgaW1tZWRpYXRhIGNvbXVuaWNhemlvbmUgYWwgbWl0dGVu dGUgZSBkaSBwcm92dmVkZXJlIGFsbGEgc3VhIGRpc3RydXppb25lLCBHcmF6aWUuDQoNClRoaXMg ZS1tYWlsIGFuZCBhbnkgYXR0YWNobWVudHMgaXMgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsIGFuZCBtYXkgY29udGFp biBwcml2aWxlZ2VkIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGludGVuZGVkIGZvciB0aGUgYWRkcmVzc2VlKHMpIG9u bHkuIERpc3NlbWluYXRpb24sIGNvcHlpbmcsIHByaW50aW5nIG9yIHVzZSBieSBhbnlib2R5IGVs c2UgaXMgdW5hdXRob3Jpc2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcmVjaXBpZW50 LCBwbGVhc2UgZGVsZXRlIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgYW55IGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIGFuZCBhZHZp c2UgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBieSByZXR1cm4gZS1tYWlsLCBUaGFua3MuDQoNCg== From nobody Thu Mar 24 02:12:13 2016 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 0DD4D12D1AD for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:12:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1_I3G8ZGwCjj for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6AA12D11B for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:2a49:8000::b9] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:2a49:8000::b9]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EF001A02C5 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:12:07 +0100 (CET) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6E7C5854-E836-4166-944B-FF0A52B5DF79"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:12:07 +0100 Message-Id: <8770E5EB-40D8-4D99-8B35-A9F5FA791BD0@trammell.ch> To: IETF IPPM WG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Draft agenda posted X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 24 Mar 2016 09:12:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6E7C5854-E836-4166-944B-FF0A52B5DF79 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, Our draft agenda for Buenos Aires is posted at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/95/agenda/ippm/ Authors: please let me know if I have the right speaker listed. Cheers, Brian --Apple-Mail=_6E7C5854-E836-4166-944B-FF0A52B5DF79 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW869nAAoJEIoSt78L6kajj4cP/jZ7AMyZxxQg/no6YavFGzqi /t/+3+U6eGbLvxkvrKIFWEUSZdVeD3FyG+rQHJDbecw9yFNCUfkWYbZ7hxLtD5yT hhBPxSiOmzb311/f+Lp8MOPyaFH0FK60Gje4iZ5P4IoI1OL0f/K0199CBSTalc5E yp6V+RD3E4bhfYlDvR8FFR8CizOo5ge0J+HrnB4dTTiAHpnCHDc37MFSl2yAZdRx 25jcl035PsXnPfdu6HiVFshrfh/uISOXhGUUZ/CxCOgfpL8pqcwwTHIsO73zy5O7 IF9ArkeGueH3u7hpVMAShyh7RPP4+Ca9eWlvSyq4UFOkjiRp2cicLsIECBTkx4s7 ZNIXlF+csz7G1VYTuprhRhxhWgppZal4y40o5+WEN8yOf4h3ksOd/xVP1G6Zdlnk dGj81omhJm7ihHgg+8eBDLnsIx7B/rqHvOg0EWXldo9uL+b1KTB67FWwEzIPkgk2 /g3Zr2c3wwbUlG81LnOTgPDhTarNSYMhm1768U7MxWtNLVZMet1qHZOsIkqkoCAT N7qGgwX7PrP8pvayY9GVoy+kr0l8m/7BR9Tty1B5rXJkzgJrpZiTZLU18+RhDtVL /CRJRsyU7LghPAUwldSrR3+7R+DJ2tpZd5Ubb1bOpuTKXnSxwdX3/T8fJJcUgLs7 sGhm8JT0MabgkKljCbsQ =3qhS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_6E7C5854-E836-4166-944B-FF0A52B5DF79-- From nobody Mon Mar 28 17:32:53 2016 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 8C9F812D195 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.619 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zkuG_fZk7a6d for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B116F12D0E5 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C289213DF for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:32:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:32:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= smtpout; bh=SR6nFNS5Tl3zm/clpZFD41oIWok=; b=mS/tBGaRPsJQrmX/pPqJ 5AtWR84Kf9Y7dF2+N2HqlMQEIWV128M2AAIG1+alxWJlNua5WIXpNJwkb6uF5dfn 2A9UCrGh9kpi1U+UHq6ioD5ZWaAzYtVRw475m29fBb8RGxqH2Iy8gKJsnoU9IK3t S6ZrRGbIqonAU+kU07+VzZI= X-Sasl-enc: sni1QwxXu+ikt50b+cpBzxsEXrnaAE3vA/M1DJXoIdEL 1459211568 Received: from [192.168.1.108] (66-227-205-202.dhcp.bycy.mi.charter.com [66.227.205.202]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D354FC00014 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:32:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Cerveny Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_83B97503-4B11-403E-A370-A3D035A08B59" Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:32:50 -0400 Message-Id: <0AC163B2-B04A-4351-94EE-FB43F9EFE83E@wjcerveny.com> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] IPPM @ IETF95 Logistics X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: IPPM Chairs List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:32:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_83B97503-4B11-403E-A370-A3D035A08B59 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear IPPM participants: The IETF95 IPPM WG meeting will be on Friday 8 April 2016 from 10:00 to = 12:00 noon Argentina time (13:00 - 15:00 UTC) in room Quebracho B. The = agenda is posted at = https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/agenda/agenda-95-ippm = If anyone is willing to take minutes and/or be jabber scribe for the = meeting, please respond to this e-mail. Presenters: Please submit your presentation slides to me and I will post = them to the meeting materials page. Note that I will be remote for IETF = 95, so it will be more challenging for me to process slides that are = submitted at the last minute. Please allow time for questions in your = presentation time slot. Thanks, Bill Cerveny IPPM WG co-chair= --Apple-Mail=_83B97503-4B11-403E-A370-A3D035A08B59 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Dear IPPM participants:

The IETF95 IPPM WG meeting will be = on Friday 8 April 2016 from 10:00 to 12:00 noon Argentina time = (13:00 - 15:00 UTC) in room Quebracho B. The agenda is posted = at https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/agenda/agenda-95-ippm

If anyone is = willing to take minutes and/or be jabber scribe for the meeting, please = respond to this e-mail.

Presenters: Please submit your presentation slides to me and = I will post them to the meeting materials page.  Note that I will = be remote for IETF 95, so it will be more challenging for me to process = slides that are submitted at the last minute.   Please allow = time for questions in your presentation time slot.

Thanks,

Bill Cerveny
IPPM WG co-chair
= --Apple-Mail=_83B97503-4B11-403E-A370-A3D035A08B59-- From nobody Tue Mar 29 17:00:47 2016 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 7F0BD12DA75 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:00:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H-x5UK24-O5t for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.z120.zixworks.com (mx.z120.zixworks.com [199.30.235.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7916212D0E6 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (ZixVPM [127.0.0.1]) by Outbound.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id 512A61C18F1 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:00:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from imsva2.bcbsm.com (unknown [12.107.172.81]) by mx.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id 031CE1C18E2; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:00:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from imsva2.bcbsm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA80 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50347420004; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PWN401EA110.ent.corp.bcbsm.com (unknown [10.64.80.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by imsva2.bcbsm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B0A420003; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PWN401EA120.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([169.254.12.50]) by PWN401EA110.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([10.64.80.218]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:00:41 -0400 From: "Ackermann, Michael" To: Brian Trammell , IETF IPPM WG Thread-Topic: [ippm] Draft agenda posted Thread-Index: AQHRha1FBvNz5xsy7ku8vw724RTYnZ9xDRNg Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:37 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0000 Message-ID: <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0D95D422@PWN401EA120.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> References: <8770E5EB-40D8-4D99-8B35-A9F5FA791BD0@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <8770E5EB-40D8-4D99-8B35-A9F5FA791BD0@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.64.83.71] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-VPM-MSG-ID: 5036bfb7-7260-4e61-beff-b0af6428bee9 X-VPM-HOST: vmvpm01.z120.zixworks.com X-VPM-GROUP-ID: f413c5c6-6f17-4441-b771-2fafc27825f4 X-VPM-ENC-REGIME: Plaintext X-VPM-IS-HYBRID: 0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft agenda posted X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:46 -0000 Brian and IPPM Team. Our PDM draft is the second item on the Agenda below and may receive a = WGLC Vote.=20 We believe PDM is ready, and that all associated issues have been = addressed. But in an effort to be as certain as possible, this is a = final solicitation for any outstanding questions, issues or pertinent = details. =20 The current version of the PDM draft is at:=20 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option/ We have made no changes to the draft since IETF 94. =20 Look forward to any related correspondence. =20 Thanks Mike -----Original Message----- From: ippm =5Bmailto:ippm-bounces=40ietf.org=5D On Behalf Of Brian Trammell Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 5:12 AM To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: =5Bippm=5D Draft agenda posted Greetings, all, Our draft agenda for Buenos Aires is posted at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/95/agenda/ippm/ Authors: please let me know if I have the right speaker listed. Cheers, Brian The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and = is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this = communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are = hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of = this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic = mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original = message without making any copies. =20 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are = nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and = Blue Shield Association. From nobody Wed Mar 30 17:53:18 2016 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 9174712D542; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:53:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v65tT_GGM5Oh; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBECB12D52B; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 4316D180011; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:52:38 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20160331005238.4316D180011@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [ippm] RFC 7820 on UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 31 Mar 2016 00:53:14 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7820 Title: UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Author: T. Mizrahi Status: Experimental Stream: IETF Date: March 2016 Mailbox: talmi@marvell.com Pages: 15 Characters: 30611 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7820 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17487/RFC7820 The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) are used for performance monitoring in IP networks. Delay measurement is performed in these protocols by using timestamped test packets. Some implementations use hardware-based timestamping engines that integrate the accurate transmission time into every outgoing OWAMP/TWAMP test packet during transmission. Since these packets are transported over UDP, the UDP Checksum field is then updated to reflect this modification. This document proposes to use the last 2 octets of every test packet as a Checksum Complement, allowing timestamping engines to reflect the checksum modification in the last 2 octets rather than in the UDP Checksum field. The behavior defined in this document is completely interoperable with existing OWAMP/TWAMP implementations. This document is a product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. EXPERIMENTAL: This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC