Subject: [PMOL] Should establish working group...

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:57:14 -0600

Okay, after taking a break from the BOF and talking with others about
this.  I have become further convinced a working group should be
established to handle this type of work.  If we only move forward with a
Directorate, the work will have a very high unlikelihood of ever making
the appropriate agenda time in the existing working groups to be fully
developed and prioritized.

In the BOF, it was overwhelmingly decided this type of work is
absolutely valuable to the members of the IETF.  Furthermore, it was
overwhelmingly decided many will commit their time to this work.  Those
two decisions indicate this work will receive the necessary review,
input, and expertise necessary to make it valuable to the members of the
IETF and the industry as a whole.

Summary...establish a working group for APM, PMOL, or whatever we want
to call it.

My two cents...

--Daryl

_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:31:43 +0200

Thanks Daryl for being the first to trigger the discussions on the new
list. 

If possible I would suggest you and other folks who may express support
for the formation of a working group to also make clear which of the two
options discussed in the BOF you would support: 
- permanent WG for definition of Performance Metrics at Other Layers,
modeled on the IPPM WG 
- short-lived WG to define a framework ('how to start, write, and review
PMOL documents in the IETF') document and a couple of test cases

Also, it would be very useful if you can make a short history of your
tribulations with draft-malas-performance-metrics, maybe in a separate
mail. Many participants in the list may not be aware about the sinuous
and yet uncompleted history of this document which was one of the test
cases that let to the BOF. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 4:57 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [PMOL] Should establish working group...
> 
> Okay, after taking a break from the BOF and talking with 
> others about this.  I have become further convinced a working 
> group should be established to handle this type of work.  If 
> we only move forward with a Directorate, the work will have a 
> very high unlikelihood of ever making the appropriate agenda 
> time in the existing working groups to be fully developed and 
> prioritized.
> 
> In the BOF, it was overwhelmingly decided this type of work 
> is absolutely valuable to the members of the IETF.  
> Furthermore, it was overwhelmingly decided many will commit 
> their time to this work.  Those two decisions indicate this 
> work will receive the necessary review, input, and expertise 
> necessary to make it valuable to the members of the IETF and 
> the industry as a whole.
> 
> Summary...establish a working group for APM, PMOL, or 
> whatever we want to call it.
> 
> My two cents...
> 
> --Daryl
> 
>

---

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:44:38 -0400

I favor a "permanent" WG for this work -- i.e., for the lifetime of the
milestones (to be) identified in the charter.

Cheers,
BobN
-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:32 AM
To: Daryl Malas; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group...

If possible I would suggest you and other folks who may express support
for the formation of a working group to also make clear which of the
two
options discussed in the BOF you would support: 
- permanent WG for definition of Performance Metrics at Other Layers,
modeled on the IPPM WG 
- short-lived WG to define a framework ('how to start, write, and
review
PMOL documents in the IETF') document and a couple of test cases

Dan

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:05:43 -0400

Responding to Dan's question for clarification,
and Bob's response...

>milestones (to be) identified in the charter.

I think the main difference between a long-lived and short-lived
Working Group is the number and breadth of milestones on the charter
when the WG is created.  Other factors influence the actual lifetime,
such as the ability to complete the initial set of milestones.

I like the idea, suggested by Leslie Nagle at the mic, of a
Working Group that prepares a "How to" Framework and a small
number of Performance Metrics RFCs (~2). A successful outcome of this
work would be the proof that this is an area of interest in IETF,
and the charter could then be revisited/expanded.

willing to start small,
Al

---

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:16:51 -0400

Al's approach is fine with me (and I appreciate the clarification of
what differentiates long- and short-lived WGs) -- mileage may vary for
individuals depending upon the target content of the selected "small
number of Performance Metrics RFCs".

Cheers,
BobN
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Morton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 11:06 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [PMOL] Should establish working group...

willing to start small,
Al

---

From: "Alan Clark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:26:57 -0400

My opinion is that a new working group should be established.  

Initial work would be a framework RFC, potentially Daryl Malas' draft and
other items. Work would only be transferred from other WG's with the
agreement of both the WG and Area Directors (key criteria would be that the
required expertise lay within the APM/PMOL WG rather than the WG currently
progressing the draft); for example it may make sense for the current work
on voice/video/audio metrics to stay within AVT due to the domain knowledge
required.  

The issue of whether this is long-lived vs short-lived would appear to be a
charter question - as WG's generally expire when they meet their charter
(?).  If the charter initially had two deliverables and the WG was able to
review new I-D's and request amendments to the charter to address
appropriate new work items -  then presumably the WG would either complete
its work within a short timeframe or the charter would be extended and it
would continue for a longer period?

Alan

---

From: "Lu, Hui-Lan (Huilan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:23:38 -0400

> and the charter could then be revisited/expanded.

I like the idea too.

Hui-Lan

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:34:30 +0200

All,

> and the charter could then be revisited/expanded.

I fully agree with this proposal.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--"
# Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment."

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:43:57 +0200

al

- i support this idea - this will serve as proof case.

noticing however that the milestones/timing would constraint the initial 
work (indeed, it could some important topics would require a longer 
duration then what could be reasonably considered)

-d.

Al Morton wrote:
> .

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:52:31 -0600

I'm not sure I agree with keeping your drafts in AVT.  I have not read
your drafts yet, but if they are "performance metrics" based drafts;
they should be in this new WG.  As with my SIP metrics draft, the
SIPPING WG has provided a good forum to receive feedback; however, the
draft is not truly within the charter of the group.  Many drafts that
exist between other WG's are given an opportunity to be reviewed by
other WG's in order to make sure the appropriate expertise is able to
evaluate it.   For example, the ICE draft developed in the MMUSIC WG has
been reviewed several times in the SIPPING and/or SIP WG's.  Although it
is an MMUSIC WG item, it has required expertise review in these other
WG's.  I see a similar process occurring with this proposed WG.  The
metrics drafts will be introduced, developed, and reviewed in this
draft; however, along the way, they need to be presented in other WG's
such as AVT and SIPPING in order to gain the additional expertise
perspective.

--Daryl

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:56:55 -0600

This clarification is helpful.  I am okay with the idea of establishing
a WG with a Framework objective and also identify an existing set of
drafts as determined by the group to move forward on in the initial
charter.  Once that concludes, I think it will become very apparent
whether or not the value of the WG extends forward or ceases to exist at
that point.  Even if the WG concludes, I think a Directorate at that
point should be an option in case future performance type work warrants
it.

--Daryl

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:34:05 -0600

Some background and context regarding my draft...

I introduced the draft to the SIPPING WG a year ago.  It received good
feedback on the mailing list; however, more feedback through direct
email.  I requested agenda time to review it with the SIPPING WG last
summer.  After I introduced it, the WG chairs took a hum as to the
interest in it.  There was overwhelming interest in the topic, but the
WG chair lamented there was a very long queue of WG items; and, this was
not likely to make the list any time soon.  Also, there were questions
over where the draft should truly live, options included IPPM, BMWG, and
SIPPING.  I narrowed the scope and separated the work from what was
going on in the BMWG group (SIP Benchmarking).  It, then, fell outside
of it's charter and that of IPPM (back to SIPPING).  I continued to make
revisions and presented on those updates at the SIPPING WG.  Over and
over again, there was overwhelming interest and discussions at the
microphone.  In Prague, a couple of people came to the microphone and
expressed concern over when this draft would move forward as a WG item.
A number of people have voiced the desire for this draft to become an
RFC; however, there was concern the SIPPING WG did not have the level of
expertise to review it.  I simply asked the question if the SIPPING WG
wanted me to continue to update the draft.  I was told yes, and also
asked to continue with it by the AD (Area Director).  At this point,
Cullen Jennnings, RAI co-AD, expressed he would conference with WG
chairs from various groups and determine where the draft would
ultimately reside.  It was at this point, the idea of a new WG or
Directorate came to light.  After discussing it, Cullen decided he would
submit the draft as an AD sponsored draft.  I updated the draft with the
latest set of feedback and sent it to him and the SIPPING WG.  The draft
then stalled again, because the idea of this BOF was resurrected or
created.  Still, the draft sits awaiting the outcome of this.  An
additional note, after the BOF several people came up and again voiced
concern of WHEN this draft would move forward.

Hopefully, this provides some additional context.

Thanks...--Daryl

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:47:54 +0200

Thanks. 

On a separate note (or not) I also believe that this is useful work and
I plan to push it ahead together with Cullen as AD-sponsored if no
framework is created in the near future. 

Dan

> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:34 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email-masked]