From acmorton@att.com Sun Apr 5 12:19:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CE33A687D for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:19:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.672 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.735, BAYES_20=-0.74, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HvkBAx1YaO0v for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159733A6869 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:19:26 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1238959230!45072813!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 28420 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2009 19:20:30 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-12.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 5 Apr 2009 19:20:30 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n35JKUgw016153 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:20:30 -0700 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n35JKQoS016141 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:20:27 -0700 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n35JKQWC027177 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:20:26 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n35JKOG7027172 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:20:24 -0500 Message-Id: <200904051920.n35JKOG7027172@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-118-4.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.118.4](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20090405192023gw1000u61re>; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:20:23 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:20:22 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [PMOL] Draft Minutes of PMOL Session at IETF-74 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:19:26 -0000 for your review and comments (by April 20, please): http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/pmol.html thanks to Mike Hamilton for taking notes! Al co-chair, pmol wg From acmorton@att.com Sun Apr 5 12:19:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685033A6869; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:19:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3jhNgxdiRaPS; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail167.messagelabs.com (mail167.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7C83A687D; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:19:58 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1238959262!12874770!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 14929 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2009 19:21:02 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-13.tower-167.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 5 Apr 2009 19:21:02 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n35JL2CY032402; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:21:02 -0400 Received: from alph001.aldc.att.com (alph001.aldc.att.com [135.53.7.26]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n35JKuuO032386; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:20:56 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n35JKuCg015555; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:20:56 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n35JKq1U015521; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:20:52 -0400 Message-Id: <200904051920.n35JKq1U015521@alph001.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-118-4.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.118.4](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20090405192051gw1000u61se>; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:20:51 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:14:07 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-03 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:19:59 -0000 PMOL WG, cc SIPPING WG, This message begins a second WG Last Call on the draft: Title : SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-03 A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-03 There has been discussion of this draft for 3 years, first in the SIPPING WG, and then in the PMOL WG. The first WGLC ended on July 25, 2008. All comments to date have been addressed to the satisfaction of the submitters. Please weigh-in on whether or not this Draft should be forwarded to the Area Directors for publication as a Standards Track RFC. Send your comments to the PMOL list or the co-chairs. The Last Call will be open till April 20, 2009. thanks for your review and comments, Alan and Al co-chairs, PMOL WG From sporetsky@allot.com Sun Apr 5 13:02:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A620A3A6869; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:02:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.221 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Had-teEelrdb; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw.allot.com (mailgw.allot.com [199.203.223.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9388B3A6B5D; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.allot.com (Not Verified[172.20.20.20]) by mailgw.allot.com with MailMarshal (v6, 4, 6, 5922) id ; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:06:25 +0300 Received: from 67.223.77.189 ([67.223.77.189]) by neon.ALLOT.LOCAL ([172.20.20.20]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.allot.com ([199.203.223.202]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:06:24 +0000 X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 323201060 Message-ID: <323201060-1238961792-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1925259426-@bxe1251.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: Normal References: <200904051920.n35JKq1U015521@alph001.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <200904051920.n35JKq1U015521@alph001.aldc.att.com> Sensitivity: Normal Importance: Normal To: "Al Morton" ,pmol-bounces@ietf.org,pmol@ietf.org From: "Scott Poretsky" Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:05:33 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-03 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: sporetsky@allot.com List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:02:24 -0000 SSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoZSBTSVAgUGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgQmVuY2htYXJraW5nIHdvcmsgaW4gdGhlIEJN V0cgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHJldmlld2VkIGluIGNvbmp1Y3Rpb24gd2l0aCB0aGlzIHdvcmsuICBMZXQn cyBhdCBsZWFzdCBrZWVwIHRoZSBjYXJ0IGFuZCBob3JzZSB0b2dldGhlci4gDQoNClNjb3R0DQpT ZW50IHZpYSBCbGFja0JlcnJ5Lg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTog IkFsIE1vcnRvbiIgPGFjbW9ydG9uQGF0dC5jb20+DQoNCkRhdGU6IFN1biwgMDUgQXByIDIwMDkg MTU6MTQ6MDcgDQpUbzogPHBtb2xAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpDYzogPHNpcHBpbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpT dWJqZWN0OiBbUE1PTF0gV0cgTGFzdCBDYWxsOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBtb2wtc2lwLXBlcmYtbWV0 cmljcy0wMw0KDQoNClBNT0wgV0csDQpjYyBTSVBQSU5HIFdHLA0KDQpUaGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYmVn aW5zIGEgc2Vjb25kIFdHIExhc3QgQ2FsbCBvbiB0aGUgZHJhZnQ6DQoNCiAgICAgICAgVGl0bGUJ CTogU0lQIEVuZC10by1FbmQgUGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgTWV0cmljcw0KCUZpbGVuYW1lCTogZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1wbW9sLXNpcC1wZXJmLW1ldHJpY3MtMDMNCg0KQSBVUkwgZm9yIHRoaXMgSW50ZXJuZXQt RHJhZnQgaXM6DQpodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBtb2wtc2lw LXBlcmYtbWV0cmljcy0wMw0KDQpUaGVyZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIHRoaXMgZHJh ZnQgZm9yIDMgeWVhcnMsDQpmaXJzdCBpbiB0aGUgU0lQUElORyBXRywgYW5kIHRoZW4gaW4gdGhl IFBNT0wgV0cuDQpUaGUgZmlyc3QgV0dMQyBlbmRlZCBvbiBKdWx5IDI1LCAyMDA4LiBBbGwgY29t bWVudHMgdG8gZGF0ZQ0KaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGFkZHJlc3NlZCB0byB0aGUgc2F0aXNmYWN0aW9uIG9m IHRoZSBzdWJtaXR0ZXJzLg0KDQpQbGVhc2Ugd2VpZ2gtaW4gb24gd2hldGhlciBvciBub3QgdGhp cyBEcmFmdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZm9yd2FyZGVkDQp0byB0aGUgQXJlYSBEaXJlY3RvcnMgZm9yIHB1 YmxpY2F0aW9uIGFzIGEgU3RhbmRhcmRzIFRyYWNrIFJGQy4NClNlbmQgeW91ciBjb21tZW50cyB0 byB0aGUgUE1PTCBsaXN0IG9yIHRoZSBjby1jaGFpcnMuDQoNClRoZSBMYXN0IENhbGwgd2lsbCBi ZSBvcGVuIHRpbGwgQXByaWwgMjAsIDIwMDkuDQoNCnRoYW5rcyBmb3IgeW91ciByZXZpZXcgYW5k IGNvbW1lbnRzLA0KQWxhbiBhbmQgQWwNCmNvLWNoYWlycywgUE1PTCBXRw0KDQpfX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KUE1PTCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QN ClBNT0xAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcG1v bA0K From ljorgenson@apparentnetworks.com Mon Apr 6 09:35:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4575D3A6CE7 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:35:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.324 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.324 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.419, BAYES_20=-0.74, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vp1KPudY3rN4 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JSRVR18.jaalam.net (relay2.apparentnetworks.net [209.139.228.52]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6810A3A6CDB for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:35:08 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: ac108108-00001408000007a0-2d-49da2f735dbe Received: from jsrvr8.jaalam.net ([172.16.128.105] RDNS failed) by JSRVR18.jaalam.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:36:03 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9B6D5.A7827EAA" Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:36:01 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Comments on G.1010 for framework metrics draft Thread-Index: Acm21b94jJakYMyNTrqpE+ApDM370Q== From: "Loki Jorgenson" To: X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [PMOL] Comments on G.1010 for framework metrics draft X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:35:16 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B6D5.A7827EAA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In San Francisco at 74, Al Morton responded to my concerns about the ambiguity of terms in the framework draft. Specifically, they included "application performance" as they pertained to QoS (better defined) and QoE (somewhat defined). He suggested that a reference ITU-T G.1010 (2001) might suffice. I said I would review and comment. =20 Having reviewed G.1010, I suggest that a reference to G.1010 should appear in the framework draft. It provides a useful list of categories that at least suggests how application performance relates to network QoS. =20 =20 That said, I still see a clear need for something like a framework definition for application performance (quality of application) and how it relates to network QoS. I won't address that here. =20 In particular, I suggest that section 3.2 be revised somewhat to refer directly to "application performance" as it related to QoS. Suggested changes below (in CAPS) in -02 version of text (with additional references suggested to G.107 and P.800 for illustration): =20 3.2. Definitions of a Metric A metric is a measure of an observable behavior of an application, protocol or other system. The definition of a metric often assumes some implicit or explicit underlying statistical process, and a metric is an estimate of a parameter of this process. If the assumed statistical process closely models the behavior of the system then the metric is "better" in the sense that it more accurately characterizes the state or behavior of the system. A metric should serve some defined purpose. This may include the measurement of capacity, quantifying how bad some problem is, measurement of service level, problem diagnosis or location and other such uses. A metric may also be an input to some other process, for example the computation of a composite metric or a model or simulation of a system AS MIGHT BE EMPLOYED TO ASSESS THE=20 PERFORMANCE OF A SPECIFIC APPLICATION - FOR EXAMPLE THE EMODEL FOR VOIP (G107). Tests of the "usefulness" of a metric include: (i) the degree to which its absence would cause significant loss of information on the behavior or state OR PERFORMANCE of the application or system being measured (ii) the correlation between the metric and NETWORK QoS [G1000], APPLICATION-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (G1010), OR experience delivered to the user (person or other application) (P800) (iii) the degree to which the metric is able to support the identification and location of problems affecting service quality. For example, consider a distributed application operating over a network connection that is subject to packet loss. A Packet Loss Rate (PLR) metric is defined as the mean packet loss rate over some time period. If the application performs poorly over network connections with high packet loss rate and always performs well when the packet loss rate is zero then the PLR metric is useful to some degree. Some applications are sensitive to short periods of high loss (bursty loss) and are relatively insensitive to isolated packet loss events; for this type of application there would be very weak correlation between PLR and application performance. A "better" metric would consider both the packet loss rate and the distribution of loss events. If application performance is degraded when the PLR exceeds some rate then a useful metric may be a measure of the duration and frequency of periods during which the PLR exceeds that rate. Loki Jorgenson Chief Scientist Apparent Networks The Hudson House Suite 400 - 321 Water Street Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6B 1B8 e ljorgenson@ApparentNetworks.com t 604 433 2333 ext 105 f 604 433 2311 m 604 250-4642 w www.ApparentNetworks.com =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B6D5.A7827EAA Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In San = Francisco at=20 74, Al Morton responded to my concerns about the ambiguity of terms = in=20 the framework draft.   Specifically, they included = "application=20 performance" as they pertained to QoS (better defined) and QoE (somewhat = defined).  He suggested that a reference ITU-T G.1010 (2001) might=20 suffice.  I said I would review and comment.
 
Having = reviewed=20 G.1010, I suggest that a reference to G.1010 should appear in the = framework=20 draft.  It provides a useful list of categories that at least = suggests how=20 application performance relates to network QoS.  =
 
That = said, I still=20 see a clear need for something like a framework definition = for application=20 performance (quality of application) and how it relates to = network=20 QoS.  I won't address that here.
 
In = particular,=20 I suggest that section 3.2 be revised somewhat to refer = directly to=20 "application performance" as it related to QoS.  Suggested changes = below=20 (in CAPS) in -02 version of text (with additional references suggested = to G.107=20 and P.800 for illustration):
 
3.2.  Definitions of a Metric
   A metric is a measure of an observable behavior of an application,
   protocol or other system.  The definition of a metric often assumes
   some implicit or explicit underlying statistical process, and a
   metric is an estimate of a parameter of this process.  If the assumed
   statistical process closely models the behavior of the system then
   the metric is "better" in the sense that it more accurately
   characterizes the state or behavior of the system.

   A metric should serve some defined purpose.  This may include the
   measurement of capacity, quantifying how bad some problem is,
   measurement of service level, problem diagnosis or location and other
   such uses.  A metric may also be an input to some other process, for
   example the computation of a composite metric or a model or
   simulation of a system AS MIGHT BE EMPLOYED TO ASSESS THE 
   =
PERFORMANCE OF A SPECIFIC APPLICATION - FOR EXAMPLE THE EMODEL FOR VOIP =
(G107).
   Tests of the "usefulness" of a metric include:

      (i) the degree to which its absence would cause significant loss
      of information on the behavior or state OR PERFORMANCE of the application or
      system being measured

      (ii) the correlation between the metric and NETWORK QoS [G1000], =
APPLICATION-SPECIFIC
      PERFORMANCE (G1010), OR experience =
delivered to the user (person or other application) (P800)

      (iii) the degree to which the metric is able to support the
      identification and location of problems affecting service quality.

   For example, consider a distributed application operating over a
   network connection that is subject to packet loss.  A Packet Loss
   Rate (PLR) metric is defined as the mean packet loss rate over some
   time period.  If the application performs poorly over network
   connections with high packet loss rate and always performs well when
   the packet loss rate is zero then the PLR metric is useful to some
   degree.  Some applications are sensitive to short periods of high
   loss (bursty loss) and are relatively insensitive to isolated packet
   loss events; for this type of application there would be very weak
   correlation between PLR and application performance.  A "better"
   metric would consider both the packet loss rate and the distribution
   of loss events.  If application performance is degraded when the PLR
   exceeds some rate then a useful metric may be a measure of the
   duration and frequency of periods during which the PLR exceeds that
   rate.

Loki Jorgenson
Chief Scientist
Apparent = Networks
The=20 Hudson House
Suite 400 - 321 Water Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada, = V6B=20 1B8

e   = ljorgenson@ApparentNetworks.com
t   604=20 433 2333 ext 105
f   604 433 2311
m   604=20 250-4642
w   www.ApparentNetworks.com

 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B6D5.A7827EAA-- From marian.delkinov@ericsson.com Thu Apr 9 05:13:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E206528C100; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:13:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.212 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lhpzjnj-FD1U; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7393A6906; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 886822219C; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:14:37 +0200 (CEST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-ab6e8bb000003b08-c2-49dde6ad8489 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 3ED6B221FC; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:14:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw106.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.69]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:13:58 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:13:57 +0200 Message-ID: <40D78CDB69283744A4B07581DDFDEB550254FE55@esealmw106.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <200904051920.n35JKq1U015521@alph001.aldc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-03 Thread-Index: Acm2I6vQz0VNB3v2RW2Em118tP0KSAC5jh6A References: <200904051920.n35JKq1U015521@alph001.aldc.att.com> From: "Marian Delkinov" To: "Al Morton" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2009 12:13:58.0724 (UTC) FILETIME=[A942C040:01C9B90C] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-03 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:13:32 -0000 All my comments have been addressed in the document.=20 Yes, my opinion is this draft should be forwarded to the Area Directors for publication. Best regards! Mario. -----Original Message----- From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton Sent: Sunday, 05 April, 2009 21:14 To: pmol@ietf.org Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-03 PMOL WG, cc SIPPING WG, This message begins a second WG Last Call on the draft: Title : SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-03 A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-03 There has been discussion of this draft for 3 years, first in the SIPPING WG, and then in the PMOL WG. The first WGLC ended on July 25, 2008. All comments to date have been addressed to the satisfaction of the submitters. Please weigh-in on whether or not this Draft should be forwarded to the Area Directors for publication as a Standards Track RFC. Send your comments to the PMOL list or the co-chairs. The Last Call will be open till April 20, 2009. thanks for your review and comments, Alan and Al co-chairs, PMOL WG _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Apr 28 01:58:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4543A6A6F for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:58:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y2DeBSVU8o8W for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68C73A6781 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:58:49 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,259,1238990400"; d="scan'208";a="144282004" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2009 05:00:08 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2009 05:00:08 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:59:59 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-pce-monitoring Thread-Index: AcnH37V11MLwnkfSSwCyQRPP42GWhw== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] draft-ietf-pce-monitoring X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:58:51 -0000 The I-D http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-04.txt completed recently IETF LL and will soon be brought to the IESG for approval. It would be good if folks could have a look and send their comments to the authors.=20 Dan