From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Jan 11 02:26:51 2011 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 CE71428C114 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:26:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 r1xwN3iYsHId for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:26:49 -0800 (PST) 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 4487528C11B for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:26:48 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtYFALq/K02HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACWJo4Qc6RnApZUhUwEjkg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,306,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="226956482" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2011 05:29:03 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,306,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="580792954" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2011 05:29:02 -0500 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, 11 Jan 2011 11:29:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06 Thread-Index: Acuxelx5H3k/ATQHQF6omVqX9wtJsQ== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] AD review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06 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, 11 Jan 2011 10:26:51 -0000 Please find below the AD review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06. This document is in good shape. There is however at least one key issue which I suggest to be clarified in a revised version of the document before submitting it to IETF Last Call.=20 Meta-issue: I believe that the document should make the recommendation that the Performance Metrics Entity more clear. For this purpose I would recommend a change on the following lines in Section 1.1:=20 OLD:=20 This document refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, which will become a directorate, whose goal is to coordinate the Performance Metric development at the IETF. NEW:=20 This document refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, whose goal is=20 to advice and support the Performance Metric development at the IETF. A recommendation about the Performance Metrics Entity is made in=20 Section 6.6.=20 And NEW:=20 Section 6.6 This document recommends that the Performance Metrics Entity be=20 implemented as a directorate in one of the IETF Areas, providing advice and support as described in this document to all areas in the IETF.=20 Editorial Issues:=20 E1. I suggest to add at the end of Section 1.1 a paragraph that lists the intended audience for this document including but maybe not restricted to IETF participants who write performance metrics documents in the IETF, reviewers of such documents and members of the Performance Metrics Entity.=20 E2. A couple of bullets are duplicated in Section 5.1 (or I cannot see the differences) E3. In Section 5.2, (ii) - s/QoS G1000 [G1000]/QoS [G1000]/ E4. In Section 5.3.2 - provide a reference for the G.107 R Factor E5. Expand BOF, NAT at first occurrences E6. Section 5.7 - ALL is not a keyword, do not capitalize it E7. Section 6.1 - 'Proposals SHOULD be vetted by the corresponding protocol development WG ...' - I think that we should be more clear here about what 'vetted' means. In most cases this means a charter item and/or a deliverable in the WG plans E8. There is some overlap between the 4th and 6th paragraphs in this section when it comes to relating to other SDOs E9. In section 6.4 I think that we need to mention that a formal review is RECOMMENDED by the time the document is reviewed by the Area Directors, or an IETF Last Call is being conducted - same as expert reviews are being performed by other directorates Thanks and Regards, Dan From bclaise@cisco.com Thu Jan 13 04:53:36 2011 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 E32FD3A6B79 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:53:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.481 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 G2dQWL9n+Grz for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:53:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1955D3A6B76 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:53:34 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0DCiecc003520; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:44:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.55.43.55] (ams-bclaise-8716.cisco.com [10.55.43.55]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0DCiarT000283; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:44:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4D2EF3B4.1020708@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:44:36 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010600070907040005080106" Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] AD review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06 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, 13 Jan 2011 12:53:37 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010600070907040005080106 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Dan for the detailed review. See inline. If you agree with the changes, I'll post a new draft version right away. > Please find below the AD review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06. > This document is in good shape. There is however at least one key issue > which I suggest to be clarified in a revised version of the document > before submitting it to IETF Last Call. > > Meta-issue: > > I believe that the document should make the recommendation that the > Performance Metrics Entity more clear. For this purpose I would > recommend a change on the following lines in Section 1.1: > > OLD: > > This document refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, which will > become a directorate, whose goal is to coordinate the Performance > Metric development at the IETF. > > NEW: > > This document refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, whose goal is > to advice and support the Performance Metric development at the IETF. > A recommendation about the Performance Metrics Entity is made in > Section 6.6. Done. > And NEW: > > Section 6.6 > > This document recommends that the Performance Metrics Entity be > implemented as a directorate in one of the IETF Areas, providing > advice > and support as described in this document to all areas in the IETF. Done. I titled this section 6.6 "Recommendations" > Editorial Issues: > > E1. I suggest to add at the end of Section 1.1 a paragraph that lists > the intended audience for this document including but maybe not > restricted to IETF participants who write performance metrics documents > in the IETF, reviewers of such documents and members of the Performance > Metrics Entity. "The intended audience for this document includes, but is not restricted to, IETF participants who write performance metrics documents in the IETF, reviewers of such documents, and members of the Performance Metrics Entity. " > > E2. A couple of bullets are duplicated in Section 5.1 (or I cannot see > the differences) Done. > E3. In Section 5.2, (ii) - s/QoS G1000 [G1000]/QoS [G1000]/ Done. > E4. In Section 5.3.2 - provide a reference for the G.107 R Factor Done. > E5. Expand BOF, NAT at first occurrences Done. > E6. Section 5.7 - ALL is not a keyword, do not capitalize it Done. > E7. Section 6.1 - 'Proposals SHOULD be vetted by the corresponding > protocol development WG ...' - I think that we should be more clear here > about what 'vetted' means. In most cases this means a charter item > and/or a deliverable in the WG plans That makes sense since we're proposing a directorate. I added "Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding protocol development WG charters. As such,... " in the text below OLD: Proposals SHOULD be prepared as Internet Drafts, describing the Performance Metric and conforming to the qualifications above as much as possible. Proposals SHOULD be vetted by the corresponding protocol development WG prior to discussion by the Performance Metrics Entity. This aspect of the process includes an assessment of the need for the Performance Metric proposed and assessment of the support for their development in IETF. NEW: Proposals SHOULD be prepared as Internet Drafts, describing the Performance Metric and conforming to the qualifications above as much as possible. _Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding protocol development WG charters. As such,_the Proposals SHOULD be vetted_by that WG_ prior to discussion by the Performance Metrics Entity. This aspect of the process includes an assessment of the need for the Performance Metric proposed and assessment of the support for their development in IETF. > E8. There is some overlap between the 4th and 6th paragraphs in this > section when it comes to relating to other SDOs Proposal: a combination of the 4th and 6th paragraphs OLD: Proposals SHOULD include an assessment of interaction and/or overlap with work in other Standards Development Organizations. Proposals SHOULD survey the existing standards work in the area and identify additional expertise that might be consulted, or possible overlap with other standards development orgs. NEW: Proposals SHOULD include an assessment of interaction and/or overlap with work in other Standards Development Organizations. Proposals SHOULD identify additional expertise that might be consulted. > E9. In section 6.4 I think that we need to mention that a formal review > is RECOMMENDED by the time the document is reviewed by the Area > Directors, or an IETF Last Call is being conducted - same as expert > reviews are being performed by other directorates Do we actually need to say this, as we wrote "Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding protocol development WG charters" Regards, Benoit. > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol --------------010600070907040005080106 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Dan for the detailed review.
See inline.
If you agree with the changes, I'll post a new draft version right away.
Please find below the AD review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06.
This document is in good shape. There is however at least one key issue
which I suggest to be clarified in a revised version of the document
before submitting it to IETF Last Call. 

Meta-issue:

I believe that the document should make the recommendation that the
Performance Metrics Entity more clear. For this purpose I would
recommend a change on the following lines in Section 1.1: 

OLD: 

   This document refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, which will
   become a directorate, whose goal is to coordinate the Performance
   Metric development at the IETF.

NEW: 

   This document refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, whose goal is 
   to advice and support the Performance Metric development at the IETF.
   A recommendation about the Performance Metrics Entity is made in 
   Section 6.6.
Done.
And NEW: 

Section 6.6

    This document recommends that the Performance Metrics Entity be 
    implemented as a directorate in one of the IETF Areas, providing
advice
    and support as described in this document to all areas in the IETF.
Done. I titled this section 6.6  "Recommendations"


Editorial Issues: 

E1. I suggest to add at the end of Section 1.1 a paragraph that lists
the intended audience for this document including but maybe not
restricted to IETF participants who write performance metrics documents
in the IETF, reviewers of such documents and members of the Performance
Metrics Entity.
      "The intended audience for this document includes, but is not
     restricted to, IETF participants who write performance metrics documents
     in the IETF, reviewers of such documents, and members of the Performance
     Metrics Entity. "

E2. A couple of bullets are duplicated in Section 5.1 (or I cannot see
the differences)
Done.
E3. In Section 5.2, (ii) - s/QoS G1000 [G1000]/QoS [G1000]/
Done.
E4. In Section 5.3.2 - provide a reference for the G.107 R Factor
Done.
E5. Expand BOF, NAT at first occurrences
Done.
E6. Section 5.7 - ALL is not a keyword, do not capitalize it
Done.
E7. Section 6.1 - 'Proposals SHOULD be vetted by the corresponding
protocol development WG ...' - I think that we should be more clear here
about what 'vetted' means. In most cases this means a charter item
and/or a deliverable in the WG plans

That makes sense since we're proposing a directorate.
I added "Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding protocol development WG charters. As such,... " in the text below

OLD:
   Proposals SHOULD be prepared as Internet Drafts, describing the
   Performance Metric and conforming to the qualifications above as much
   as possible.

   Proposals SHOULD be vetted by the corresponding protocol development
   WG prior to discussion by the Performance Metrics Entity.  This
   aspect of the process includes an assessment of the need for the
   Performance Metric proposed and assessment of the support for their
   development in IETF.
NEW:

   Proposals SHOULD be prepared as Internet Drafts, describing the
   Performance Metric and conforming to the qualifications above as much
   as possible.

   Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding protocol development
   WG charters. As such, the Proposals SHOULD be vetted by that 
   WG prior to discussion by the Performance Metrics Entity.  This
   aspect of the process includes an assessment of the need for the
   Performance Metric proposed and assessment of the support for their
   development in IETF.


E8. There is some overlap between the 4th and 6th paragraphs in this
section when it comes to relating to other SDOs
Proposal: a combination of the 4th and 6th paragraphs

OLD:
   Proposals SHOULD include an assessment of interaction and/or overlap
   with work in other Standards Development Organizations.

   Proposals SHOULD survey the existing standards work in the area and
   identify additional expertise that might be consulted, or possible
   overlap with other standards development orgs.

NEW:
   Proposals SHOULD include an assessment of interaction and/or overlap
   with work in other Standards Development Organizations.  Proposals SHOULD 
   identify additional expertise that might be consulted.


E9. In section 6.4 I think that we need to mention that a formal review
is RECOMMENDED by the time the document is reviewed by the Area
Directors, or an IETF Last Call is being conducted - same as expert
reviews are being performed by other directorates
Do we actually need to say this, as we wrote 
   "Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding protocol development
   WG charters"

Regards, Benoit.
Thanks and Regards,

Dan


_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
PMOL@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol

--------------010600070907040005080106-- From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Jan 13 07:47:43 2011 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 2B6F33A6BB4 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:47:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 eEu189gX3FKE for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:47:41 -0800 (PST) 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 072883A6BB2 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:47:40 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEALqtLk3GmAcF/2dsb2JhbACkR3OmVAKWRIJ0glgEjkw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,317,1291611600"; d="scan'208,217";a="227375761" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2011 10:50:01 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,317,1291611600"; d="scan'208,217";a="569929401" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2011 10:50:00 -0500 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_01CBB339.836D75C9" Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:49:47 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4D2EF3B4.1020708@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] AD review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06 Thread-Index: AcuzITmwnOy+9wuwQ0idK9CgdnsE6AAF+3OA References: <4D2EF3B4.1020708@cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Benoit Claise" Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] AD review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06 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, 13 Jan 2011 15:47:43 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBB339.836D75C9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks. As soon as your revised version is submitted I will issue the IETF Last Call.=20 =20 To the question at E9 - I believe that the answer is Yes - because this paragraph emphasizes the need of an MET-DIR (provisional name) review same as OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR - etc. at the time of an IETF Last Call (the latest).=20 =20 Dan =20 ________________________________ From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:45 PM To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] AD review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06 =09 =09 Thank you Dan for the detailed review. See inline. If you agree with the changes, I'll post a new draft version right away. =09 Please find below the AD review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06. This document is in good shape. There is however at least one key issue which I suggest to be clarified in a revised version of the document before submitting it to IETF Last Call.=20 =09 Meta-issue: =09 I believe that the document should make the recommendation that the Performance Metrics Entity more clear. For this purpose I would recommend a change on the following lines in Section 1.1:=20 =09 OLD:=20 =09 This document refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, which will become a directorate, whose goal is to coordinate the Performance Metric development at the IETF. =09 NEW:=20 =09 This document refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, whose goal is=20 to advice and support the Performance Metric development at the IETF. A recommendation about the Performance Metrics Entity is made in=20 Section 6.6.=20 Done. =09 And NEW:=20 =09 Section 6.6 =09 This document recommends that the Performance Metrics Entity be=20 implemented as a directorate in one of the IETF Areas, providing advice and support as described in this document to all areas in the IETF.=20 Done. I titled this section 6.6 "Recommendations" =09 =09 =09 Editorial Issues:=20 =09 E1. I suggest to add at the end of Section 1.1 a paragraph that lists the intended audience for this document including but maybe not restricted to IETF participants who write performance metrics documents in the IETF, reviewers of such documents and members of the Performance Metrics Entity.=20 "The intended audience for this document includes, but is not restricted to, IETF participants who write performance metrics documents in the IETF, reviewers of such documents, and members of the Performance Metrics Entity. " =09 =09 E2. A couple of bullets are duplicated in Section 5.1 (or I cannot see the differences) Done. =09 E3. In Section 5.2, (ii) - s/QoS G1000 [G1000]/QoS [G1000]/ Done. =09 E4. In Section 5.3.2 - provide a reference for the G.107 R Factor Done. =09 E5. Expand BOF, NAT at first occurrences Done. =09 E6. Section 5.7 - ALL is not a keyword, do not capitalize it Done. =09 E7. Section 6.1 - 'Proposals SHOULD be vetted by the corresponding protocol development WG ...' - I think that we should be more clear here about what 'vetted' means. In most cases this means a charter item and/or a deliverable in the WG plans That makes sense since we're proposing a directorate. I added "Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding protocol development WG charters. As such,... " in the text below =09 OLD: =09 Proposals SHOULD be prepared as Internet Drafts, describing the Performance Metric and conforming to the qualifications above as much as possible. Proposals SHOULD be vetted by the corresponding protocol development WG prior to discussion by the Performance Metrics Entity. This aspect of the process includes an assessment of the need for the Performance Metric proposed and assessment of the support for their development in IETF. NEW: =09 =09 Proposals SHOULD be prepared as Internet Drafts, describing the Performance Metric and conforming to the qualifications above as much as possible. =09 Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding protocol development WG charters. As such, the Proposals SHOULD be vetted by that=20 WG prior to discussion by the Performance Metrics Entity. This aspect of the process includes an assessment of the need for the Performance Metric proposed and assessment of the support for their development in IETF. E8. There is some overlap between the 4th and 6th paragraphs in this section when it comes to relating to other SDOs Proposal: a combination of the 4th and 6th paragraphs =09 OLD: =09 Proposals SHOULD include an assessment of interaction and/or overlap with work in other Standards Development Organizations. =09 Proposals SHOULD survey the existing standards work in the area and identify additional expertise that might be consulted, or possible overlap with other standards development orgs. =09 NEW: Proposals SHOULD include an assessment of interaction and/or overlap with work in other Standards Development Organizations. Proposals SHOULD=20 identify additional expertise that might be consulted. =09 E9. In section 6.4 I think that we need to mention that a formal review is RECOMMENDED by the time the document is reviewed by the Area Directors, or an IETF Last Call is being conducted - same as expert reviews are being performed by other directorates Do we actually need to say this, as we wrote=20 =09 "Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding protocol development WG charters" Regards, Benoit. =09 Thanks and Regards, =09 Dan =09 =09 _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBB339.836D75C9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks. As soon as your revised version is submitted I will = issue the=20 IETF Last Call.
 
To the=20 question at E9 - I believe that the answer is Yes - because this = paragraph=20 emphasizes the need of an MET-DIR (provisional name) review same as = OPS-DIR,=20 SEC-DIR - etc. at the time of an IETF Last Call (the latest).=20
 
Dan
 

From: Benoit Claise = [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]=20
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:45 PM
To: = Romascanu,=20 Dan (Dan)
Cc: pmol@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PMOL] AD = review=20 of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06

Thank you Dan for the detailed review.
See inline.
If = you=20 agree with the changes, I'll post a new draft version right away.
Please find below the AD review of =
draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06.
This document is in good shape. There is however at least one key issue
which I suggest to be clarified in a revised version of the document
before submitting it to IETF Last Call.=20

Meta-issue:

I believe that the document should make the recommendation that the
Performance Metrics Entity more clear. For this purpose I would
recommend a change on the following lines in Section 1.1:=20

OLD:=20

   This document refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, which will
   become a directorate, whose goal is to coordinate the Performance
   Metric development at the IETF.

NEW:=20

   This document refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, whose goal is=20
   to advice and support the Performance Metric development at the IETF.
   A recommendation about the Performance Metrics Entity is made in=20
   Section 6.6.=20
Done.
And NEW:=20

Section 6.6

    This document recommends that the Performance Metrics Entity be=20
    implemented as a directorate in one of the IETF Areas, providing
advice
    and support as described in this document to all areas in the IETF.=20
Done. I titled this section 6.6 =20 "Recommendations"


Editorial Issues:=20

E1. I suggest to add at the end of Section 1.1 a paragraph that lists
the intended audience for this document including but maybe not
restricted to IETF participants who write performance metrics documents
in the IETF, reviewers of such documents and members of the Performance
Metrics Entity.=20
      "The intended audience = for=20 this document includes, but is not
     = restricted to,=20 IETF participants who write performance metrics=20 documents
     in the IETF, reviewers of such=20 documents, and members of the Performance
     = Metrics=20 Entity. "
E2. A couple of bullets are duplicated in Section 5.1 (or I cannot see
the differences)
Done.
E3. In Section 5.2, (ii) - s/QoS G1000 =
[G1000]/QoS [G1000]/
Done.
E4. In Section 5.3.2 - provide a =
reference for the G.107 R Factor
Done.
E5. Expand BOF, NAT at first occurrences
Done.
E6. Section 5.7 - ALL is not a keyword, =
do not capitalize it
Done.
E7. Section 6.1 - 'Proposals SHOULD be =
vetted by the corresponding
protocol development WG ...' - I think that we should be more clear here
about what 'vetted' means. In most cases this means a charter item
and/or a deliverable in the WG plans

That makes sense since we're proposing a=20 directorate.
I added "Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the = corresponding=20 protocol development WG charters. As such,... " in the text=20 below

OLD:
   Proposals SHOULD be prepared as Internet =
Drafts, describing the
   Performance Metric and conforming to the qualifications above as much
   as possible.

   Proposals SHOULD be vetted by the corresponding protocol =
development
   WG prior to discussion by the Performance Metrics Entity.  This
   aspect of the process includes an assessment of the need for the
   Performance Metric proposed and assessment of the support for their
   development in IETF.
NEW:

   Proposals SHOULD be prepared as Internet =
Drafts, describing the
   Performance Metric and conforming to the qualifications above as much
   as possible.

   Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding protocol =
development
   WG charters. As such, the Proposals SHOULD be vetted by that=20
   WG prior to discussion by the Performance Metrics Entity.  This
   aspect of the process includes an assessment of the need for the
   Performance Metric proposed and assessment of the support for their
   development in IETF.


E8. There is some overlap between the 4th =
and 6th paragraphs in this
section when it comes to relating to other SDOs
Proposal: a combination of the 4th and 6th=20 paragraphs

OLD:
   Proposals SHOULD include an =
assessment of interaction and/or overlap
   with work in other Standards Development Organizations.

   Proposals SHOULD survey the existing standards work in the area and
   identify additional expertise that might be consulted, or possible
   overlap with other standards development orgs.

NEW:
   Proposals SHOULD include an assessment of interaction and/or overlap
   with work in other Standards Development Organizations.  Proposals =
SHOULD=20
   identify additional expertise that might be consulted.


E9. In section 6.4 I think that we need =
to mention that a formal review
is RECOMMENDED by the time the document is reviewed by the Area
Directors, or an IETF Last Call is being conducted - same as expert
reviews are being performed by other directorates
Do we actually need to say this, as we wrote = 
   "Proposals SHOULD be deliverables of the corresponding =
protocol development
   WG charters"

Regards, Benoit.
Thanks and Regards,

Dan


_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
PMOL@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/=
mailman/listinfo/pmol

------_=_NextPart_001_01CBB339.836D75C9-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Thu Jan 13 09:45:03 2011 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 3E0F228C130; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:45:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 2G3JwJKTbUao; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:45:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF023A6803; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:45:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.10 Message-ID: <20110113174501.17227.75393.idtracker@localhost> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:45:01 -0800 Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-07.txt 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, 13 Jan 2011 17:45:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Performance Metrics for Other Layers Working Group of the IETF. Title : Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development Author(s) : A. Clark, B. Claise Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-07.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2011-01-13 This document describes a framework and a process for developing performance metrics of protocols and applications transported over over IETF-specified protocols, and that can be used to characterize traffic on live networks and services. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-07.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-07.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-01-13094335.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu Jan 13 11:13:10 2011 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 7F6A83A6BD6; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:13:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 ZNSSbwQdvqc4; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:13:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D574A3A6A64; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:13:09 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.10 Message-ID: <20110113191309.6496.51457.idtracker@localhost> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:13:09 -0800 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:36:20 -0800 Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] Last Call: (Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development) to BCP 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, 13 Jan 2011 19:13:10 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Performance Metrics for Other Layers WG (pmol) to consider the following document: - 'Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development' as a BCP The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-01-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Thu Jan 20 09:48:52 2011 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 440F63A7155; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:48:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 jxifKwxfGib5; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A863A7161; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6C769E0712; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:51:35 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110120175135.6C769E0712@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:51:35 -0800 (PST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:20:49 -0800 Cc: pmol@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [PMOL] RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics 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, 20 Jan 2011 17:48:52 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6076 Title: Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics Author: D. Malas, A. Morton Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: January 2011 Mailbox: d.malas@cablelabs.com, acmorton@att.com Pages: 27 Characters: 61559 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-07.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6076.txt This document defines a set of metrics and their usage to evaluate the performance of end-to-end Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for telephony services in both production and testing environments. The purpose of this document is to combine a standard set of common metrics, allowing interoperable performance measurements, easing the comparison of industry implementations. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Performance Metrics for Other Layers Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From dromasca@avaya.com Fri Jan 21 12:10:02 2011 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 C308A3A67C2 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:10:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.242 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, 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 l3YpF1aHRpEV for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:10:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [135.11.29.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77183A67F8 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:10:01 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFACN3OU2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACWTI4dc6QQAphvhVAEjl8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,359,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="55476076" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2011 15:12:47 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,359,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="587000505" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2011 15:12:08 -0500 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: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:11:44 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End PerformanceMetrics Thread-Index: Acu5mFQ7y9FLeMIGQRi4BEwBq6pAIQADsOjA From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] FW: RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End PerformanceMetrics 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: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:10:02 -0000 Congratulations and thanks to Daryl for the extraordinary tenacity and resilience, thanks to Al and to the whole working group for contributing and supporting this work.=20 Regards, Dan -----Original Message----- From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:52 PM To: ietf-announce@ietf.org; rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Cc: pmol@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [PMOL] RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End PerformanceMetrics A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. =20 RFC 6076 Title: Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance=20 Metrics=20 Author: D. Malas, A. Morton Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: January 2011 Mailbox: d.malas@cablelabs.com,=20 acmorton@att.com Pages: 27 Characters: 61559 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-07.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6076.txt This document defines a set of metrics and their usage to evaluate the performance of end-to-end Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for telephony services in both production and testing environments. The purpose of this document is to combine a standard set of common metrics, allowing interoperable performance measurements, easing the comparison of industry implementations. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Performance Metrics for Other Layers Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Jan 25 02:21:47 2011 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 A9EB13A69E1 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:21:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 JeFIlkDKYbyr for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:21:46 -0800 (PST) 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 703DC3A6827 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:21:46 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhkFAEM0Pk2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACWUY4ec6NKApkQhU8EkAk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,373,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="229141307" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2011 05:24:32 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,373,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="587971279" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2011 05:24:31 -0500 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, 25 Jan 2011 11:24:21 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-07.txt Thread-Index: Acu8deWhaHwq7RrgT3irx4Lbm+IR3QABB7Ww From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] FW: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-07.txt 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, 25 Jan 2011 10:21:47 -0000 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 11:55 AM To: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com; bclaise@cisco.com; Al Morton; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Cc: General Area Review Team Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-07.txt I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-07.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia Review Date: 25-Jan-2011 IETF LC End Date: 27-Jan-2011 Summary: The document is ready for publication as a BCP.=09 Major issues: none Minor issues: none Nits/editorial comments: - Abstract: the word "over" is duplicated. - Section 1, first paragraph. Missing dot closing the paragraph. - Section 3, first paragraph. I recommend to use the present tense in the last sentence of the paragraph: "As such, this document does not defined any performance metrics". - Section 5.2, first paragraph. s/of an networking/of a networking ^^ - Section 5.4.3, last paragraph. Add a formal informative reference to RFC 3550. - Section 5.4.5, forth paragraph. Add a formal informative reference to RFC 3611. - Section 5.4.5, 7th paragraph. Add a formal informative reference to RFC 3611. /Miguel --=20 Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Fri Jan 28 02:45:04 2011 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 50F7B3A6403; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:45:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 7pu0KPNdB4Kg; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:45:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCE43A6359; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:45:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.10 Message-ID: <20110128104501.21642.13640.idtracker@localhost> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:45:01 -0800 Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt 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: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:45:04 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Performance Metrics for Other Layers Working Group of the IETF. Title : Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development Author(s) : A. Clark, B. Claise Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2011-01-28 This document describes a framework and a process for developing Performance Metrics of protocols and applications transported over IETF-specified protocols, and that can be used to characterize traffic on live networks and services. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-01-28023418.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From bclaise@cisco.com Fri Jan 28 02:57:30 2011 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 C8D0E3A677E for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:57:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, 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 L43qBTuOw6ON for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:57:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00A63A635F for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:57:29 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0SAjPVD017118; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:45:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.55.43.51] (ams-bclaise-8712.cisco.com [10.55.43.51]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0SAjOHv003107; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:45:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4D429E44.3050300@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:45:24 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pmol@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Miguel A. Garcia" , Leeyoung , kathleen.moriarty@emc.com Subject: [PMOL] draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt posted 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: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:57:30 -0000 Dear all, Now that the WG Last Call is over, I submitted a new version of the PMOL framework. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt It includes the feedback from: sec-dir, gen-art, rtg-dir, and ops-dir Regards, Benoit. From acmorton@att.com Fri Jan 28 12:52:51 2011 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 877E23A680E for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:52:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.316, 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 1+Ka7FdceDWt for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0443A6806 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:52:50 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1296248156!3511126!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.9; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 25417 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2011 20:55:57 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 28 Jan 2011 20:55:57 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0SKuIxX023354 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:56:19 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0SKuFDb023260 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:56:15 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0SKtqqV031249 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:55:52 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0SKtklY031022 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:55:46 -0500 Message-Id: <201101282055.p0SKtklY031022@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-218-127.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.218.127](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20110128205544gw100e4loie>; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:55:45 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.218.127] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:56:17 -0500 To: Benoit Claise , "pmol@ietf.org" From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4D429E44.3050300@cisco.com> References: <4D429E44.3050300@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: "Miguel A. Garcia" , Leeyoung , kathleen.moriarty@emc.com Subject: Re: [PMOL] draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt posted 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: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:52:51 -0000 That's IETF Last Call, n'est pas? At 05:45 AM 1/28/2011, Benoit Claise wrote: >Dear all, > >Now that the WG Last Call is over, I submitted a new version of the >PMOL framework. >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt > >It includes the feedback from: sec-dir, gen-art, rtg-dir, and ops-dir > >Regards, Benoit. > > >_______________________________________________ >PMOL mailing list >PMOL@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From bclaise@cisco.com Sat Jan 29 06:20:21 2011 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 286D73A67D9 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 06:20:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.494 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, 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 q8ugq9vWcx6w for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 06:20:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACD13A67BD for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 06:20:18 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0TE4Nmd018887; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:04:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.55.43.51] (ams-bclaise-8712.cisco.com [10.55.43.51]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0TE4H5J028570; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:04:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4D441E61.3070202@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:04:17 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <4D429E44.3050300@cisco.com> <201101282055.p0SKtklY031022@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201101282055.p0SKtklY031022@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Miguel A. Garcia" , Leeyoung , kathleen.moriarty@emc.com, "pmol@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PMOL] draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt posted 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: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:20:21 -0000 Al, Yes indeed. My mistake. Regards, Benoit > That's IETF Last Call, n'est pas? > > At 05:45 AM 1/28/2011, Benoit Claise wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Now that the WG Last Call is over, I submitted a new version of the >> PMOL framework. >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt >> >> It includes the feedback from: sec-dir, gen-art, rtg-dir, and ops-dir >> >> Regards, Benoit. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PMOL mailing list >> PMOL@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol > > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From vinayakh@gmail.com Sat Jan 29 10:47:22 2011 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 3DE603A6853 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:47:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.501, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 CrcyRdqQNqyS for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A5593A6840 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so4528404qyj.10 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:50:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CWFUgwVJBECI/wSEnaoIbW1KZHgXOScpFxULwOeZ3nk=; b=Ix2IUOC+A7Y38A+CU5KnomY+9kXkUjwSQ5mtJlfcPoaWtLJ7oZs3PpGkqdy5IxZZZu 8QDRYIcwT+1xtJrbv4oMHi/s9wlBy7RxZ6x09VXZO27iXl91hZSJfyrgYNt8v2g1rrjp FPCkFHQFxpbedCmzfZY8JBQUvIUcVZfawc6sU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ioTCQVFZjg/36lpTaC2Itfi5mF4uJ+x5ST/is14JWNJ5Cf/fN1c7kqnE80/QbNGQO/ 0mY0IgLMPgKB/ELLQ7gm8zGK+ymAL2N9+XA+rtyJWI7VeDSZ+HmTMkEmZypUafu8o376 y23gmtA7ovsB5HY3oR9C1RdNz2sFTNgroaGtI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.6.129 with SMTP id 1mr4385054qaz.251.1296327029735; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:50:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.186.194 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:50:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D441E61.3070202@cisco.com> References: <4D429E44.3050300@cisco.com> <201101282055.p0SKtklY031022@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <4D441E61.3070202@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 00:20:29 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Benoit Claise Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "Miguel A. Garcia" , Leeyoung , kathleen.moriarty@emc.com, "pmol@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PMOL] draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt posted 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: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:47:22 -0000 Hi Benoit, The RFC certainly looks good and does covers a lot of ground. I would like to add some more information to the RFC. My comments follow: In section 2.2 You might want to add that we might need to invite experts based on the protocol metrics that RFC intends to address (for example HTTP, SIP, SCTP, SFTP etc). You will need to invite experts to address the nuances of the each protocol which can influence the metrics. In Section 5.1 A couple more additions here - Two more factors that can cause variation (mostly for live traffic) is 1. Sampling criteria Sampling can be done randomly (probabilistic) or you can look at every nth connection or every nth packet. The sampling criteria might introduce some bias in the measurements. 2. Period (and duration) of measurement Some live traffic can have patterns eg. measurement of FTP/ HTTP latency during 24 hours. The traffic is generally high during the mid-day and low at the middle of the night. There is similar variations during the week depending on the type of traffic being measured. Furthermore economic incentives such as pricing plans (no cap accounting during night for example) can have bearing on the final measurement results. Care needs to be taken to account for a complete "pattern cycle" for such measurements. In section 5.3.1 Another type of metric that can be useful is when the time spans might be overlapping. Many such metrics are those that are based on moving windows. A good example is streaming protocols / applications that rely on buffering (where you need to look at moving windows to measure QoE). Such measurements can be useful to model the QoE when there is burst loss. Since all packets are not created equal the same amount of packets can have different impacts when they occur in a pattern within a moving window (such as a glitch in video or clicks/gaps in audio). In Section 5.4.2 (iii) Method of Measurement or Calculation Some methods of calculation might require discarding some data collected (due to outliers) so as to make the measurement parameters meaningful. Example is burstable billing which is pretty common in ISPs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burstable_billing for more details). In this after sorting the 5-min samples, the top 5 percentile data is discarded. Please add - (vii) Characteristics of underlying traffic Characteristics of underlying traffic on which measurement is done is important as noted above (due to difference in traffic patterns). Also in video/audio some packets might be more important as compared to others based on the codec and buffering pattern of the application. Regards Vinayak On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Al, > > Yes indeed. My mistake. > > Regards, Benoit >> >> That's IETF Last Call, n'est pas? >> >> At 05:45 AM 1/28/2011, Benoit Claise wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Now that the WG Last Call is over, I submitted a new version of the PMOL >>> framework. >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt >>> >>> It includes the feedback from: sec-dir, gen-art, rtg-dir, and ops-dir >>> >>> Regards, Benoit. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PMOL mailing list >>> PMOL@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PMOL mailing list >> PMOL@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol > > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol > From acmorton@att.com Sun Jan 30 06:06:38 2011 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 848BF3A67B7 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:06:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.487 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.309, 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 bxu+IfFY47m6 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6963A67B4 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:06:37 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1296396588!3609278!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.9; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 3955 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2011 14:09:48 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-3.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Jan 2011 14:09:48 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0UEAAk0016122 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:10:10 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0UEA3oG016078 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:10:03 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0UE9ewx013910 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:09:40 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0UE9XtC013848 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:09:33 -0500 Message-Id: <201101301409.p0UE9XtC013848@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-206-198.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.206.198](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20110130140931gw100e4lpke>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:09:32 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.206.198] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:10:04 -0500 To: Vinayak Hegde , Benoit Claise From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: References: <4D429E44.3050300@cisco.com> <201101282055.p0SKtklY031022@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <4D441E61.3070202@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: "Miguel A. Garcia" , Leeyoung , kathleen.moriarty@emc.com, "pmol@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PMOL] draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt posted 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, 30 Jan 2011 14:06:38 -0000 Hi Vin, You raise some interesting informational points. Unfortunately, both the Working Group and IETF-wide Last Calls ended some time ago, and Benoit has published the version that the IESG will consider at their next meeting. Perhaps Benoit can see if there is any commonality with IESG comments, and incorporate some of your thoughts if possible. regards, Al At 01:50 PM 1/29/2011, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >Hi Benoit, > >The RFC certainly looks good and does covers a lot of ground. I would >like to add some more information to the RFC. My comments follow: >...... >Regards >Vinayak > >On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > Al, > > > > Yes indeed. My mistake. > > > > Regards, Benoit > >> > >> That's IETF Last Call, n'est pas? > >> > >> At 05:45 AM 1/28/2011, Benoit Claise wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> Now that the WG Last Call is over, I submitted a new version of the PMOL > >>> framework. > >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08.txt > >>> > >>> It includes the feedback from: sec-dir, gen-art, rtg-dir, and ops-dir > >>> > >>> Regards, Benoit. > >>>