From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Feb 3 08:01:24 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 5B01D3A69B3 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:01:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, 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 EF8F1MA7ZoVR for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:01:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3B13A69A1 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:01:23 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoCAHJhSk2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACWRz+OJXOkfAKYaIVYBI8t X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,420,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="263004108" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2011 11:04:45 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,420,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="593753526" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2011 11:04:45 -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: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:04:28 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08:(with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AcvDKe/DTmpWgtq5R46VRLEH7Kg5FgAkhNug From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] FW: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08:(with DISCUSS and COMMENT) 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, 03 Feb 2011 16:01:24 -0000 =20 -----Original Message----- From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:35 AM To: The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework@tools.ietf.org; pmol-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08:(with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Ron that if what is wanted is a Directorate, it should simply be created by the AD. Furthermore, I am worried that codifying the directorate in this document is implying changes to the IETF process that are not acceptable. I strongly support the guidelines part of this document (which feels Informational), but recommend that all reference to the directorate be removed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1.1 Although the IETF has two active Working Groups (WGs) dedicated to the development of Performance Metrics, they each have strict limitations in their charters: =20 You seem to fail to list the PMOL WG. Is Section 1.1 simply trying to justify the creation of PMOL? If so it can be removed from the document because the WG seems to exist :-) From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Feb 3 08:13:54 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 5E3D03A6A11 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:13:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, 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 7uzjPf1uhRSm for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:13:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8129D3A6A0F for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:13:53 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoCAMpjSk2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACWRz+OJnOkfAKYZoVYBI8t X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,420,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="57447057" 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; 03 Feb 2011 11:17:15 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,420,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="593761553" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2011 11:16:35 -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: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:16:11 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08:(with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AcvDeNNPoVdXZIezTm2ptb0Tp38htAARNVuw From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] FW: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08:(with COMMENT) 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, 03 Feb 2011 16:13:54 -0000 =20 -----Original Message----- From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:00 AM To: The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework@tools.ietf.org; pmol-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08:(with COMMENT) Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It is a very good idea to publish an RFC for defining the task of a directorate. However, I do want to make a few suggestions: 1. The name "Entity" is a bit odd. The established IETF terminology is "directorate" 2. I would not make the directorate a formal requirement or mandatory part of the process. I think it is better cast as a review organization that can help the working group, the IETF, and the IESG in making the right decisions. From dromasca@avaya.com Fri Feb 4 08:03:10 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 C8F0C3A695F for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:03:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, 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 2IaYrIVho2Uq for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:03:10 -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 BCB7A3A6903 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:03:09 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtgGAC+zS03GmAcF/2dsb2JhbACXDo4fc6BtAphlhVoEjy4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,426,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="230916472" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2011 11:06:33 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,426,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="578652214" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2011 11:06:32 -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, 4 Feb 2011 17:06:28 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the IESG Thread-Index: AcvEhXsnY5Y0aJLfSDuoFacprxplXw== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] Review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the IESG 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, 04 Feb 2011 16:03:10 -0000 The IESG discussed draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the telechat yesterday. The document was not approved under its current form and a number of DISCUSSes are pending and need to be resolved. The document is now in Revised ID needed.=20 The principal objection raised by a number of AD's was related to the mix in the document of the guidelines for defining and reviewing metrics (which are considered very useful) and the procedure of approving the work and the resulting metrics documents. The IESG consensus was that these need to be separated, and that the part that talks about how new work is approved in the working groups, and about the formation of a directorate is not necessary. The current IETF procedures are sufficient for this purpose.=20 The recommendation of the IESG is to revise the document taking out all procedural issues and leaving inside only the technical guidelines about definition and review of performance metrics at other layers. The document will so serve anybody who wants to start such new work in a working group, as well as the reviewers. The PMOL directorate will be formed separately by AD and IESG decision, but there is no need to describe in the document about its formation and charter - this will be done according to procedures well known and used in the IETF.=20 I know that some of you may be a little disappointed as they thought that we are very close to approval and WG charter completion. I thank you all for the good work, and I suggest that we apply the recommendations of the IESG. If these recommendations of the IESG are agreed by the PMOL WG members I would suggest that we revise the document - actually it's a simplification - as soon as possible. It may be appropriate to redo the PMOL WGLC - this is your decision. You may also want to meet in Prague, this is again up to you to decide if a face-to-face meeting is necessary.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan From acmorton@att.com Fri Feb 4 08:31:15 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 2E1FD3A69BF for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:31:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 cmyGsHGLcxz6 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:31:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail129.messagelabs.com (mail129.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353B43A695F for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:31:14 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1296837271!35117006!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.9; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 18667 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2011 16:34:32 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-2.tower-129.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 Feb 2011 16:34:32 -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 p14GYpJo010105 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:34:52 -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 p14GYmrj010032 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:34:49 -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 p14GYP8e013968 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:34:25 -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 p14GYMtH013807 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:34:23 -0500 Message-Id: <201102041634.p14GYMtH013807@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (martym.mt.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20110204163422gw100e4l94e>; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:34:22 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:34:56 -0500 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [PMOL] Review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the IESG 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, 04 Feb 2011 16:31:15 -0000 Thanks for your summary, Dan. I think that the revised/simplified draft will reflect today's reality more than our plans of years ago, and that's a reasonable outcome to me. Essentially, section 6 would go, and revisions in section 1 (Intro) and the title would reflect that deletion. I think there was also push against this memo as a BCP. Is it also necessary to change the Intended status? Al At 11:06 AM 2/4/2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >The IESG discussed draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the telechat >yesterday. The document was not approved under its current form and a >number of DISCUSSes are pending and need to be resolved. The document is >now in Revised ID needed. > >The principal objection raised by a number of AD's was related to the >mix in the document of the guidelines for defining and reviewing metrics >(which are considered very useful) and the procedure of approving the >work and the resulting metrics documents. The IESG consensus was that >these need to be separated, and that the part that talks about how new >work is approved in the working groups, and about the formation of a >directorate is not necessary. The current IETF procedures are sufficient >for this purpose. > >The recommendation of the IESG is to revise the document taking out all >procedural issues and leaving inside only the technical guidelines about >definition and review of performance metrics at other layers. The >document will so serve anybody who wants to start such new work in a >working group, as well as the reviewers. The PMOL directorate will be >formed separately by AD and IESG decision, but there is no need to >describe in the document about its formation and charter - this will be >done according to procedures well known and used in the IETF. > > I know that some of you may be a little disappointed as they thought >that we are very close to approval and WG charter completion. I thank >you all for the good work, and I suggest that we apply the >recommendations of the IESG. If these recommendations of the IESG are >agreed by the PMOL WG members I would suggest that we revise the >document - actually it's a simplification - as soon as possible. It may >be appropriate to redo the PMOL WGLC - this is your decision. You may >also want to meet in Prague, this is again up to you to decide if a >face-to-face meeting is necessary. > >Thanks and Regards, > >Dan >_______________________________________________ >PMOL mailing list >PMOL@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From dromasca@avaya.com Fri Feb 4 10:22:34 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 5A2313A69CB for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:22:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, 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 MdtM+jZXcR61 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:22:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2902B3A6A0E for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:22:31 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmMBAMPTS03GmAcF/2dsb2JhbACWT45ec6BaAph3hVoEjy4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,427,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="263232288" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2011 13:25:57 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,427,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="578691380" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2011 13:25:56 -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, 4 Feb 2011 19:25:34 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201102041634.p14GYM2d013806@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the IESG Thread-Index: AcvEiXf9nKMg9cIxR7m2J1Vqd1+LFAADwnhw References: <201102041634.p14GYM2d013806@alpd052.aldc.att.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Al Morton" , Subject: Re: [PMOL] Review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the IESG 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, 04 Feb 2011 18:22:34 -0000 In the last question - Some of the AD's questioned the Intended Status. My personal take is that a BCP is still better, because if I am looking at documents issued by IPPM and BMWG most are standards track, so having a BCP as reference makes more sense to me. Also, 4181 for example which may be considered a somehow similar document is also a BCP. In any case, this is a contributor opinion, and I will support any decision the WG will make on this respect, including a change in the intended status.=20 Dan =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com]=20 > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 6:35 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pmol@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PMOL] Review of=20 > draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the IESG >=20 > Thanks for your summary, Dan. >=20 > I think that the revised/simplified draft will reflect=20 > today's reality more than our plans of years ago, and that's=20 > a reasonable outcome to me. >=20 > Essentially, section 6 would go, and revisions in section 1=20 > (Intro) and the title would reflect that deletion. >=20 > I think there was also push against this memo as a BCP. Is=20 > it also necessary to change the Intended status? >=20 > Al >=20 >=20 > At 11:06 AM 2/4/2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > >The IESG discussed draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the telechat=20 > >yesterday. The document was not approved under its current=20 > form and a=20 > >number of DISCUSSes are pending and need to be resolved. The=20 > document=20 > >is now in Revised ID needed. > > > >The principal objection raised by a number of AD's was=20 > related to the=20 > >mix in the document of the guidelines for defining and reviewing=20 > >metrics (which are considered very useful) and the procedure of=20 > >approving the work and the resulting metrics documents. The IESG=20 > >consensus was that these need to be separated, and that the=20 > part that=20 > >talks about how new work is approved in the working groups,=20 > and about=20 > >the formation of a directorate is not necessary. The current IETF=20 > >procedures are sufficient for this purpose. > > > >The recommendation of the IESG is to revise the document=20 > taking out all=20 > >procedural issues and leaving inside only the technical guidelines=20 > >about definition and review of performance metrics at other=20 > layers. The=20 > >document will so serve anybody who wants to start such new work in a=20 > >working group, as well as the reviewers. The PMOL=20 > directorate will be=20 > >formed separately by AD and IESG decision, but there is no need to=20 > >describe in the document about its formation and charter -=20 > this will be=20 > >done according to procedures well known and used in the IETF. > > > > I know that some of you may be a little disappointed as=20 > they thought=20 > >that we are very close to approval and WG charter=20 > completion. I thank=20 > >you all for the good work, and I suggest that we apply the=20 > >recommendations of the IESG. If these recommendations of the=20 > IESG are=20 > >agreed by the PMOL WG members I would suggest that we revise the=20 > >document - actually it's a simplification - as soon as=20 > possible. It may=20 > >be appropriate to redo the PMOL WGLC - this is your=20 > decision. You may=20 > >also want to meet in Prague, this is again up to you to decide if a=20 > >face-to-face meeting is necessary. > > > >Thanks and Regards, > > > >Dan > >_______________________________________________ > >PMOL mailing list > >PMOL@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol >=20 >=20 From alan.d.clark@telchemy.com Fri Feb 4 13:09:52 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 B8D623A69D3 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:09:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-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 lirWT65UkWvK for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:09:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp01.myhostedservice.com (smtp01.myhostedservice.com [216.134.213.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407E53A69A9 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:09:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail01.netplexity.net (172.29.251.14) by SMTP01.netplexity.local (172.29.211.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.0.722.0; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:12:58 -0500 Received: from UnknownHost [97.67.102.65] by mail01.netplexity.net with SMTP; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:13:15 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:13:06 -0500 From: Alan Clark To: "Dan (Dan)" , Al Morton , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the IESG Thread-Index: AcvEiXf9nKMg9cIxR7m2J1Vqd1+LFAADwnhwAAXzvxs= In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PMOL] Review of draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the IESG 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, 04 Feb 2011 21:09:52 -0000 I concur with Dan that a BCP would be preferred (and represents what the draft is trying to achieve) and also with Al that the removal of section 6 with the corresponding updates to the intro should address the DISCUSS's Alan On 2/4/11 1:25 PM, "Dan (Dan)" wrote: > In the last question - Some of the AD's questioned the Intended Status. > My personal take is that a BCP is still better, because if I am looking > at documents issued by IPPM and BMWG most are standards track, so having > a BCP as reference makes more sense to me. Also, 4181 for example which > may be considered a somehow similar document is also a BCP. In any case, > this is a contributor opinion, and I will support any decision the WG > will make on this respect, including a change in the intended status. > > Dan > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com] >> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 6:35 PM >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pmol@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [PMOL] Review of >> draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the IESG >> >> Thanks for your summary, Dan. >> >> I think that the revised/simplified draft will reflect >> today's reality more than our plans of years ago, and that's >> a reasonable outcome to me. >> >> Essentially, section 6 would go, and revisions in section 1 >> (Intro) and the title would reflect that deletion. >> >> I think there was also push against this memo as a BCP. Is >> it also necessary to change the Intended status? >> >> Al >> >> >> At 11:06 AM 2/4/2011, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>> The IESG discussed draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework in the telechat >>> yesterday. The document was not approved under its current >> form and a >>> number of DISCUSSes are pending and need to be resolved. The >> document >>> is now in Revised ID needed. >>> >>> The principal objection raised by a number of AD's was >> related to the >>> mix in the document of the guidelines for defining and reviewing >>> metrics (which are considered very useful) and the procedure of >>> approving the work and the resulting metrics documents. The IESG >>> consensus was that these need to be separated, and that the >> part that >>> talks about how new work is approved in the working groups, >> and about >>> the formation of a directorate is not necessary. The current IETF >>> procedures are sufficient for this purpose. >>> >>> The recommendation of the IESG is to revise the document >> taking out all >>> procedural issues and leaving inside only the technical guidelines >>> about definition and review of performance metrics at other >> layers. The >>> document will so serve anybody who wants to start such new work in a >>> working group, as well as the reviewers. The PMOL >> directorate will be >>> formed separately by AD and IESG decision, but there is no need to >>> describe in the document about its formation and charter - >> this will be >>> done according to procedures well known and used in the IETF. >>> >>> I know that some of you may be a little disappointed as >> they thought >>> that we are very close to approval and WG charter >> completion. I thank >>> you all for the good work, and I suggest that we apply the >>> recommendations of the IESG. If these recommendations of the >> IESG are >>> agreed by the PMOL WG members I would suggest that we revise the >>> document - actually it's a simplification - as soon as >> possible. It may >>> be appropriate to redo the PMOL WGLC - this is your >> decision. You may >>> also want to meet in Prague, this is again up to you to decide if a >>> face-to-face meeting is necessary. >>> >>> Thanks and Regards, >>> >>> Dan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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