From dromasca@avaya.com Wed May 2 01:56:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B60121F883F for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NXO3JYDccnto for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6381821F8830 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:56:25 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Al0FACP2oE/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEr3eDAoEHggkBAQEBAwEBAQ8eCjQXBgEIDQQEAQELBgwLAQcmHwcBAQUEAQQTCBqHawuZC4QgnGyNY4JCYwSXD4UHiiqCag X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,516,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="304524220" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 02 May 2012 04:56:22 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 02 May 2012 04:53:28 -0400 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:56:21 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting Thread-Index: Ac0oIMWANqXf9iBuSV2CIztW7KDq3gAIKc9A From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] FW: [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:56:28 -0000 -----Original Message----- From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shida Schubert Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:02 AM To: xrblock Subject: [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting This is an announcement of a 2 weeks XRBLOCK WG last call on=20 "Report Block for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting" prior to requesting publication of the document as a proposed standard.=20 Please send your comments, including nits, to the list by the 17th of May If you read the draft and you see no issues, concerns, or nits, please express the fact that you have no issue progressing the draft on the list as well.=20 The latest version can be found here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-02 Regards Shida as co-chair =20 _______________________________________________ xrblock mailing list xrblock@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock From acmorton@att.com Wed May 16 07:50:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916A521F85EF for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 07:50:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.693, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7vXJ7cHyRHpZ for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 07:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com [209.65.160.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD8921F8622 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 07:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 3beb3bf4.0.949310.00-410.2576957.nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Wed, 16 May 2012 14:50:27 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fb3beb303054457-9f750fd9d8e1cb18d52d9250bb19abd666f0297e Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4GEoQI5028668 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:26 -0400 Received: from sflint04.pst.cso.att.com (sflint04.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.231]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4GEoGUW028153 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:20 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint04.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:07 -0400 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 q4GEo7k1004195 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:07 -0400 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 q4GEo0BT003650 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:00 -0400 Message-Id: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (dn135-16-251-71.dhcpn.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120516144631gw10060l7ue>; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:46:31 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:51:13 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.146] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=dit6Jc5sqrAA:10 a=_PGysaiNrEgA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=Qs8R1XBwmid1qB] X-AnalysisOut: [FB/a8mmA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=QiNSHovXX_MC4mD9OSkA:9 a=] X-AnalysisOut: [CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10] Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:50:28 -0000 PM Directorate, Dan sent this a few weeks back, did anyone review it? If not, would anyone like to review it fairly soon? (we could probably get some extra time for a PMdir review from the chairs...) let me know, Al PMdir admin At 04:56 AM 5/2/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Shida Schubert >Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:02 AM >To: xrblock >Subject: [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting > >This is an announcement of a 2 weeks XRBLOCK WG last call on >"Report Block for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting" prior >to requesting publication of the document as a proposed standard. > >Please send your comments, including nits, to the list by the > > 17th of May > >If you read the draft and you see no issues, concerns, or nits, please >express the fact that you have no issue progressing the draft on the >list as well. > >The latest version can be found here: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-02 > >Regards > > Shida as co-chair > From acmorton@att.com Wed May 16 07:54:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4CD21F8609 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 07:54:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.455 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.341, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l+Hk1pyEo7-F for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 07:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D3321F8622 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 07:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 88fb3bf4.0.824737.00-480.2257562.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Wed, 16 May 2012 14:54:00 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fb3bf880de36d53-80b4e7c86959d981496bb8a6d901aa136f1114e7 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4GErxcI025754 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:54:00 -0400 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4GErwu9025750 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:58 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:44 -0400 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 q4GErhv6016429 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:44 -0400 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 q4GErZNl015927 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:35 -0400 Message-Id: <201205161453.q4GErZNl015927@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (dn135-16-251-71.dhcpn.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120516145006gw10060l7ve>; Wed, 16 May 2012 14:50:06 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:54:49 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=dit6Jc5sqrAA:10 a=M67JIDxT9_EA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=zQP7CpKO] X-AnalysisOut: [AAAA:8 a=0bKYKwvGa_JurB5TvREA:9 a=jXXMQyWJt2LcGNtJo9oA:7 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=JfD0Fch1gWkA:10 a=Hz7IrDYlS0cA:10 a=lZB] X-AnalysisOut: [815dzVvQA:10 a=vshVyTErqPi13ghc:21 a=eUxy6mPLg5tZDCpw:21] Subject: [PMOL] Fwd: Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:54:02 -0000 PM Directorate, I reviewed one of Aamer's passive performance drafts (attached below). Aamer has a related draft, would anyone volunteer to review this one: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix let me know, and thanks, Al PMdir admin >Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 13:06:56 -0400 >To: "Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" , >From: Al Morton >Subject: Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02 >Cc: ipfix@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org > >Hi Aamer, > >I finally made some time to review one of your drafts: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02 > >and comments follow below. Not sure exactly which list >will be best, so I CC'd ipfix and opsawg. > >hope this helps, >Al > > >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >Main Comments: > >1. Packet Loss Calculation Method (4.1.1) >Each metric has a paragraph labeled Calculation Method, but >they contain a useful discussion of the possible issues instead. >Many details are left to the implementor, with the likely outcome >that different implementations will produce different results. >For example, "synchronization" is mentioned many times, but what >does this process entail? Try to minimize interpretation, >perhaps by including a high-level step-by-step procedure for >processing each arriving packet, both during initiation >(synchronization, when the first few packets arrive) and >steady-state processing (which involves using the info from sync). >Since this draft is proposed for the Standards Track, it >really needs to provide definitions that will stand-up to >scrutiny of multiple implementations. > > >2. Packet Loss "Rate" (4.1.3) >This metric is really a Statistic, or a metric derived from the >fundamental metrics of Packet Loss and Expected Packet (counts) >over a particular measurement interval. Thus, there's no need >to talk about measurement points, you've already defined these >in the Loss and Expected metrics. >Also, this is more accurately named "Loss Ratio", especially when >expressed as a percentage as you've done. > >3. Jitter (4.1.5 and beyond) >This metric will disappoint for use in SLAs or de-jitter buffer >sizing if it is based on the RFCC3550 smoothed jitter calculation. >Regardless of the measurement interval, only the last 16 packets >have any influence over the current value (which is your Average?) > >General Editorial: >There are a number of sentences that seem to contain alternate >wordings, as though some deleted text returned somehow. Also, >running a spell-check will help. > >Specific comments follow: > >3.1. Quality of Service (QoS) Monitoring > > The network operator needs to be able to gauge the end user's > satisfaction with the network service. While there are many > components of the satisfaction such as pricing, packaging, offering, > etc., a major component of satisfaction is delivering a consistent > service. >Consistent Service in what dimensions? Is Service Performance meant here? > > >4. New Information Elements > > The information elements are organized into two main groups: > > Transport Layer: Metrics that might be calculated from observations > at higher layers but essentially provide information about the > network transport of user date. >s/date/data/ > > >4.1.1. perfPacketLoss > > Name: perfPacketLoss > >In this section, s/loss packet/lost packet/ > >Also, what is the 5-tuple? SSRC + Src IP and Port + Dst IP and Port? > >At the end: > Measurment Timing To be able to calculate this metric a continuous > set of the flow's packets (as each would have an incrementing > sequence number) needs to be monitored. Therefore, per-packet > sampling would prevent this metric from being calculated. >s/per-packet/sub-rate/ ?? > > >4.1.2. perfPacketExpected > > Name: perfPacketExpected >... > Use and Applications The perfPacketExpected is a mid-calculation > metric used in the generation of perfPacketLossRate. It is > equivilent to the highest received packet sequence number at the > time of measurement. >True when there is no roll-over in Seq numbers. > > ... As the value only increments when packets > are received, packet loss may be occouring at the time of > measurement but perfPacketExpected remains constant. >This is an issue worth mitigating, some sort of average packet rate >could be used to estimate the number of losses while the Expected count >remains constant. > > > Calculation Method: The subtraction of the last sequence number from > the first sequence number in monitoring interval yields the > expected count. As discussed with perfPacketLost, there might be > a delay due to synchronization with the flow's sequence numbers > and in such times the value of the metric should be set to > 0xFFFFFFFE. Care has to be taken to account for cases where the > packet's sequence number field wraps. >This is an opportunity for more specifics, as an example >(I didn't check the Appendix 3 reference, no access today...) > > >4.1.3. perfPacketLossRate > > Name: perfPacketLossPercentage >These aren't the same! Which is it? > > >4.1.4. perfPacketLossEvent > > Name: perfPacketLossEvent >Need "consecutive" in the name, or some other way to distinguish >single losses from "bursts". > >... > Calculation Method: This data value is a simplified version of the > Lost Packets metric. Whereas Lost Packets counts individual > packet loss, the 'loss event count' metric counts sets of packets > that are lost. For example, in the case of a sequence of packets: > 1,3,6,7,10 the packets marked 2,4,5,8 and 9 are lost. So, a total >How long does the process wait to make the lost determination? > > >4.1.5. perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg > > Name: perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg > > Description: This metric measures the absolute deviation of the > difference in packet spacing at the measurement point compared to > the packet spacing at the sender. >I don't think that's what 3550 Jitter does... > >... > Use and Applications The inter arrival jitter data value can be used > be network operator to determine the network's impact to the > spacing in between a media stream's packets as they traverse the > network. >What about Source Jitter? this can be very significant, more than network. > >Again, Min and Max are statistics. > > > >4.2. User and Application Layer > >4.2.1. perfSessionSetupDelay > > Name: perfSessionSetupDelay >This seems to be the only two-point metric, worth noting. >and >[I-D.ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics] >is an RFC now (which mostly defined metrics, not methods). > > From dromasca@avaya.com Wed May 16 09:22:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F8621F8636 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:22:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.959 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5JcHF+0YUp1o for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C2121F8634 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:22:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAGXTs0+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEtAuBB4IVAQEBAQMBAQEPHgo0FwQCAQgNAQMEAQEBCgYMCwEGASYfCAEIAQEEARIIARmHbAueEJ0NixMZhFpiA5cLhQaKKYJrgV0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,604,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="9591871" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2012 12:22:53 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2012 12:05:23 -0400 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:22:53 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] FW: [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting Thread-Index: Ac0zc081s7IqZWqBSRmoZwY3gHIiaAADBKZw References: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Al Morton" , Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 16:22:57 -0000 Hi Al, I reviewed it and sent my comments a few days ago to the XRBLOCK list - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00511.html, I apologize for not copying PMOL. Note that this I-D refers only to reporting formats, while for metrics definition they are referring http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.=20 Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Al Morton > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:51 PM > To: pmol@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation > Metric Reporting >=20 > PM Directorate, >=20 > Dan sent this a few weeks back, did anyone review it? > If not, would anyone like to review it fairly soon? > (we could probably get some extra time for a PMdir review > from the chairs...) >=20 > let me know, > Al > PMdir admin >=20 > At 04:56 AM 5/2/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > >From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On > >Behalf Of Shida Schubert > >Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:02 AM > >To: xrblock > >Subject: [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting > > > >This is an announcement of a 2 weeks XRBLOCK WG last call on > >"Report Block for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting" prior > >to requesting publication of the document as a proposed standard. > > > >Please send your comments, including nits, to the list by the > > > > 17th of May > > > >If you read the draft and you see no issues, concerns, or nits, please > >express the fact that you have no issue progressing the draft on the > >list as well. > > > >The latest version can be found here: > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-02 > > > >Regards > > > > Shida as co-chair > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From acmorton@att.com Wed May 16 17:43:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B43821F8667 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 17:43:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.408 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.612, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id if62m4WOZX1J for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 17:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com [209.65.160.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC0821F8665 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 17:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 7a944bf4.0.1137627.00-464.3110453.nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 17 May 2012 00:43:19 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fb449a76772e242-e5fce81508320f229fd3b0a5f58d2d82fa76abea Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4H0hJm0006939 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 20:43:19 -0400 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4H0hDXA006880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 20:43:13 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 20:42:56 -0400 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 q4H0gurp018569 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 20:42:56 -0400 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 q4H0gnan018395 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 20:42:49 -0400 Message-Id: <201205170042.q4H0gnan018395@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-193-64.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.193.64](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120517003919gw10060l9ee>; Thu, 17 May 2012 00:39:20 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.193.64] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 20:44:02 -0400 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: References: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=1d9WrA_T19EA:10 a=_PGysaiNrEgA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=nzsj_kgfByJr8G7BEcIA:9 a=] X-AnalysisOut: [CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=ltEdxt0KjmoA:10] Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 00:43:20 -0000 At 12:22 PM 5/16/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >I reviewed it and sent my comments a few days ago to the XRBLOCK list - >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00511.html, I >apologize for not copying PMOL. Thanks Dan, no need to apologize, just trying to keep track. >Note that this I-D refers only to >reporting formats, while for metrics definition they are referring >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04. Anyone volunteer to review this one? Al From janovak@cisco.com Thu May 17 03:02:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DC521F8592 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 03:02:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NO63dsjCdCOB for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 03:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B2121F858A for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 03:02:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=janovak@cisco.com; l=7557; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337248962; x=1338458562; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=7M4inS4wC6XZRLb/HbtiC1p+9F3lXJhLGShCuUBe3tY=; b=A8sHkrynXtfecezG5b4a3xs8v1VxkeffJaK0TCRKIFLaBVZrXYQMaKW2 YiVHoF59I7NnF+rWHFyUEpit9s+Fq4HX44DHkyJgkkcroCZBqbzOD1jZ3 IqcURGNc+DlgNLgAUb8MVHlFYCGLAes3yCVX7CbxlTfMYqH5fKlCDHxaw U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAIDLtE+Q/khN/2dsb2JhbABEs0yBB4IVAQEBBAEBAQ8BHQo0FwQCAQgOAwMBAQELBgUSAQYBJh8JCAEBBAESCBqHbAubZp9+ixOCKIJNYgOXC41GgWmCaw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,608,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="138058251" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2012 10:02:40 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4HA2etI006709; Thu, 17 May 2012 10:02:40 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-212.cisco.com ([144.254.75.23]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 17 May 2012 12:02:40 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:02:39 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201205161453.q4GErZNl015927@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Fwd: Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02 Thread-Index: Ac0zc8BXTR41oCKqTcOQDS4l95WyzAAoGjPQ References: <201205161453.q4GErZNl015927@alpd052.aldc.att.com> From: "Jan Novak (janovak)" To: "Al Morton" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2012 10:02:40.0463 (UTC) FILETIME=[31E405F0:01CD3414] Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 10:02:43 -0000 Hi Al, I will have a look. Jan The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young ....=20 and the strong envy them. Dr. Johnson -----Original Message----- From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton Sent: 16 May 2012 15:55 To: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] Fwd: Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02 PM Directorate, I reviewed one of Aamer's passive performance drafts (attached below). Aamer has a related draft, would anyone volunteer to review this one: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix let me know, and thanks, Al PMdir admin >Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 13:06:56 -0400 >To: "Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" , >From: Al Morton >Subject: Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02 >Cc: ipfix@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org > >Hi Aamer, > >I finally made some time to review one of your drafts: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02 > >and comments follow below. Not sure exactly which list >will be best, so I CC'd ipfix and opsawg. > >hope this helps, >Al > > >-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- > >Main Comments: > >1. Packet Loss Calculation Method (4.1.1) >Each metric has a paragraph labeled Calculation Method, but >they contain a useful discussion of the possible issues instead. >Many details are left to the implementor, with the likely outcome >that different implementations will produce different results. >For example, "synchronization" is mentioned many times, but what >does this process entail? Try to minimize interpretation, >perhaps by including a high-level step-by-step procedure for >processing each arriving packet, both during initiation >(synchronization, when the first few packets arrive) and >steady-state processing (which involves using the info from sync). >Since this draft is proposed for the Standards Track, it >really needs to provide definitions that will stand-up to >scrutiny of multiple implementations. > > >2. Packet Loss "Rate" (4.1.3) >This metric is really a Statistic, or a metric derived from the >fundamental metrics of Packet Loss and Expected Packet (counts) >over a particular measurement interval. Thus, there's no need >to talk about measurement points, you've already defined these >in the Loss and Expected metrics. >Also, this is more accurately named "Loss Ratio", especially when >expressed as a percentage as you've done. > >3. Jitter (4.1.5 and beyond) >This metric will disappoint for use in SLAs or de-jitter buffer >sizing if it is based on the RFCC3550 smoothed jitter calculation. >Regardless of the measurement interval, only the last 16 packets >have any influence over the current value (which is your Average?) > >General Editorial: >There are a number of sentences that seem to contain alternate >wordings, as though some deleted text returned somehow. Also, >running a spell-check will help. > >Specific comments follow: > >3.1. Quality of Service (QoS) Monitoring > > The network operator needs to be able to gauge the end user's > satisfaction with the network service. While there are many > components of the satisfaction such as pricing, packaging, offering, > etc., a major component of satisfaction is delivering a consistent > service. >Consistent Service in what dimensions? Is Service Performance meant here? > > >4. New Information Elements > > The information elements are organized into two main groups: > > Transport Layer: Metrics that might be calculated from observations > at higher layers but essentially provide information about the > network transport of user date. >s/date/data/ > > >4.1.1. perfPacketLoss > > Name: perfPacketLoss > >In this section, s/loss packet/lost packet/ > >Also, what is the 5-tuple? SSRC + Src IP and Port + Dst IP and Port? > >At the end: > Measurment Timing To be able to calculate this metric a continuous > set of the flow's packets (as each would have an incrementing > sequence number) needs to be monitored. Therefore, per-packet > sampling would prevent this metric from being calculated. >s/per-packet/sub-rate/ ?? > > >4.1.2. perfPacketExpected > > Name: perfPacketExpected >... > Use and Applications The perfPacketExpected is a mid-calculation > metric used in the generation of perfPacketLossRate. It is > equivilent to the highest received packet sequence number at the > time of measurement. >True when there is no roll-over in Seq numbers. > > ... As the value only increments when packets > are received, packet loss may be occouring at the time of > measurement but perfPacketExpected remains constant. >This is an issue worth mitigating, some sort of average packet rate >could be used to estimate the number of losses while the Expected count >remains constant. > > > Calculation Method: The subtraction of the last sequence number from > the first sequence number in monitoring interval yields the > expected count. As discussed with perfPacketLost, there might be > a delay due to synchronization with the flow's sequence numbers > and in such times the value of the metric should be set to > 0xFFFFFFFE. Care has to be taken to account for cases where the > packet's sequence number field wraps. >This is an opportunity for more specifics, as an example >(I didn't check the Appendix 3 reference, no access today...) > > >4.1.3. perfPacketLossRate > > Name: perfPacketLossPercentage >These aren't the same! Which is it? > > >4.1.4. perfPacketLossEvent > > Name: perfPacketLossEvent >Need "consecutive" in the name, or some other way to distinguish >single losses from "bursts". > >... > Calculation Method: This data value is a simplified version of the > Lost Packets metric. Whereas Lost Packets counts individual > packet loss, the 'loss event count' metric counts sets of packets > that are lost. For example, in the case of a sequence of packets: > 1,3,6,7,10 the packets marked 2,4,5,8 and 9 are lost. So, a total >How long does the process wait to make the lost determination? > > >4.1.5. perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg > > Name: perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg > > Description: This metric measures the absolute deviation of the > difference in packet spacing at the measurement point compared to > the packet spacing at the sender. >I don't think that's what 3550 Jitter does... > >... > Use and Applications The inter arrival jitter data value can be used > be network operator to determine the network's impact to the > spacing in between a media stream's packets as they traverse the > network. >What about Source Jitter? this can be very significant, more than network. > >Again, Min and Max are statistics. > > > >4.2. User and Application Layer > >4.2.1. perfSessionSetupDelay > > Name: perfSessionSetupDelay >This seems to be the only two-point metric, worth noting. >and >[I-D.ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics] >is an RFC now (which mostly defined metrics, not methods). > > _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From cpignata@cisco.com Sat May 19 15:01:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D7111E808D for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 15:01:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZNJdS9uU9fu for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 15:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645B511E8073 for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 15:01:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=cpignata@cisco.com; l=4350; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337464914; x=1338674514; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=avcDWxm5CTVYb7RUMRWntNlo+hkt0Y4mV6LsKNLFB+4=; b=Qhx/3qJekomK33kKIAA07w5oF4JXIQCu29oQMHEGdXLKhWomoTIMYBkZ X0HC7lS5hBjs8nVtGRPR2GgoQXdg79HNN7SHNxsiH///kqYnM9NuLqz70 E58M3iiOx9gHhuWvqGzU933aPmxM9L0Kq7qc+OD1fyJZJ3W0+tbDUAYdo w=; X-Files: signature.asc : 203 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjEFAKIXuE+tJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABFqj0BiU2BB4IVAQEBAwEBAQEPAVsLBQsLBAoEBi4nIg4GEwkZh2cFC5w+nwqLBRmEUmIDjjiGY4EPjH2BZIMFgUM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,622,1330905600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="84787491" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2012 22:01:54 +0000 Received: from rtp-cpignata-89113.cisco.com (rtp-cpignata-89113.cisco.com [10.117.115.62]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4JM1rXJ014207; Sat, 19 May 2012 22:01:53 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D943D050-CA63-485D-92D8-761BBD7B1CE4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 From: Carlos Pignataro In-Reply-To: <201205170042.q4H0gnan018395@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 18:01:52 -0400 Message-Id: <2E381B64-E6BE-43B6-88A7-0FE4685DB3E5@cisco.com> References: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201205170042.q4H0gnan018395@alpd052.aldc.att.com> To: Al Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 22:01:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D943D050-CA63-485D-92D8-761BBD7B1CE4 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_83D0B341-CAD4-4C8D-B441-52B12912BDE2" --Apple-Mail=_83D0B341-CAD4-4C8D-B441-52B12912BDE2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 16, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Al Morton wrote: > At 12:22 PM 5/16/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> I reviewed it and sent my comments a few days ago to the XRBLOCK list = - >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00511.html, I >> apologize for not copying PMOL. >=20 > Thanks Dan, no need to apologize, just trying to keep track. >=20 >> Note that this I-D refers only to >> reporting formats, while for metrics definition they are referring >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04. >=20 > Anyone volunteer to review this one? >=20 I cannot volunteer to review this one this next two weeks. However I = wanted to point out that, when the XRBLOCK refers to rev -04 of the = Monitoring Architecture document, the current rev is -13. These are the changes, non trivial amount: = http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13.txt&url= 1=3Ddraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.txt Thanks, -- Carlos. > Al > =20 > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol >=20 --Apple-Mail=_83D0B341-CAD4-4C8D-B441-52B12912BDE2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
At = 12:22 PM 5/16/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
I reviewed it and sent my comments a few days ago to the = XRBLOCK list -
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00511.html, = I
apologize for not copying = PMOL.

Thanks Dan, no need to apologize, just trying = to keep track.

Note that this I-D = refers only to
reporting = formats, while for metrics definition they are = referring
http://t= ools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.

= Anyone volunteer to review this = one?


I cannot volunteer to = review this one this next two weeks. However I wanted to point out that, = when the XRBLOCK refers to rev -04 of the Monitoring Architecture = document, the current rev is -13.
These are the changes, non = trivial amount:

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

Al
=  
_______________________________________________
PMOL = mailing list
PMOL@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/pmol


= --Apple-Mail=_83D0B341-CAD4-4C8D-B441-52B12912BDE2-- --Apple-Mail=_D943D050-CA63-485D-92D8-761BBD7B1CE4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk+4GFAACgkQtfDPGTp3USytCACfcvDMrV1sBezJIoz/iHOGP0gj kskAnRzWalwnTGiorWjD/ShcmqweO18k =zXAy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D943D050-CA63-485D-92D8-761BBD7B1CE4-- From acmorton@att.com Sun May 20 05:56:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DB421F84E4 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 05:56:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u9NI1NV7hbT2 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 05:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com [209.65.160.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6133021F83EF for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 05:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 21ae8bf4.0.19469.00-475.50275.nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Sun, 20 May 2012 12:56:51 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fb8ea1301ddfcbd-d52ffffcc509ca0e27f99c2fa2436951cf1148c2 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4KCuonK009791 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:56:50 -0400 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4KCukQT009770 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:56:47 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:56:30 -0400 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 q4KCuUSf022236 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:56:30 -0400 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 q4KCuHPE022020 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:56:28 -0400 Message-Id: <201205201256.q4KCuHPE022020@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-199-208.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.199.208](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120520125245gw10060ldee>; Sun, 20 May 2012 12:52:46 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.199.208] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 08:57:28 -0400 To: Carlos Pignataro , eckelcu@cisco.com, shida@ntt-at.com From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <2E381B64-E6BE-43B6-88A7-0FE4685DB3E5@cisco.com> References: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201205170042.q4H0gnan018395@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <2E381B64-E6BE-43B6-88A7-0FE4685DB3E5@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=2Gx5Ooju6CMA:10 a=l3WjCsTLvUsA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=7E5MHFeCFpAPqWGDt3cA:9 a=] X-AnalysisOut: [bXGfs1-H8DsJoT1qCqoA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10] X-AnalysisOut: [ a=ltEdxt0KjmoA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10] Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:56:52 -0000 Charles and Shida,

Dan Romascanu suggested that the Performance Metrics Directorate
take a look at this draft, in addition to his WGLC review.

Carlos' comment is below (Thanks for your comment, Carlos).

Al
PMDir admin


At 06:01 PM 5/19/2012, Carlos Pignataro wrote:

On May 16, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Al Morton wrote:

At 12:22 PM 5/16/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
I reviewed it and sent my comments a few days ago to the XRBLOCK list -
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00511.html, I
apologize for not copying PMOL.

Thanks Dan, no need to apologize, just trying to keep track.

Note that this I-D refers only to
reporting formats, while for metrics definition they are referring
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.

Anyone volunteer to review this one?

I cannot volunteer to review this one this next two weeks. However I wanted to point out that, when the XRBLOCK refers to rev -04 of the Monitoring Architecture document, the current rev is -13.
These are the changes, non trivial amount:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13.txt&url1=draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.txt

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

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

From acmorton@att.com Sun May 20 06:21:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99EF21F8552 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 06:21:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KIRgIFKolkPZ for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 06:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B9A21F8541 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 06:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 8cfe8bf4.0.819643.00-389.2226868.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Sun, 20 May 2012 13:21:12 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fb8efc8777a15e5-7fe93422a537aa25531d563cfd4bddc6e6896419 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4KDL94u008532 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:21:12 -0400 Received: from sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (sflint03.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.230]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4KDL4Vi008504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:21:06 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:20:35 -0400 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 q4KDKYi3003941 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:20:35 -0400 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 q4KDKVhY003868 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:20:31 -0400 Message-Id: <201205201320.q4KDKVhY003868@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-199-208.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.199.208](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120520131658gw10060ldfe>; Sun, 20 May 2012 13:16:59 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.199.208] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:21:42 -0400 To: Carlos Pignataro , eckelcu@cisco.com, shida@ntt-at.com From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <7.1.0.9.0.20120520084432.02173e68@att.com> References: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201205170042.q4H0gnan018395@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <2E381B64-E6BE-43B6-88A7-0FE4685DB3E5@cisco.com> <7.1.0.9.0.20120520084432.02173e68@att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.146] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=2Gx5Ooju6CMA:10 a=l3WjCsTLvUsA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=Qs8R1XBwmid1qB] X-AnalysisOut: [FB/a8mmA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=GLiK78uIi78wTebqaQMA:9 a=] X-AnalysisOut: [HWu80MV0B3JoZJl7nA0A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10] X-AnalysisOut: [ a=ltEdxt0KjmoA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10] Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:21:14 -0000 Charles and Shida,

I gave this a brief look myself, and add the following comment:

3.3. Guidance on use of PDV metrics
   This subsection provides informative guidance on when it might be
   appropriate to use each of the PDV metric types.
...
   2-point PDV (Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540]) reports absolute packet delay
   variation with respect to the time of arrival of the first packet of
   the connection.  In an RTP context, the two "points" are at the
   sender (the synchronization source which applies RTP timestamps) and
   at the receiver.  The value of this metric for the packet with index
   j is identical to the quantity D(i,j) defined in Section 6.4.1 of
   [RFC3550] if the packet index i is set equal to 1, that is, the
   reference packet for the metric is the first packet of the
   connection.  The metric includes the effect of the frequency offsets
   of clocks in both the sender and receiver end systems, so it is
   useful mainly in network where synchronisation is distributed.  As
   well as measuring packet delay variation in such networks, it may be
   used to ensure that synchronisation is effective, for example where
   the network carries ISDN data traffic over RTP [RFC4040].  The metric
   is likely to be useful in networks which use fixed de-jitter
   buffering, because it may be used to determine the length of the
   required de-jitter buffer, or to determine if network performance has
   deteriorated such that existing de-jitter buffers are too small to
   accommodate the observed delay variation.
While
   "...The value of this metric for the packet with index
   j is identical to the quantity D(i,j) defined in Section 6.4.1 of
   [RFC3550] if the packet index i is set equal to 1, that is, the
   reference packet for the metric is the first packet of the
   connection."
is true, it's not a particularly relevant comparison.
The reference packet "i" is not the first packet in either
the 3550 or the Y.1540 definition - this should be noted,
at least. Also, the reference to Y.1540 is not up to date,
a newer version is available.

This section should probably reference
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5481
which includes all the metrics mentioned in section 3.3
and provides more complete guidance.

Al

At 08:57 AM 5/20/2012, Al Morton wrote:
Charles and Shida,

Dan Romascanu suggested that the Performance Metrics Directorate
take a look at this draft, in addition to his WGLC review.

Carlos' comment is below (Thanks for your comment, Carlos).

Al
PMDir admin


At 06:01 PM 5/19/2012, Carlos Pignataro wrote:

On May 16, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Al Morton wrote:

At 12:22 PM 5/16/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
I reviewed it and sent my comments a few days ago to the XRBLOCK list -
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00511.html, I
apologize for not copying PMOL.

Thanks Dan, no need to apologize, just trying to keep track.

Note that this I-D refers only to
reporting formats, while for metrics definition they are referring
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.

Anyone volunteer to review this one?

I cannot volunteer to review this one this next two weeks. However I wanted to point out that, when the XRBLOCK refers to rev -04 of the Monitoring Architecture document, the current rev is -13.
These are the changes, non trivial amount:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13.txt&url1=draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.txt

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

Al
 
_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
PMOL@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol
From acmorton@att.com Sun May 20 06:36:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A1721F8554 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 06:36:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.067 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.067 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5cL3iHjQSv6i for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 06:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com [209.65.160.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F75321F854E for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 06:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 573f8bf4.0.1952841.00-465.5316690.nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Sun, 20 May 2012 13:36:54 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fb8f3764e4cfff4-09f17ea6e5a1e5630f49bc9ceac57cfd59c0488d Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4KDarJv019930 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:36:53 -0400 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4KDaleo019906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:36:49 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:36:27 -0400 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 q4KDaQtC002985 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:36:26 -0400 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 q4KDaM2c002858 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:36:23 -0400 Message-Id: <201205201336.q4KDaM2c002858@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-199-208.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.199.208](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120520133250gw10060ldhe>; Sun, 20 May 2012 13:32:51 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.199.208] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:37:35 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4FB6CAD6.5010200@labn.net> References: <4FB6CAD6.5010200@labn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=2Gx5Ooju6CMA:10 a=jGavGDFhWrYA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=J509zO_6] X-AnalysisOut: [Fuc3bYRrE8IA:9 a=rLN4XI_ari3qJ6Hg1EUA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 ] X-AnalysisOut: [a=HlLFuPE95S0A:10 a=33rK67OTR_gA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10] Cc: Lou Berger , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A \(ATTLABS\)" Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:36:54 -0000 PMDir, I received the following request to review http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm-05 in connection with a previous WGLC. I've provided some comments, appended below. Would anyone else like to review this draft and provide comments in a week or so? regards, Al PMDir admin At 06:19 PM 5/18/2012, Lou Berger wrote: >... > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm >Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:16:56 -0400 >From: Lou Berger >To: CCAMP > > > >The last call on this document has ended. > >Authors, > Please update the draft according to any comments received. Once the >update is submitted, please summarize all changes to the list. > >Much thanks, >Lou > >On 3/7/2012 9:23 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > > This mail begins a two week working group last call on: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm-05 > > > > This working group last call ends on March 21. Please send comments to > > the CCAMP mailing list. > > > > Lou (and Deborah) > > _______________________________________________ > > CCAMP mailing list > > CCAMP@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Hi Lou, I took a quick look this morning, the authors have nicely adopted the familiar metric framework used in other performance work, and I like the metric naming - very straightforward to sort out the names once you read the explanation in section 3, although they could say explicitly how they've done it, so it lends to extension in the future. I would suggest they give the acronym expansion in each section. for example: >5.2. Metric Name > > RRFD = RESV Received, Forward Datapath One word choice in section 1 could be improved: > This document defines a series of performance metrics to evaluate the > availability of data path during the signaling process. I would suggests/availability/connectivity/ "availability" has many more rigorous definitions than the test pattern used here. A minor concern: It seems that the length of the test signal will influence the delay measurement, the simple serialization time for bits in the first packet of the signal, which it seems could be a Jumbo packet. This should be mentioned as it is applicable as a potential source of error for all the metrics. I realize this may be negligible on high speed interfaces using a single packet for the test signal - but they've left the option for long test signals. There is clear motivation to use small packets from a performance-bias perspective. -=-=-=-=-=-=- In recent news, the Performance Metrics Directorate has been formed in the OPS area, and we review drafts when WG chairs request. As PMDir Admin, I'd be glad to ask for a review volunteer. Let me know. We usually try to do early review of WG doc candidates rather than WG Last Call, simply because the feedback might be extensive. http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html hope this helps, Al From janovak@cisco.com Tue May 22 01:58:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E4221F853D; Tue, 22 May 2012 01:58:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tO56jk7CT555; Tue, 22 May 2012 01:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ABFE21F84FC; Tue, 22 May 2012 01:58:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=janovak@cisco.com; l=2864; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337677085; x=1338886685; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=mJ5YAiuzwuVtKnAZUc2+/OUsXwOz0bApdbjZL33z1iM=; b=iJt6R807NLHSr+A4ld+ZHSgy4xy6OZ/M2+sqNEkuKXgu0iFaf2CzgbJe P6lpo8dRkG4+8Q59Gr2Yj/SnrrS+sBNc4i5Vm25tqMbsZwPrlP3MzLJXb xFlJ9a1I0D9BN1daxO1Vdt1JDs4RJvRtHgUJtbb7m1azd1n8K69c4PNmn 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAJhUu0+Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABEtBSBB4IWAQEEEgEdCj8QAgEqBhgGAVYBAQQBGhqHbJ4PoBSLG4RHYgOjJ4FkgmuBVA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="138295200" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 May 2012 08:58:02 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4M8w24e024362; Tue, 22 May 2012 08:58:02 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-212.cisco.com ([144.254.75.23]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 22 May 2012 10:58:02 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:58:00 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201205161453.q4GErZNl015927@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02 Thread-Index: Ac0zc8BXTR41oCKqTcOQDS4l95WyzAEhILoQ References: <201205161453.q4GErZNl015927@alpd052.aldc.att.com> From: "Jan Novak (janovak)" To: "Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 May 2012 08:58:02.0093 (UTC) FILETIME=[FE4479D0:01CD37F8] Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 08:58:06 -0000 Hi Amer, I have reviewed your draft draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02.txt. There seems to be a lot of text overlap with your methodology document - section 1,3, 4 could probably be abbreviated or omitted leaving the document just with raw IPFIX IE specifications or just add the IE specification as sub-sections or a new section into the first document ??=20 Section 2 uses definitions from RFC5610 - I think those you use there are defined in RFC5102 as DataTypeSemantic, units and range while RFC5610 specifies how this information should be exported - here you are defining the IE itself so you should use the definitions from RFC5102 Also the methodology documents already speaks in terms of IPFIX IEs while you are trying to specify some performance metrics - the methodology could have names and an exact definitions of the metric and then a reference which IE represents the particular metric RFC5102 section 2.1 specifies a template for IEs with a MUST so the MUST entries should be literally followed in your IEs spec - namely name, elementID, description, dataType and status. RFC5102 section 2.1 specifies MAY entries for the template - like DataTypeSemantic, units, name - might be preferable to follow the naming as well You interchanged ElementId with name - ElementId should be the numerical ID of the particular IE, while name of the IE is actually missing Instead of using Observation Point - wouldn't be the scope of the element appropriate ?? Or if not then scope should be actually added - are the=20 metrics (like perfPacketLoss) applicable to all the traffic seen by the UUT (or more specifically passing through the Observation Point) or to just individual flows ?? This should also be part of the particular metric definition. Will your IEs be enterprise IEs or IANA ones ?? Section 4.1.2 - Units packets ?? Section 4.1.3 - there is a mis-match between the definition and the range=20 - it should be limited to 0 - 100 + a value when the rate is unknown This definition is also missing in section 4.1.3 of your methodology Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2 - the values are just numbers/ids so units shouldn't be octets but "none" ?? The IPFIX guys here have had few discussions regarding IE definitions explosions with all the needs like this - have you thought using RFC6313 now (structured data) ?? I am not sure I would use RFC2321 as a reference work :-). huic-ipfix-sipfix is not a work in progress - the ID expired 3 years ago. ie-doctors is a WG doc version 2 now - draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-02.txt pmol-metrics-framework is RFC 6390 The document would benefit from running it through spell checker. Rgds, Jan The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young ....=20 and the strong envy them. Dr. Johnson From eckelcu@cisco.com Wed May 23 10:08:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515E121F86EC; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:08:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yl8bl0e03v6X; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4675121F86E1; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:08:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eckelcu@cisco.com; l=5122; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337792936; x=1339002536; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=Pwk5JV1WwXP8XIwLlKw8mrAzHBs2ZVcSd5wSfxNnggo=; b=mCNI3J7LmCkz1qcPQdn07HWaizuJo3hzB6wswd0Z9gka5Dd8K7k66Sv0 CFf5xDGbWjV4vqpd+WJnwS3RNT+VdbgLSL53F6KruFQGZKUGwfu6Svj6W Dkh9SGjcseHMTKOYqFF9DhHkK7LJEWBkIhbfCuavhkH1Rt4DyOrJQgRJx 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAKsYvU+rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABDtCyBB4IVAQEBBAEBAQ8BHQotBwsMBAIBCA4DAQMBAQEKBhcBBgEmHwMGCAEBBAESCAEZh2oBC5pxn3WKfRqEJmADiD+NaIlrgxKBZIMKgT8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,645,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="42985994" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2012 17:08:55 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4NH8th9032192; Wed, 23 May 2012 17:08:55 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 23 May 2012 10:08:55 -0700 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: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:08:54 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201205201320.q4KDKVPh003865@alpd052.aldc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting Thread-Index: Ac02i2avrDeCxRcuTF6o8VayWm8K0QCetpOA References: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201205170042.q4H0gnan018395@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <2E381B64-E6BE-43B6-88A7-0FE4685DB3E5@cisco.com> <7.1.0.9.0.20120520084432.02173e68@att.com> <201205201320.q4KDKVPh003865@alpd052.aldc.att.com> From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: "Al Morton" , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 May 2012 17:08:55.0375 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC3465F0:01CD3906] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:34:05 -0700 Cc: pmol@ietf.org, xrblock@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:08:57 -0000 Hi Al, Thank you for your comments. I have added the XRBLOCK alias so folks there can benefit from them. Carlos, thanks for volunteering to review as well. When you do, please include xrblock@ietf.org in your list of recipients. Cheers, Charles > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 6:22 AM > To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Charles Eckel (eckelcu); shida@ntt- > at.com > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pmol@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric > Reporting >=20 > Charles and Shida, >=20 > I gave this a brief look myself, and add the following comment: >=20 >=20 >=20 > 3.3. Guidance on use of PDV metrics >=20 > This subsection provides informative guidance on when it might > be > appropriate to use each of the PDV metric types. > ... > 2-point PDV (Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540]) reports absolute packet > delay > variation with respect to the time of arrival of the first > packet of > the connection. In an RTP context, the two "points" are at > the > sender (the synchronization source which applies RTP > timestamps) and > at the receiver. The value of this metric for the packet with > index > j is identical to the quantity D(i,j) defined in Section 6.4.1 > of > [RFC3550] if the packet index i is set equal to 1, that is, > the > reference packet for the metric is the first packet of the > connection. The metric includes the effect of the frequency > offsets > of clocks in both the sender and receiver end systems, so it > is > useful mainly in network where synchronisation is distributed. > As > well as measuring packet delay variation in such networks, it > may be > used to ensure that synchronisation is effective, for example > where > the network carries ISDN data traffic over RTP [RFC4040]. The > metric > is likely to be useful in networks which use fixed de-jitter > buffering, because it may be used to determine the length of > the > required de-jitter buffer, or to determine if network > performance has > deteriorated such that existing de-jitter buffers are too > small to > accommodate the observed delay variation. >=20 > While > "...The value of this metric for the packet with index > j is identical to the quantity D(i,j) defined in Section 6.4.1 of > [RFC3550] if the packet index i is set equal to 1, that is, the > reference packet for the metric is the first packet of the > connection." > is true, it's not a particularly relevant comparison. > The reference packet "i" is not the first packet in either > the 3550 or the Y.1540 definition - this should be noted, > at least. Also, the reference to Y.1540 is not up to date, > a newer version is available. >=20 > This section should probably reference > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5481 > which includes all the metrics mentioned in section 3.3 > and provides more complete guidance. >=20 > Al >=20 > At 08:57 AM 5/20/2012, Al Morton wrote: >=20 >=20 > Charles and Shida, >=20 > Dan Romascanu suggested that the Performance Metrics Directorate > take a look at this draft, in addition to his WGLC review. >=20 > Carlos' comment is below (Thanks for your comment, Carlos). >=20 > Al > PMDir admin >=20 >=20 > At 06:01 PM 5/19/2012, Carlos Pignataro wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On May 16, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Al Morton wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > At 12:22 PM 5/16/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >=20 >=20 > I reviewed it and sent my comments a few days > ago to the XRBLOCK list - > http://www.ietf.org/mail- > archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00511.html archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00511.html> , I > apologize for not copying PMOL. >=20 >=20 > Thanks Dan, no need to apologize, just trying to keep > track. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Note that this I-D refers only to > reporting formats, while for metrics definition > they are referring > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore- > monarch-04 . >=20 >=20 > Anyone volunteer to review this one? >=20 >=20 > I cannot volunteer to review this one this next two weeks. > However I wanted to point out that, when the XRBLOCK refers to rev -04 > of the Monitoring Architecture document, the current rev is -13. > These are the changes, non trivial amount: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-avtcore- > monarch-13.txt&url1=3Ddraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.txt > 13.txt&url1=3Ddraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.txt> >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > -- Carlos. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Al >=20 > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol > From bill.wu@huawei.com Wed May 23 22:03:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0CC21F85A7; Wed, 23 May 2012 22:03:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.285 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.285 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.561, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mhDG6Mygl9TQ; Wed, 23 May 2012 22:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E63021F8585; Wed, 23 May 2012 22:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AGF15691; Thu, 24 May 2012 01:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 23 May 2012 21:59:35 -0700 Received: from SZXEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.153) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 23 May 2012 21:59:39 -0700 Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by SZXEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 24 May 2012 12:59:33 +0800 Message-ID: <21CB9182960A4FA1AA1A2EF30818A460@china.huawei.com> From: Qin Wu To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" , Al Morton , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" , References: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com><201205170042.q4H0gnan018395@alpd052.aldc.att.com><2E381B64-E6BE-43B6-88A7-0FE4685DB3E5@cisco.com><7.1.0.9.0.20120520084432.02173e68@att.com><201205201320.q4KDKVPh003865@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:59:32 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 24 May 2012 05:30:44 -0700 Cc: pmol@ietf.org, xrblock@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation MetricReporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 05:03:24 -0000 SGksIEFsOg0KSSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIHlvdXIgY29tbWVudHMuIEJhc2VkIG9uIFJGQzU0ODEgYW5k IHRoZSBuZXdseSB1cGRhdGVkIFkuMTU0MSBpbiBNYXJjaCwyMDExLA0KdGhlIHJlZmVyZW5jZSBw YWNrZXQgdHJhbnNmZXIgZGVsYXkgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGNob3NlbiBhcyB0aGUgZGVsYXkgb2YgdGhl IHJlZmVyZW5jZSBwYWNrZXQgd2l0aCBtaW5pbXVtDQpkZWxheS4NClRoZXJlZm9yZSBJIHByb3Bv c2VkIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgY2hhbmdlIGluIHRoZSBzZWN0aW9uIDMuMywgM3JkIHBhcmFncmFw aCB0byBnZXQgY29uc2lzdGVudCB3aXRoIFJGQzU0ODEgYW5kIFkuMTU0MS4NCk9MRCBURVhUOg0K Ig0KICAgMi1wb2ludCBQRFYgKENsYXVzZSA2LjIuNCBvZiBbWS4xNTQwXSkgcmVwb3J0cyBhYnNv bHV0ZSBwYWNrZXQgZGVsYXkNCiAgIHZhcmlhdGlvbiB3aXRoIHJlc3BlY3QgdG8gdGhlIHRpbWUg b2YgYXJyaXZhbCBvZiB0aGUgZmlyc3QgcGFja2V0IG9mDQogICB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbi4gIElu IGFuIFJUUCBjb250ZXh0LCB0aGUgdHdvICJwb2ludHMiIGFyZSBhdCB0aGUNCiAgIHNlbmRlciAo dGhlIHN5bmNocm9uaXphdGlvbiBzb3VyY2Ugd2hpY2ggYXBwbGllcyBSVFAgdGltZXN0YW1wcykg YW5kDQogICBhdCB0aGUgcmVjZWl2ZXIuICBUaGUgdmFsdWUgb2YgdGhpcyBtZXRyaWMgZm9yIHRo ZSBwYWNrZXQgd2l0aCBpbmRleA0KICAgaiBpcyBpZGVudGljYWwgdG8gdGhlIHF1YW50aXR5IEQo aSxqKSBkZWZpbmVkIGluIFNlY3Rpb24gNi40LjEgb2YNCiAgIFtSRkMzNTUwXSBpZiB0aGUgcGFj a2V0IGluZGV4IGkgaXMgc2V0IGVxdWFsIHRvIDEsIHRoYXQgaXMsIHRoZQ0KICAgcmVmZXJlbmNl IHBhY2tldCBmb3IgdGhlIG1ldHJpYyBpcyB0aGUgZmlyc3QgcGFja2V0IG9mIHRoZQ0KICAgY29u bmVjdGlvbi4gLi4uDQoiDQpORVcgVEVYVDoNCiINCiAgIDItcG9pbnQgUERWIChDbGF1c2UgNi4y LjQgb2YgW1kuMTU0MF0pIHJlcG9ydHMgYWJzb2x1dGUgcGFja2V0IGRlbGF5DQogICB2YXJpYXRp b24gd2l0aCByZXNwZWN0IHRvIGEgZGVmaW5lZCByZWZlcmVuY2UgcGFja2V0IHRyYW5zZmVyIGRl bGF5DQogICAgLiBPbmUgZXhhbXBsZSBvZiBzdWNoIHJlZmVyZW5jZSBwYWNrZXQgaXMgdGhlIGZp cnN0IHBhY2tldCBvZiB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbi4NCiAgICBOb3RlIHRoYXQgdGhlIHJlZmVyZW5j ZSBJUCBwYWNrZXQgdHJhbnNmZXIgZGVsYXkgaXMgdGhlIGRlbGF5IG9mIHRoZSANCiAgICByZWZl cmVuY2UgcGFja2V0IHdpdGggbWluaW11bQ0KICAgIGRlbGF5IFtSRkM1NDgxXSBhbmQgIG1heSBi ZSBub3QgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHBhY2tldCBkZWxheSBvZiANCiAgICB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbi4NCiBJ biBhbiBSVFAgY29udGV4dCwgdGhlIHR3byAicG9pbnRzIiBhcmUgYXQgdGhlDQogICBzZW5kZXIg KHRoZSBzeW5jaHJvbml6YXRpb24gc291cmNlIHdoaWNoIGFwcGxpZXMgUlRQIHRpbWVzdGFtcHMp IGFuZA0KICAgYXQgdGhlIHJlY2VpdmVyLiAgVGhlIHZhbHVlIG9mIHRoaXMgbWV0cmljIGZvciB0 aGUgcGFja2V0IHdpdGggaW5kZXgNCiAgIGogaXMgaWRlbnRpY2FsIHRvIHRoZSBxdWFudGl0eSBE KGksaikgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDYuNC4xIG9mDQogICBbUkZDMzU1MF0uIElmIHRoZSBw YWNrZXQgaW5kZXggaSBpcyBzZXQgZXF1YWwgdG8gMSwgdGhhdCBpcywgdGhlDQogICByZWZlcmVu Y2UgcGFja2V0IGZvciB0aGUgbWV0cmljIGlzIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwYWNrZXQgb2YgdGhlDQogICBj b25uZWN0aW9uLiAgLi4uLg0KIg0KQWxzbyB0aGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHRvIFkuMTU0MSB3aWxsIGJl IHVwZGF0ZWQuDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMhDQotUWluDQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0t IA0KRnJvbTogIkNoYXJsZXMgRWNrZWwgKGVja2VsY3UpIiA8ZWNrZWxjdUBjaXNjby5jb20+DQpU bzogIkFsIE1vcnRvbiIgPGFjbW9ydG9uQGF0dC5jb20+OyAiQ2FybG9zIFBpZ25hdGFybyAoY3Bp Z25hdGEpIiA8Y3BpZ25hdGFAY2lzY28uY29tPjsgPHNoaWRhQG50dC1hdC5jb20+DQpDYzogPHBt b2xAaWV0Zi5vcmc+OyA8eHJibG9ja0BpZXRmLm9yZz4NClNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBNYXkgMjQs IDIwMTIgMTowOCBBTQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFt4cmJsb2NrXSBbUE1PTF0gV0dMQyBmb3IgUGFj a2V0IERlbGF5IFZhcmlhdGlvbiBNZXRyaWNSZXBvcnRpbmcNCg0KDQo+IEhpIEFsLA0KPiANCj4g VGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzLiBJIGhhdmUgYWRkZWQgdGhlIFhSQkxPQ0sgYWxp YXMgc28gZm9sa3MNCj4gdGhlcmUgY2FuIGJlbmVmaXQgZnJvbSB0aGVtLg0KPiBDYXJsb3MsIHRo YW5rcyBmb3Igdm9sdW50ZWVyaW5nIHRvIHJldmlldyBhcyB3ZWxsLiBXaGVuIHlvdSBkbywgcGxl YXNlDQo+IGluY2x1ZGUgeHJibG9ja0BpZXRmLm9yZyBpbiB5b3VyIGxpc3Qgb2YgcmVjaXBpZW50 cy4NCj4gDQo+IENoZWVycywNCj4gQ2hhcmxlcw0KPiANCj4+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2Fn ZS0tLS0tDQo+PiBGcm9tOiBBbCBNb3J0b24gW21haWx0bzphY21vcnRvbkBhdHQuY29tXQ0KPj4g U2VudDogU3VuZGF5LCBNYXkgMjAsIDIwMTIgNjoyMiBBTQ0KPj4gVG86IENhcmxvcyBQaWduYXRh cm8gKGNwaWduYXRhKTsgQ2hhcmxlcyBFY2tlbCAoZWNrZWxjdSk7IHNoaWRhQG50dC0NCj4+IGF0 LmNvbQ0KPj4gQ2M6IFJvbWFzY2FudSwgRGFuIChEYW4pOyBwbW9sQGlldGYub3JnDQo+PiBTdWJq ZWN0OiBSZTogW1BNT0xdIFt4cmJsb2NrXSBXR0xDIGZvciBQYWNrZXQgRGVsYXkgVmFyaWF0aW9u IE1ldHJpYw0KPj4gUmVwb3J0aW5nDQo+PiANCj4+IENoYXJsZXMgYW5kIFNoaWRhLA0KPj4gDQo+ PiBJIGdhdmUgdGhpcyBhIGJyaWVmIGxvb2sgbXlzZWxmLCBhbmQgYWRkIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcg Y29tbWVudDoNCj4+IA0KPj4gDQo+PiANCj4+IDMuMy4gR3VpZGFuY2Ugb24gdXNlIG9mIFBEViBt ZXRyaWNzDQo+PiANCj4+ICAgIFRoaXMgc3Vic2VjdGlvbiBwcm92aWRlcyBpbmZvcm1hdGl2ZSBn dWlkYW5jZSBvbiB3aGVuIGl0DQo+IG1pZ2h0DQo+PiBiZQ0KPj4gICAgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgdG8g dXNlIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIFBEViBtZXRyaWMgdHlwZXMuDQo+PiAuLi4NCj4+ICAgIDItcG9pbnQg UERWIChDbGF1c2UgNi4yLjQgb2YgW1kuMTU0MF0pIHJlcG9ydHMgYWJzb2x1dGUNCj4gcGFja2V0 DQo+PiBkZWxheQ0KPj4gICAgdmFyaWF0aW9uIHdpdGggcmVzcGVjdCB0byB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiBh cnJpdmFsIG9mIHRoZSBmaXJzdA0KPj4gcGFja2V0IG9mDQo+PiAgICB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbi4g IEluIGFuIFJUUCBjb250ZXh0LCB0aGUgdHdvICJwb2ludHMiIGFyZSBhdA0KPj4gdGhlDQo+PiAg ICBzZW5kZXIgKHRoZSBzeW5jaHJvbml6YXRpb24gc291cmNlIHdoaWNoIGFwcGxpZXMgUlRQDQo+ PiB0aW1lc3RhbXBzKSBhbmQNCj4+ICAgIGF0IHRoZSByZWNlaXZlci4gIFRoZSB2YWx1ZSBvZiB0 aGlzIG1ldHJpYyBmb3IgdGhlIHBhY2tldA0KPiB3aXRoDQo+PiBpbmRleA0KPj4gICAgaiBpcyBp ZGVudGljYWwgdG8gdGhlIHF1YW50aXR5IEQoaSxqKSBkZWZpbmVkIGluIFNlY3Rpb24NCj4gNi40 LjENCj4+IG9mDQo+PiAgICBbUkZDMzU1MF0gaWYgdGhlIHBhY2tldCBpbmRleCBpIGlzIHNldCBl cXVhbCB0byAxLCB0aGF0IGlzLA0KPj4gdGhlDQo+PiAgICByZWZlcmVuY2UgcGFja2V0IGZvciB0 aGUgbWV0cmljIGlzIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwYWNrZXQgb2YgdGhlDQo+PiAgICBjb25uZWN0aW9uLiAg VGhlIG1ldHJpYyBpbmNsdWRlcyB0aGUgZWZmZWN0IG9mIHRoZSBmcmVxdWVuY3kNCj4+IG9mZnNl dHMNCj4+ICAgIG9mIGNsb2NrcyBpbiBib3RoIHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgYW5kIHJlY2VpdmVyIGVuZCBz eXN0ZW1zLCBzbyBpdA0KPj4gaXMNCj4+ICAgIHVzZWZ1bCBtYWlubHkgaW4gbmV0d29yayB3aGVy ZSBzeW5jaHJvbmlzYXRpb24gaXMNCj4gZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQuDQo+PiBBcw0KPj4gICAgd2VsbCBh cyBtZWFzdXJpbmcgcGFja2V0IGRlbGF5IHZhcmlhdGlvbiBpbiBzdWNoIG5ldHdvcmtzLCBpdA0K Pj4gbWF5IGJlDQo+PiAgICB1c2VkIHRvIGVuc3VyZSB0aGF0IHN5bmNocm9uaXNhdGlvbiBpcyBl ZmZlY3RpdmUsIGZvciBleGFtcGxlDQo+PiB3aGVyZQ0KPj4gICAgdGhlIG5ldHdvcmsgY2Fycmll cyBJU0ROIGRhdGEgdHJhZmZpYyBvdmVyIFJUUCBbUkZDNDA0MF0uDQo+IFRoZQ0KPj4gbWV0cmlj DQo+PiAgICBpcyBsaWtlbHkgdG8gYmUgdXNlZnVsIGluIG5ldHdvcmtzIHdoaWNoIHVzZSBmaXhl ZCBkZS1qaXR0ZXINCj4+ICAgIGJ1ZmZlcmluZywgYmVjYXVzZSBpdCBtYXkgYmUgdXNlZCB0byBk ZXRlcm1pbmUgdGhlIGxlbmd0aCBvZg0KPj4gdGhlDQo+PiAgICByZXF1aXJlZCBkZS1qaXR0ZXIg YnVmZmVyLCBvciB0byBkZXRlcm1pbmUgaWYgbmV0d29yaw0KPj4gcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgaGFzDQo+ PiAgICBkZXRlcmlvcmF0ZWQgc3VjaCB0aGF0IGV4aXN0aW5nIGRlLWppdHRlciBidWZmZXJzIGFy ZSB0b28NCj4+IHNtYWxsIHRvDQo+PiAgICBhY2NvbW1vZGF0ZSB0aGUgb2JzZXJ2ZWQgZGVsYXkg dmFyaWF0aW9uLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBXaGlsZQ0KPj4gICAgIi4uLlRoZSB2YWx1ZSBvZiB0aGlzIG1l dHJpYyBmb3IgdGhlIHBhY2tldCB3aXRoIGluZGV4DQo+PiAgICBqIGlzIGlkZW50aWNhbCB0byB0 aGUgcXVhbnRpdHkgRChpLGopIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gU2VjdGlvbiA2LjQuMSBvZg0KPj4gICAgW1JG QzM1NTBdIGlmIHRoZSBwYWNrZXQgaW5kZXggaSBpcyBzZXQgZXF1YWwgdG8gMSwgdGhhdCBpcywg dGhlDQo+PiAgICByZWZlcmVuY2UgcGFja2V0IGZvciB0aGUgbWV0cmljIGlzIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBw YWNrZXQgb2YgdGhlDQo+PiAgICBjb25uZWN0aW9uLiINCj4+IGlzIHRydWUsIGl0J3Mgbm90IGEg cGFydGljdWxhcmx5IHJlbGV2YW50IGNvbXBhcmlzb24uDQo+PiBUaGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHBhY2tl dCAiaSIgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwYWNrZXQgaW4gZWl0aGVyDQo+PiB0aGUgMzU1MCBvciB0 aGUgWS4xNTQwIGRlZmluaXRpb24gLSB0aGlzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBub3RlZCwNCj4+IGF0IGxlYXN0 LiBBbHNvLCB0aGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHRvIFkuMTU0MCBpcyBub3QgdXAgdG8gZGF0ZSwNCj4+IGEg bmV3ZXIgdmVyc2lvbiBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUuDQo+PiANCj4+IFRoaXMgc2VjdGlvbiBzaG91bGQg cHJvYmFibHkgcmVmZXJlbmNlDQo+PiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9yZmM1NDgx DQo+IDxodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9yZmM1NDgxPg0KPj4gd2hpY2ggaW5jbHVk ZXMgYWxsIHRoZSBtZXRyaWNzIG1lbnRpb25lZCBpbiBzZWN0aW9uIDMuMw0KPj4gYW5kIHByb3Zp ZGVzIG1vcmUgY29tcGxldGUgZ3VpZGFuY2UuDQo+PiANCj4+IEFsDQo+PiANCj4+IEF0IDA4OjU3 IEFNIDUvMjAvMjAxMiwgQWwgTW9ydG9uIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4gDQo+PiANCj4+IENoYXJsZXMgYW5k IFNoaWRhLA0KPj4gDQo+PiBEYW4gUm9tYXNjYW51IHN1Z2dlc3RlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBQZXJmb3Jt YW5jZSBNZXRyaWNzIERpcmVjdG9yYXRlDQo+PiB0YWtlIGEgbG9vayBhdCB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBp biBhZGRpdGlvbiB0byBoaXMgV0dMQyByZXZpZXcuDQo+PiANCj4+IENhcmxvcycgY29tbWVudCBp cyBiZWxvdyAoVGhhbmtzIGZvciB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnQsIENhcmxvcykuDQo+PiANCj4+IEFsDQo+ PiBQTURpciBhZG1pbg0KPj4gDQo+PiANCj4+IEF0IDA2OjAxIFBNIDUvMTkvMjAxMiwgQ2FybG9z IFBpZ25hdGFybyB3cm90ZToNCj4+IA0KPj4gDQo+PiANCj4+IE9uIE1heSAxNiwgMjAxMiwgYXQg ODo0NCBQTSwgQWwgTW9ydG9uIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4gDQo+PiANCj4+IA0KPj4gQXQgMTI6MjIgUE0g NS8xNi8yMDEyLCBSb21hc2NhbnUsIERhbiAoRGFuKQ0KPiB3cm90ZToNCj4+IA0KPj4gDQo+PiBJ IHJldmlld2VkIGl0IGFuZCBzZW50IG15IGNvbW1lbnRzIGEgZmV3DQo+IGRheXMNCj4+IGFnbyB0 byB0aGUgWFJCTE9DSyBsaXN0IC0NCj4+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC0NCj4+IGFy Y2hpdmUvd2ViL3hyYmxvY2svY3VycmVudC9tc2cwMDUxMS5odG1sIDxodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYu b3JnL21haWwtDQo+PiBhcmNoaXZlL3dlYi94cmJsb2NrL2N1cnJlbnQvbXNnMDA1MTEuaHRtbD4g LCBJDQo+PiBhcG9sb2dpemUgZm9yIG5vdCBjb3B5aW5nIFBNT0wuDQo+PiANCj4+IA0KPj4gVGhh bmtzIERhbiwgbm8gbmVlZCB0byBhcG9sb2dpemUsIGp1c3QgdHJ5aW5nIHRvDQo+IGtlZXANCj4+ IHRyYWNrLg0KPj4gDQo+PiANCj4+IA0KPj4gTm90ZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgSS1EIHJlZmVycyBvbmx5 IHRvDQo+PiByZXBvcnRpbmcgZm9ybWF0cywgd2hpbGUgZm9yIG1ldHJpY3MNCj4gZGVmaW5pdGlv bg0KPj4gdGhleSBhcmUgcmVmZXJyaW5nDQo+Pg0KPiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRt bC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dGNvcmUtDQo+PiBtb25hcmNoLTA0IDxodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5v cmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dGNvcmUtbW9uYXJjaC0wND4NCj4gLg0KPj4gDQo+PiANCj4+ IEFueW9uZSB2b2x1bnRlZXIgdG8gcmV2aWV3IHRoaXMgb25lPw0KPj4gDQo+PiANCj4+IEkgY2Fu bm90IHZvbHVudGVlciB0byByZXZpZXcgdGhpcyBvbmUgdGhpcyBuZXh0IHR3bw0KPiB3ZWVrcy4N Cj4+IEhvd2V2ZXIgSSB3YW50ZWQgdG8gcG9pbnQgb3V0IHRoYXQsIHdoZW4gdGhlIFhSQkxPQ0sg cmVmZXJzIHRvIHJldiAtMDQNCj4+IG9mIHRoZSBNb25pdG9yaW5nIEFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSBkb2N1 bWVudCwgdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgcmV2IGlzIC0xMy4NCj4+IFRoZXNlIGFyZSB0aGUgY2hhbmdlcywg bm9uIHRyaXZpYWwgYW1vdW50Og0KPj4gaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJs Mj1kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dGNvcmUtDQo+PiBtb25hcmNoLTEzLnR4dCZ1cmwxPWRyYWZ0LWlldGYt YXZ0Y29yZS1tb25hcmNoLTA0LnR4dA0KPj4gPGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9yZmNkaWZm P3VybDI9ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnRjb3JlLW1vbmFyY2gtDQo+PiAxMy50eHQmdXJsMT1kcmFmdC1p ZXRmLWF2dGNvcmUtbW9uYXJjaC0wNC50eHQ+DQo+PiANCj4+IFRoYW5rcywNCj4+IA0KPj4gLS0g Q2FybG9zLg0KPj4gDQo+PiANCj4+IA0KPj4gQWwNCj4+IA0KPj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+IFBNT0wgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+PiBQ TU9MQGlldGYub3JnDQo+PiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3Bt b2wNCj4+IDxodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3Btb2w+DQo+IA0K PiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiB4cmJs b2NrIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiB4cmJsb2NrQGlldGYub3JnDQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYu b3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8veHJibG9jaw== From acmorton@att.com Thu May 24 05:32:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB6E21F8620; Thu, 24 May 2012 05:32:23 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XUgInkVNM4Uo; Thu, 24 May 2012 05:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com [209.65.160.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44BAC21F8616; Thu, 24 May 2012 05:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 55a2ebf4.0.72843.00-459.193184.nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 24 May 2012 12:32:22 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fbe2a56738f16eb-11184f9d607873959d5af254425a1eb2415eb9c8 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4OCWHgE016245; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:32:21 -0400 Received: from sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (sflint03.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.230]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4OCW9Ys015868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 24 May 2012 08:32:15 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 24 May 2012 08:30:00 -0400 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 q4OCTxUn006658; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:30:00 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4OCTpfr006442; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:29:52 -0400 Message-Id: <201205241229.q4OCTpfr006442@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (njpds01mw5453.ugd.att.com[135.16.251.233](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120524122611gw10060lkde>; Thu, 24 May 2012 12:26:16 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.233] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:31:02 -0400 To: Qin Wu , "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" , shida@ntt-at.com From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <21CB9182960A4FA1AA1A2EF30818A460@china.huawei.com> References: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201205170042.q4H0gnan018395@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <2E381B64-E6BE-43B6-88A7-0FE4685DB3E5@cisco.com> <7.1.0.9.0.20120520084432.02173e68@att.com> <201205201320.q4KDKVPh003865@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <21CB9182960A4FA1AA1A2EF30818A460@china.huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.146] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=qo1AAkonb1gA:10 a=ya0ptiQ5X_cA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=Qs8R1XBwmid1qB] X-AnalysisOut: [FB/a8mmA==:17 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=M9IkpJ_0] X-AnalysisOut: [AAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=l99XobbMAAAA:8 a=FpXdJAU7soWW9-J] X-AnalysisOut: [icqQA:9 a=NFLNnDjlzFnsEVQkUEQA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=gep1f] X-AnalysisOut: [2AP7Z8A:10 a=JfD0Fch1gWkA:10 a=Hz7IrDYlS0cA:10 a=gzzNvakQ_] X-AnalysisOut: [_kA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10] Cc: pmol@ietf.org, xrblock@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation MetricReporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:32:23 -0000 Qin, I'm sorry, but it's still completely misleading to talk about the first packet as a reference packet in your text, (even though you say mention it may not be the reference). The first packet is not used as a reference because it sets an arbitrary delay as the reference for the delay variation distribution, and other problems follow. I suggest that you make a stronger reference to RFC 5481 in this section, and remove the confusing text. Al At 12:59 AM 5/24/2012, Qin Wu wrote: >Hi, Al: >I agree with your comments. Based on RFC5481 and the newly updated >Y.1541 in March,2011, >the reference packet transfer delay should be chosen as the delay of >the reference packet with minimum >delay. >Therefore I proposed the following change in the section 3.3, 3rd >paragraph to get consistent with RFC5481 and Y.1541. >OLD TEXT: >" > 2-point PDV (Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540]) reports absolute packet delay > variation with respect to the time of arrival of the first packet of > the connection. In an RTP context, the two "points" are at the > sender (the synchronization source which applies RTP timestamps) and > at the receiver. The value of this metric for the packet with index > j is identical to the quantity D(i,j) defined in Section 6.4.1 of > [RFC3550] if the packet index i is set equal to 1, that is, the > reference packet for the metric is the first packet of the > connection. ... >" >NEW TEXT: >" > 2-point PDV (Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540]) reports absolute packet delay > variation with respect to a defined reference packet transfer delay > . One example of such reference packet is the first packet of > the connection. > Note that the reference IP packet transfer delay is the delay of the > reference packet with minimum > delay [RFC5481] and may be not the first packet delay of > the connection. > In an RTP context, the two "points" are at the > sender (the synchronization source which applies RTP timestamps) and > at the receiver. The value of this metric for the packet with index > j is identical to the quantity D(i,j) defined in Section 6.4.1 of > [RFC3550]. If the packet index i is set equal to 1, that is, the > reference packet for the metric is the first packet of the > connection. .... >" >Also the reference to Y.1541 will be updated. > >Regards! >-Qin >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" >To: "Al Morton" ; "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" >; >Cc: ; >Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:08 AM >Subject: Re: [xrblock] [PMOL] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation MetricReporting > > > > Hi Al, > > > > Thank you for your comments. I have added the XRBLOCK alias so folks > > there can benefit from them. > > Carlos, thanks for volunteering to review as well. When you do, please > > include xrblock@ietf.org in your list of recipients. > > > > Cheers, > > Charles > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com] > >> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 6:22 AM > >> To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Charles Eckel (eckelcu); shida@ntt- > >> at.com > >> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pmol@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation Metric > >> Reporting > >> > >> Charles and Shida, > >> > >> I gave this a brief look myself, and add the following comment: > >> > >> > >> > >> 3.3. Guidance on use of PDV metrics > >> > >> This subsection provides informative guidance on when it > > might > >> be > >> appropriate to use each of the PDV metric types. > >> ... > >> 2-point PDV (Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540]) reports absolute > > packet > >> delay > >> variation with respect to the time of arrival of the first > >> packet of > >> the connection. In an RTP context, the two "points" are at > >> the > >> sender (the synchronization source which applies RTP > >> timestamps) and > >> at the receiver. The value of this metric for the packet > > with > >> index > >> j is identical to the quantity D(i,j) defined in Section > > 6.4.1 > >> of > >> [RFC3550] if the packet index i is set equal to 1, that is, > >> the > >> reference packet for the metric is the first packet of the > >> connection. The metric includes the effect of the frequency > >> offsets > >> of clocks in both the sender and receiver end systems, so it > >> is > >> useful mainly in network where synchronisation is > > distributed. > >> As > >> well as measuring packet delay variation in such networks, it > >> may be > >> used to ensure that synchronisation is effective, for example > >> where > >> the network carries ISDN data traffic over RTP [RFC4040]. > > The > >> metric > >> is likely to be useful in networks which use fixed de-jitter > >> buffering, because it may be used to determine the length of > >> the > >> required de-jitter buffer, or to determine if network > >> performance has > >> deteriorated such that existing de-jitter buffers are too > >> small to > >> accommodate the observed delay variation. > >> > >> While > >> "...The value of this metric for the packet with index > >> j is identical to the quantity D(i,j) defined in Section 6.4.1 of > >> [RFC3550] if the packet index i is set equal to 1, that is, the > >> reference packet for the metric is the first packet of the > >> connection." > >> is true, it's not a particularly relevant comparison. > >> The reference packet "i" is not the first packet in either > >> the 3550 or the Y.1540 definition - this should be noted, > >> at least. Also, the reference to Y.1540 is not up to date, > >> a newer version is available. > >> > >> This section should probably reference > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5481 > > > >> which includes all the metrics mentioned in section 3.3 > >> and provides more complete guidance. > >> > >> Al > >> > >> At 08:57 AM 5/20/2012, Al Morton wrote: > >> > >> > >> Charles and Shida, > >> > >> Dan Romascanu suggested that the Performance Metrics Directorate > >> take a look at this draft, in addition to his WGLC review. > >> > >> Carlos' comment is below (Thanks for your comment, Carlos). > >> > >> Al > >> PMDir admin > >> > >> > >> At 06:01 PM 5/19/2012, Carlos Pignataro wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On May 16, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Al Morton wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> At 12:22 PM 5/16/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> I reviewed it and sent my comments a few > > days > >> ago to the XRBLOCK list - > >> http://www.ietf.org/mail- > >> archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00511.html > > archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00511.html> , I > >> apologize for not copying PMOL. > >> > >> > >> Thanks Dan, no need to apologize, just trying to > > keep > >> track. > >> > >> > >> > >> Note that this I-D refers only to > >> reporting formats, while for metrics > > definition > >> they are referring > >> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore- > >> monarch-04 > > . > >> > >> > >> Anyone volunteer to review this one? > >> > >> > >> I cannot volunteer to review this one this next two > > weeks. > >> However I wanted to point out that, when the XRBLOCK refers to rev -04 > >> of the Monitoring Architecture document, the current rev is -13. > >> These are the changes, non trivial amount: > >> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore- > >> monarch-13.txt&url1=draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.txt > >> > > > 13.txt&url1=draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04.txt> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -- Carlos. > >> > >> > >> > >> Al > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PMOL mailing list > >> PMOL@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > xrblock mailing list > > xrblock@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock From bill.wu@huawei.com Thu May 24 20:35:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E1411E8097; Thu, 24 May 2012 20:35:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.422 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.424, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w5h5FG9Z5T6T; Thu, 24 May 2012 20:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFE711E80A3; Thu, 24 May 2012 20:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AGG00862; Thu, 24 May 2012 23:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 24 May 2012 20:32:37 -0700 Received: from SZXEML416-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.155) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 24 May 2012 20:32:42 -0700 Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml416-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 25 May 2012 11:32:38 +0800 Message-ID: <1BFD4C937DF348349F9B40A1603065AE@china.huawei.com> From: Qin Wu To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" , , Al Morton References: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201205170042.q4H0gnan018395@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <2E381B64-E6BE-43B6-88A7-0FE4685DB3E5@cisco.com> <7.1.0.9.0.20120520084432.02173e68@att.com> <201205201320.q4KDKVPh003865@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <21CB9182960A4FA1AA1A2EF30818A460@china.huawei.com> <201205241229.q4OCTpa2006439@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:32:36 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 25 May 2012 04:38:51 -0700 Cc: pmol@ietf.org, xrblock@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation MetricReporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 03:35:45 -0000 SGksIEFsOg0KWW91IGFyZSByaWdodCwgdGhlIFkuMTU0MCBoYXMgYWxyZWFkeSBnb3QgYWxpZ25t ZW50IHdpdGggUkZDNTQ4MSBpbiB0aGUgdXBkYXRlLg0KYW5kIHVzZSBSRkM1NDgxIGFzIHRoZSBy ZWZlcmVuY2UuDQpTbyBJIHByb3Bvc2UgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBjaGFuZ2UgdG8gdGhlIHNlY3Rp b24gMy4zLCAzcmQgcGFyYWdyYXBoDQpPTEQgVEVYVDoNCiINCjItcG9pbnQgUERWIChDbGF1c2Ug Ni4yLjQgb2YgW1kuMTU0MF0pIHJlcG9ydHMgYWJzb2x1dGUgcGFja2V0IGRlbGF5DQp2YXJpYXRp b24gd2l0aCByZXNwZWN0IHRvIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIGFycml2YWwgb2YgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHBhY2tl dCBvZg0KdGhlIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24uICBJbiBhbiBSVFAgY29udGV4dCwgdGhlIHR3byAicG9pbnRz IiBhcmUgYXQgdGhlDQpzZW5kZXIgKHRoZSBzeW5jaHJvbml6YXRpb24gc291cmNlIHdoaWNoIGFw cGxpZXMgUlRQIHRpbWVzdGFtcHMpIGFuZA0KYXQgdGhlIHJlY2VpdmVyLiAgVGhlIHZhbHVlIG9m IHRoaXMgbWV0cmljIGZvciB0aGUgcGFja2V0IHdpdGggaW5kZXgNCmogaXMgaWRlbnRpY2FsIHRv IHRoZSBxdWFudGl0eSBEKGksaikgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDYuNC4xIG9mDQpbUkZDMzU1 MF0gaWYgdGhlIHBhY2tldCBpbmRleCBpIGlzIHNldCBlcXVhbCB0byAxLCB0aGF0IGlzLCB0aGUN CnJlZmVyZW5jZSBwYWNrZXQgZm9yIHRoZSBtZXRyaWMgaXMgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHBhY2tldCBvZiB0 aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbi4gLi4uDQoiDQpORVcgVEVYVDoNCiINCjItcG9pbnQgUERWIChDbGF1c2Ug Ni4yLjQgb2YgW1kuMTU0MF0pIHJlcG9ydHMgYWJzb2x1dGUgcGFja2V0IGRlbGF5DQp2YXJpYXRp b24gd2l0aCByZXNwZWN0IHRvIGEgZGVmaW5lZCByZWZlcmVuY2UgcGFja2V0IHRyYW5zZmVyIGRl bGF5DQouIE5vdGUgdGhhdCB0aGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHBhY2tldCBpcyBnZW5lcmFsbHkgc2VsZWN0 ZWQgYXMgdGhlDQpwYWNrZXQgd2l0aCBtaW5pbXVtIGRlbGF5IGJhc2VkIG9uIHRoZSBtb3N0IGNv bW1vbiBjcml0ZXJpb24gKFNlZSBzZWN0aW9uIDEgYW5kIA0Kc2VjdGlvbiA1LjEgb2YgW1JGQzU0 ODFdKS4gSW4gYW4gUlRQIGNvbnRleHQsIHRoZSB0d28gInBvaW50cyIgYXJlIGF0IHRoZSBzZW5k ZXIgKHRoZSBzeW5jaHJvbml6YXRpb24gDQpzb3VyY2Ugd2hpY2ggYXBwbGllcyBSVFAgdGltZXN0 YW1wcykgYW5kIGF0IHRoZSByZWNlaXZlci4gIFRoZSB2YWx1ZSBvZiANCnRoaXMgbWV0cmljIGZv ciB0aGUgcGFja2V0IHdpdGggaW5kZXggaiBpcyBpZGVudGljYWwgdG8gdGhlIHF1YW50aXR5IA0K RChpLGopIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gU2VjdGlvbiA2LjQuMSBvZiBbUkZDMzU1MF0gYW5kIGhlIHBhY2tl dCBpbmRleCBpIHNob3VsZCBiZSANCnNldCBlcXVhbCB0byB0aGUgaW5kZXggb2YgdGhlIHJlZmVy ZW5jZSBwYWNrZXQgZm9yIHRoZSBtZXRyaWMgaW4gcHJhY3RpY2UuICAuLi4uDQoiDQoNClJlZ2Fy ZHMhDQotUWluDQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KRnJvbTogIkFsIE1vcnRv biIgPGFjbW9ydG9uQGF0dC5jb20+DQpUbzogIlFpbiBXdSIgPGJpbGwud3VAaHVhd2VpLmNvbT47 ICJDaGFybGVzIEVja2VsIChlY2tlbGN1KSIgPGVja2VsY3VAY2lzY28uY29tPjsgIkNhcmxvcyBQ aWduYXRhcm8gKGNwaWduYXRhKSIgPGNwaWduYXRhQGNpc2NvLmNvbT47IDxzaGlkYUBudHQtYXQu Y29tPg0KQ2M6IDxwbW9sQGlldGYub3JnPjsgPHhyYmxvY2tAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpTZW50OiBUaHVy c2RheSwgTWF5IDI0LCAyMDEyIDg6MzEgUE0NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbeHJibG9ja10gW1BNT0xd IFdHTEMgZm9yIFBhY2tldCBEZWxheSBWYXJpYXRpb24gTWV0cmljUmVwb3J0aW5nDQoNCg0KPiBR aW4sDQo+IA0KPiBJJ20gc29ycnksIGJ1dCBpdCdzIHN0aWxsIGNvbXBsZXRlbHkgbWlzbGVhZGlu ZyB0byB0YWxrIGFib3V0DQo+IHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwYWNrZXQgYXMgYSByZWZlcmVuY2UgcGFja2V0 IGluIHlvdXIgdGV4dCwNCj4gKGV2ZW4gdGhvdWdoIHlvdSBzYXkgbWVudGlvbiBpdCBtYXkgbm90 IGJlIHRoZSByZWZlcmVuY2UpLg0KPiBUaGUgZmlyc3QgcGFja2V0IGlzIG5vdCB1c2VkIGFzIGEg cmVmZXJlbmNlIGJlY2F1c2UgaXQgc2V0cyBhbiBhcmJpdHJhcnkNCj4gZGVsYXkgYXMgdGhlIHJl ZmVyZW5jZSBmb3IgdGhlIGRlbGF5IHZhcmlhdGlvbiBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24sDQo+IGFuZCBvdGhl ciBwcm9ibGVtcyBmb2xsb3cuDQo+IA0KPiBJIHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhhdCB5b3UgbWFrZSBhIHN0cm9u Z2VyIHJlZmVyZW5jZSB0byBSRkMgNTQ4MQ0KPiBpbiB0aGlzIHNlY3Rpb24sIGFuZCByZW1vdmUg dGhlIGNvbmZ1c2luZyB0ZXh0Lg0KPiANCj4gQWwNCj4gDQo+IEF0IDEyOjU5IEFNIDUvMjQvMjAx MiwgUWluIFd1IHdyb3RlOg0KPj5IaSwgQWw6DQo+PkkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRz LiBCYXNlZCBvbiBSRkM1NDgxIGFuZCB0aGUgbmV3bHkgdXBkYXRlZCANCj4+WS4xNTQxIGluIE1h cmNoLDIwMTEsDQo+PnRoZSByZWZlcmVuY2UgcGFja2V0IHRyYW5zZmVyIGRlbGF5IHNob3VsZCBi ZSBjaG9zZW4gYXMgdGhlIGRlbGF5IG9mIA0KPj50aGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHBhY2tldCB3aXRoIG1p bmltdW0NCj4+ZGVsYXkuDQo+PlRoZXJlZm9yZSBJIHByb3Bvc2VkIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgY2hh bmdlIGluIHRoZSBzZWN0aW9uIDMuMywgM3JkIA0KPj5wYXJhZ3JhcGggdG8gZ2V0IGNvbnNpc3Rl bnQgd2l0aCBSRkM1NDgxIGFuZCBZLjE1NDEuDQo+Pk9MRCBURVhUOg0KPj4iDQo+PiAgICAyLXBv aW50IFBEViAoQ2xhdXNlIDYuMi40IG9mIFtZLjE1NDBdKSByZXBvcnRzIGFic29sdXRlIHBhY2tl dCBkZWxheQ0KPj4gICAgdmFyaWF0aW9uIHdpdGggcmVzcGVjdCB0byB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiBhcnJp dmFsIG9mIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwYWNrZXQgb2YNCj4+ICAgIHRoZSBjb25uZWN0aW9uLiAgSW4gYW4g UlRQIGNvbnRleHQsIHRoZSB0d28gInBvaW50cyIgYXJlIGF0IHRoZQ0KPj4gICAgc2VuZGVyICh0 aGUgc3luY2hyb25pemF0aW9uIHNvdXJjZSB3aGljaCBhcHBsaWVzIFJUUCB0aW1lc3RhbXBzKSBh bmQNCj4+ICAgIGF0IHRoZSByZWNlaXZlci4gIFRoZSB2YWx1ZSBvZiB0aGlzIG1ldHJpYyBmb3Ig dGhlIHBhY2tldCB3aXRoIGluZGV4DQo+PiAgICBqIGlzIGlkZW50aWNhbCB0byB0aGUgcXVhbnRp dHkgRChpLGopIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gU2VjdGlvbiA2LjQuMSBvZg0KPj4gICAgW1JGQzM1NTBdIGlm IHRoZSBwYWNrZXQgaW5kZXggaSBpcyBzZXQgZXF1YWwgdG8gMSwgdGhhdCBpcywgdGhlDQo+PiAg ICByZWZlcmVuY2UgcGFja2V0IGZvciB0aGUgbWV0cmljIGlzIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwYWNrZXQgb2Yg dGhlDQo+PiAgICBjb25uZWN0aW9uLiAuLi4NCj4+Ig0KPj5ORVcgVEVYVDoNCj4+Ig0KPj4gICAg Mi1wb2ludCBQRFYgKENsYXVzZSA2LjIuNCBvZiBbWS4xNTQwXSkgcmVwb3J0cyBhYnNvbHV0ZSBw YWNrZXQgZGVsYXkNCj4+ICAgIHZhcmlhdGlvbiB3aXRoIHJlc3BlY3QgdG8gYSBkZWZpbmVkIHJl ZmVyZW5jZSBwYWNrZXQgdHJhbnNmZXIgZGVsYXkNCj4+ICAgICAuIE9uZSBleGFtcGxlIG9mIHN1 Y2ggcmVmZXJlbmNlIHBhY2tldCBpcyB0aGUgZmlyc3QgcGFja2V0IG9mIA0KPj4gdGhlIGNvbm5l Y3Rpb24uDQo+PiAgICAgTm90ZSB0aGF0IHRoZSByZWZlcmVuY2UgSVAgcGFja2V0IHRyYW5zZmVy IGRlbGF5IGlzIHRoZSBkZWxheSBvZiB0aGUNCj4+ICAgICByZWZlcmVuY2UgcGFja2V0IHdpdGgg bWluaW11bQ0KPj4gICAgIGRlbGF5IFtSRkM1NDgxXSBhbmQgIG1heSBiZSBub3QgdGhlIGZpcnN0 IHBhY2tldCBkZWxheSBvZg0KPj4gICAgIHRoZSBjb25uZWN0aW9uLg0KPj4gIEluIGFuIFJUUCBj b250ZXh0LCB0aGUgdHdvICJwb2ludHMiIGFyZSBhdCB0aGUNCj4+ICAgIHNlbmRlciAodGhlIHN5 bmNocm9uaXphdGlvbiBzb3VyY2Ugd2hpY2ggYXBwbGllcyBSVFAgdGltZXN0YW1wcykgYW5kDQo+ PiAgICBhdCB0aGUgcmVjZWl2ZXIuICBUaGUgdmFsdWUgb2YgdGhpcyBtZXRyaWMgZm9yIHRoZSBw YWNrZXQgd2l0aCBpbmRleA0KPj4gICAgaiBpcyBpZGVudGljYWwgdG8gdGhlIHF1YW50aXR5IEQo aSxqKSBkZWZpbmVkIGluIFNlY3Rpb24gNi40LjEgb2YNCj4+ICAgIFtSRkMzNTUwXS4gSWYgdGhl IHBhY2tldCBpbmRleCBpIGlzIHNldCBlcXVhbCB0byAxLCB0aGF0IGlzLCB0aGUNCj4+ICAgIHJl ZmVyZW5jZSBwYWNrZXQgZm9yIHRoZSBtZXRyaWMgaXMgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHBhY2tldCBvZiB0aGUN Cj4+ICAgIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24uICAuLi4uDQo+PiINCj4+QWxzbyB0aGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHRvIFku MTU0MSB3aWxsIGJlIHVwZGF0ZWQuDQo+Pg0KPj5SZWdhcmRzIQ0KPj4tUWluDQo+Pi0tLS0tIE9y aWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0NCj4+RnJvbTogIkNoYXJsZXMgRWNrZWwgKGVja2VsY3UpIiA8 ZWNrZWxjdUBjaXNjby5jb20+DQo+PlRvOiAiQWwgTW9ydG9uIiA8YWNtb3J0b25AYXR0LmNvbT47 ICJDYXJsb3MgUGlnbmF0YXJvIChjcGlnbmF0YSkiIA0KPj48Y3BpZ25hdGFAY2lzY28uY29tPjsg PHNoaWRhQG50dC1hdC5jb20+DQo+PkNjOiA8cG1vbEBpZXRmLm9yZz47IDx4cmJsb2NrQGlldGYu b3JnPg0KPj5TZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgTWF5IDI0LCAyMDEyIDE6MDggQU0NCj4+U3ViamVjdDog UmU6IFt4cmJsb2NrXSBbUE1PTF0gV0dMQyBmb3IgUGFja2V0IERlbGF5IFZhcmlhdGlvbiBNZXRy aWNSZXBvcnRpbmcNCj4+DQo+Pg0KPj4gPiBIaSBBbCwNCj4+ID4NCj4+ID4gVGhhbmsgeW91IGZv ciB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzLiBJIGhhdmUgYWRkZWQgdGhlIFhSQkxPQ0sgYWxpYXMgc28gZm9sa3MN Cj4+ID4gdGhlcmUgY2FuIGJlbmVmaXQgZnJvbSB0aGVtLg0KPj4gPiBDYXJsb3MsIHRoYW5rcyBm b3Igdm9sdW50ZWVyaW5nIHRvIHJldmlldyBhcyB3ZWxsLiBXaGVuIHlvdSBkbywgcGxlYXNlDQo+ PiA+IGluY2x1ZGUgeHJibG9ja0BpZXRmLm9yZyBpbiB5b3VyIGxpc3Qgb2YgcmVjaXBpZW50cy4N Cj4+ID4NCj4+ID4gQ2hlZXJzLA0KPj4gPiBDaGFybGVzDQo+PiA+DQo+PiA+PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdp bmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPj4gPj4gRnJvbTogQWwgTW9ydG9uIFttYWlsdG86YWNtb3J0b25A YXR0LmNvbV0NCj4+ID4+IFNlbnQ6IFN1bmRheSwgTWF5IDIwLCAyMDEyIDY6MjIgQU0NCj4+ID4+ IFRvOiBDYXJsb3MgUGlnbmF0YXJvIChjcGlnbmF0YSk7IENoYXJsZXMgRWNrZWwgKGVja2VsY3Up OyBzaGlkYUBudHQtDQo+PiA+PiBhdC5jb20NCj4+ID4+IENjOiBSb21hc2NhbnUsIERhbiAoRGFu KTsgcG1vbEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPj4gPj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtQTU9MXSBbeHJibG9ja10gV0dM QyBmb3IgUGFja2V0IERlbGF5IFZhcmlhdGlvbiBNZXRyaWMNCj4+ID4+IFJlcG9ydGluZw0KPj4g Pj4NCj4+ID4+IENoYXJsZXMgYW5kIFNoaWRhLA0KPj4gPj4NCj4+ID4+IEkgZ2F2ZSB0aGlzIGEg YnJpZWYgbG9vayBteXNlbGYsIGFuZCBhZGQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBjb21tZW50Og0KPj4gPj4N Cj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4gMy4zLiBHdWlkYW5jZSBvbiB1c2Ugb2YgUERWIG1ldHJpY3MN Cj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+PiAgICBUaGlzIHN1YnNlY3Rpb24gcHJvdmlkZXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpdmUgZ3Vp ZGFuY2Ugb24gd2hlbiBpdA0KPj4gPiBtaWdodA0KPj4gPj4gYmUNCj4+ID4+ICAgIGFwcHJvcHJp YXRlIHRvIHVzZSBlYWNoIG9mIHRoZSBQRFYgbWV0cmljIHR5cGVzLg0KPj4gPj4gLi4uDQo+PiA+ PiAgICAyLXBvaW50IFBEViAoQ2xhdXNlIDYuMi40IG9mIFtZLjE1NDBdKSByZXBvcnRzIGFic29s dXRlDQo+PiA+IHBhY2tldA0KPj4gPj4gZGVsYXkNCj4+ID4+ICAgIHZhcmlhdGlvbiB3aXRoIHJl c3BlY3QgdG8gdGhlIHRpbWUgb2YgYXJyaXZhbCBvZiB0aGUgZmlyc3QNCj4+ID4+IHBhY2tldCBv Zg0KPj4gPj4gICAgdGhlIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24uICBJbiBhbiBSVFAgY29udGV4dCwgdGhlIHR3byAi cG9pbnRzIiBhcmUgYXQNCj4+ID4+IHRoZQ0KPj4gPj4gICAgc2VuZGVyICh0aGUgc3luY2hyb25p emF0aW9uIHNvdXJjZSB3aGljaCBhcHBsaWVzIFJUUA0KPj4gPj4gdGltZXN0YW1wcykgYW5kDQo+ PiA+PiAgICBhdCB0aGUgcmVjZWl2ZXIuICBUaGUgdmFsdWUgb2YgdGhpcyBtZXRyaWMgZm9yIHRo ZSBwYWNrZXQNCj4+ID4gd2l0aA0KPj4gPj4gaW5kZXgNCj4+ID4+ICAgIGogaXMgaWRlbnRpY2Fs IHRvIHRoZSBxdWFudGl0eSBEKGksaikgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uDQo+PiA+IDYuNC4xDQo+ PiA+PiBvZg0KPj4gPj4gICAgW1JGQzM1NTBdIGlmIHRoZSBwYWNrZXQgaW5kZXggaSBpcyBzZXQg ZXF1YWwgdG8gMSwgdGhhdCBpcywNCj4+ID4+IHRoZQ0KPj4gPj4gICAgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHBhY2tl dCBmb3IgdGhlIG1ldHJpYyBpcyB0aGUgZmlyc3QgcGFja2V0IG9mIHRoZQ0KPj4gPj4gICAgY29u bmVjdGlvbi4gIFRoZSBtZXRyaWMgaW5jbHVkZXMgdGhlIGVmZmVjdCBvZiB0aGUgZnJlcXVlbmN5 DQo+PiA+PiBvZmZzZXRzDQo+PiA+PiAgICBvZiBjbG9ja3MgaW4gYm90aCB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFu ZCByZWNlaXZlciBlbmQgc3lzdGVtcywgc28gaXQNCj4+ID4+IGlzDQo+PiA+PiAgICB1c2VmdWwg bWFpbmx5IGluIG5ldHdvcmsgd2hlcmUgc3luY2hyb25pc2F0aW9uIGlzDQo+PiA+IGRpc3RyaWJ1 dGVkLg0KPj4gPj4gQXMNCj4+ID4+ICAgIHdlbGwgYXMgbWVhc3VyaW5nIHBhY2tldCBkZWxheSB2 YXJpYXRpb24gaW4gc3VjaCBuZXR3b3JrcywgaXQNCj4+ID4+IG1heSBiZQ0KPj4gPj4gICAgdXNl ZCB0byBlbnN1cmUgdGhhdCBzeW5jaHJvbmlzYXRpb24gaXMgZWZmZWN0aXZlLCBmb3IgZXhhbXBs ZQ0KPj4gPj4gd2hlcmUNCj4+ID4+ICAgIHRoZSBuZXR3b3JrIGNhcnJpZXMgSVNETiBkYXRhIHRy YWZmaWMgb3ZlciBSVFAgW1JGQzQwNDBdLg0KPj4gPiBUaGUNCj4+ID4+IG1ldHJpYw0KPj4gPj4g ICAgaXMgbGlrZWx5IHRvIGJlIHVzZWZ1bCBpbiBuZXR3b3JrcyB3aGljaCB1c2UgZml4ZWQgZGUt aml0dGVyDQo+PiA+PiAgICBidWZmZXJpbmcsIGJlY2F1c2UgaXQgbWF5IGJlIHVzZWQgdG8gZGV0 ZXJtaW5lIHRoZSBsZW5ndGggb2YNCj4+ID4+IHRoZQ0KPj4gPj4gICAgcmVxdWlyZWQgZGUtaml0 dGVyIGJ1ZmZlciwgb3IgdG8gZGV0ZXJtaW5lIGlmIG5ldHdvcmsNCj4+ID4+IHBlcmZvcm1hbmNl IGhhcw0KPj4gPj4gICAgZGV0ZXJpb3JhdGVkIHN1Y2ggdGhhdCBleGlzdGluZyBkZS1qaXR0ZXIg YnVmZmVycyBhcmUgdG9vDQo+PiA+PiBzbWFsbCB0bw0KPj4gPj4gICAgYWNjb21tb2RhdGUgdGhl IG9ic2VydmVkIGRlbGF5IHZhcmlhdGlvbi4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+PiBXaGlsZQ0KPj4gPj4gICAg Ii4uLlRoZSB2YWx1ZSBvZiB0aGlzIG1ldHJpYyBmb3IgdGhlIHBhY2tldCB3aXRoIGluZGV4DQo+ PiA+PiAgICBqIGlzIGlkZW50aWNhbCB0byB0aGUgcXVhbnRpdHkgRChpLGopIGRlZmluZWQgaW4g U2VjdGlvbiA2LjQuMSBvZg0KPj4gPj4gICAgW1JGQzM1NTBdIGlmIHRoZSBwYWNrZXQgaW5kZXgg aSBpcyBzZXQgZXF1YWwgdG8gMSwgdGhhdCBpcywgdGhlDQo+PiA+PiAgICByZWZlcmVuY2UgcGFj a2V0IGZvciB0aGUgbWV0cmljIGlzIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwYWNrZXQgb2YgdGhlDQo+PiA+PiAgICBj b25uZWN0aW9uLiINCj4+ID4+IGlzIHRydWUsIGl0J3Mgbm90IGEgcGFydGljdWxhcmx5IHJlbGV2 YW50IGNvbXBhcmlzb24uDQo+PiA+PiBUaGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHBhY2tldCAiaSIgaXMgbm90IHRo ZSBmaXJzdCBwYWNrZXQgaW4gZWl0aGVyDQo+PiA+PiB0aGUgMzU1MCBvciB0aGUgWS4xNTQwIGRl ZmluaXRpb24gLSB0aGlzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBub3RlZCwNCj4+ID4+IGF0IGxlYXN0LiBBbHNvLCB0 aGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHRvIFkuMTU0MCBpcyBub3QgdXAgdG8gZGF0ZSwNCj4+ID4+IGEgbmV3ZXIg dmVyc2lvbiBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUuDQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4gVGhpcyBzZWN0aW9uIHNob3VsZCBw cm9iYWJseSByZWZlcmVuY2UNCj4+ID4+IGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL3JmYzU0 ODENCj4+ID4gPGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL3JmYzU0ODE+DQo+PiA+PiB3aGlj aCBpbmNsdWRlcyBhbGwgdGhlIG1ldHJpY3MgbWVudGlvbmVkIGluIHNlY3Rpb24gMy4zDQo+PiA+ PiBhbmQgcHJvdmlkZXMgbW9yZSBjb21wbGV0ZSBndWlkYW5jZS4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+PiBBbA0K Pj4gPj4NCj4+ID4+IEF0IDA4OjU3IEFNIDUvMjAvMjAxMiwgQWwgTW9ydG9uIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4g Pj4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+PiBDaGFybGVzIGFuZCBTaGlkYSwNCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+PiBEYW4gUm9t YXNjYW51IHN1Z2dlc3RlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBQZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBNZXRyaWNzIERpcmVjdG9yYXRl DQo+PiA+PiB0YWtlIGEgbG9vayBhdCB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBpbiBhZGRpdGlvbiB0byBoaXMgV0dM QyByZXZpZXcuDQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4gQ2FybG9zJyBjb21tZW50IGlzIGJlbG93IChUaGFua3Mg Zm9yIHlvdXIgY29tbWVudCwgQ2FybG9zKS4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+PiBBbA0KPj4gPj4gUE1EaXIg YWRtaW4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4gQXQgMDY6MDEgUE0gNS8xOS8yMDEyLCBDYXJsb3Mg UGlnbmF0YXJvIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4gPj4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4gT24gTWF5IDE2LCAy MDEyLCBhdCA4OjQ0IFBNLCBBbCBNb3J0b24gd3JvdGU6DQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4NCj4+ID4+DQo+ PiA+PiBBdCAxMjoyMiBQTSA1LzE2LzIwMTIsIFJvbWFzY2FudSwgRGFuIChEYW4pDQo+PiA+IHdy b3RlOg0KPj4gPj4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+PiBJIHJldmlld2VkIGl0IGFuZCBzZW50IG15IGNvbW1l bnRzIGEgZmV3DQo+PiA+IGRheXMNCj4+ID4+IGFnbyB0byB0aGUgWFJCTE9DSyBsaXN0IC0NCj4+ ID4+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC0NCj4+ID4+IGFyY2hpdmUvd2ViL3hyYmxvY2sv Y3VycmVudC9tc2cwMDUxMS5odG1sIA0KPj4gPGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC0+PiBh cmNoaXZlL3dlYi94cmJsb2NrL2N1cnJlbnQvbXNnMDA1MTEuaHRtbD4gLCBJDQo+PiA+PiBhcG9s b2dpemUgZm9yIG5vdCBjb3B5aW5nIFBNT0wuDQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4NCj4+ID4+IFRoYW5rcyBE YW4sIG5vIG5lZWQgdG8gYXBvbG9naXplLCBqdXN0IHRyeWluZyB0bw0KPj4gPiBrZWVwDQo+PiA+ PiB0cmFjay4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4NCj4+ID4+IE5vdGUgdGhhdCB0aGlzIEktRCBy ZWZlcnMgb25seSB0bw0KPj4gPj4gcmVwb3J0aW5nIGZvcm1hdHMsIHdoaWxlIGZvciBtZXRyaWNz DQo+PiA+IGRlZmluaXRpb24NCj4+ID4+IHRoZXkgYXJlIHJlZmVycmluZw0KPj4gPj4NCj4+ID4g aHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnRjb3JlLQ0KPj4gPj4gbW9u YXJjaC0wNCA8aHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1hdnRjb3JlLW1v bmFyY2gtMDQ+DQo+PiA+IC4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4gQW55b25lIHZvbHVudGVlciB0 byByZXZpZXcgdGhpcyBvbmU/DQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4NCj4+ID4+IEkgY2Fubm90IHZvbHVudGVl ciB0byByZXZpZXcgdGhpcyBvbmUgdGhpcyBuZXh0IHR3bw0KPj4gPiB3ZWVrcy4NCj4+ID4+IEhv d2V2ZXIgSSB3YW50ZWQgdG8gcG9pbnQgb3V0IHRoYXQsIHdoZW4gdGhlIFhSQkxPQ0sgcmVmZXJz IHRvIHJldiAtMDQNCj4+ID4+IG9mIHRoZSBNb25pdG9yaW5nIEFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSBkb2N1bWVu dCwgdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgcmV2IGlzIC0xMy4NCj4+ID4+IFRoZXNlIGFyZSB0aGUgY2hhbmdlcywg bm9uIHRyaXZpYWwgYW1vdW50Og0KPj4gPj4gaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/ dXJsMj1kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dGNvcmUtDQo+PiA+PiBtb25hcmNoLTEzLnR4dCZ1cmwxPWRyYWZ0 LWlldGYtYXZ0Y29yZS1tb25hcmNoLTA0LnR4dA0KPj4gPj4gDQo+PiA8aHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmll dGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJsMj1kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF2dGNvcmUtbW9uYXJjaC0+PiANCj4+IDEz LnR4dCZ1cmwxPWRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYXZ0Y29yZS1tb25hcmNoLTA0LnR4dD4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+ PiBUaGFua3MsDQo+PiA+Pg0KPj4gPj4gLS0gQ2FybG9zLg0KPj4gPj4NCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+Pg0K Pj4gPj4gQWwNCj4+ID4+DQo+PiA+PiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPj4gPj4gUE1PTCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4+ID4+IFBNT0xAaWV0Zi5v cmcNCj4+ID4+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcG1vbA0KPj4g Pj4gPGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcG1vbD4NCj4+ID4NCj4+ ID4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+ID4g eHJibG9jayBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4+ID4geHJibG9ja0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPj4gPiBodHRwczov L3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3hyYmxvY2sNCj4gDQo+ From acmorton@att.com Fri May 25 04:43:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806A821F8628; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:43:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.365, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id baSE47a8QuZa; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com [209.65.160.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7ED621F8625; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 3407fbf4.0.565347.00-367.1559353.nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Fri, 25 May 2012 11:42:59 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fbf70434007eb92-1ef33bff25391d0902214cfbd9182e748bfb7af6 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4PBgwJO028963; Fri, 25 May 2012 07:42:59 -0400 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4PBgsKv028955 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 May 2012 07:42:54 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 25 May 2012 07:42:34 -0400 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 q4PBgYHE009954; Fri, 25 May 2012 07:42:34 -0400 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 q4PBgSHO009780; Fri, 25 May 2012 07:42:29 -0400 Message-Id: <201205251142.q4PBgSHO009780@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-135-221.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.135.221](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120525113850gw10060lmee>; Fri, 25 May 2012 11:38:51 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.135.221] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 07:43:40 -0400 To: Qin Wu , "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" , "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" , shida@ntt-at.com From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <1BFD4C937DF348349F9B40A1603065AE@china.huawei.com> References: <201205161450.q4GEo0BT003650@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201205170042.q4H0gnan018395@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <2E381B64-E6BE-43B6-88A7-0FE4685DB3E5@cisco.com> <7.1.0.9.0.20120520084432.02173e68@att.com> <201205201320.q4KDKVPh003865@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <21CB9182960A4FA1AA1A2EF30818A460@china.huawei.com> <201205241229.q4OCTpa2006439@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <1BFD4C937DF348349F9B40A1603065AE@china.huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=iEHdj5p0kpkA:10 a=ya0ptiQ5X_cA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=uGbFhh29edPuYdsQA44A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10] Cc: pmol@ietf.org, xrblock@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] [xrblock] WGLC for Packet Delay Variation MetricReporting X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:43:00 -0000 Thanks Qin, that should do it. Al At 11:32 PM 5/24/2012, Qin Wu wrote: >You are right, the Y.1540 has already got alignment with RFC5481 in >the update. >and use RFC5481 as the reference. >So I propose the following change to the section 3.3, 3rd paragraph From dromasca@avaya.com Thu May 31 02:45:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DA421F8663 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 02:45:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id krgwRZjPnu8T for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 02:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60ED021F85B4 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 02:45:16 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAFI8x0/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEtAuBB4IYAQEBAQMBAQEPHgo0FwYBCA0EBAEBCwYMCwEHJh8HAQEFBAEEEwgah2kLl2eEIpx4ixGCMII2YAOWJ4RiigKCYg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,691,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="11664764" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2012 05:43:06 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2012 05:42:46 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:45:13 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [xrblock] WGLC for xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics Thread-Index: Ac0/EETimzB9hOwNQm68o8LVejrKtAAAb38Q From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [PMOL] FW: [xrblock] WGLC for xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:45:17 -0000 Another WGLC for a metrics I-D in XRBLOCK.=20 Regards, Dan -----Original Message----- From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shida Schubert Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:44 AM To: xrblock Cc: xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [xrblock] WGLC for xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics This is an announcement of a 2 weeks XRBLOCK WG last call on=20 "Report Block for Run Length Encodings of Discarded Packets" prior to requesting publication of the document as a proposed standard.=20 Please send your comments, including nits, to the list by the 14th of June If you read the draft and you see no issues, concerns, or nits, please express the fact that you have no issue progressing the draft on the list as well.=20 The latest version can be found here: =20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metric s-03 Regards Shida as co-chair _______________________________________________ xrblock mailing list xrblock@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock