[CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm
Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Sun, 20 May 2012 13:42 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B1A21F856F for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 06:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.819, 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 eh0ya+iXeUWy for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 06:42:34 -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 108D821F856C for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 06:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 9c4f8bf4.0.23431.00-483.60428.nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com (envelope-from <acmorton@att.com>); Sun, 20 May 2012 13:42:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 4fb8f4ca3af41177-cc2eaebdf6c8c00fd77603d289ba2c2130f7cf74
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 q4KDgXJK015651 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:42:33 -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 q4KDg9sM015611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:42:27 -0400
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:41:47 -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 q4KDflwm014985 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:41:47 -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 q4KDfg7Y014851 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:41:42 -0400
Message-Id: <201205201341.q4KDfg7Y014851@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 <20120520133810gw10060ldie>; Sun, 20 May 2012 13:38:11 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.199.208]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:42:55 -0400
To: ccamp@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@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: <acmorton@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.146]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=2Gx5Ooju6CMA:10 a=SG4i3jOzDqsA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3]
X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=Qs8R1XBwmid1qB]
X-AnalysisOut: [FB/a8mmA==:17 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mU]
X-AnalysisOut: [AAAA:8 a=rVxrP8AynB45_iv7O3UA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=HlLFuP]
X-AnalysisOut: [E95S0A:10 a=33rK67OTR_gA:10 a=Hz7IrDYlS0cA:10]
Cc: dbrungard@att.com
Subject: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:42:34 -0000
Lou and Deborah, As requested, my brief review of the dpm draft is below. I've also asked for a Performance Metrics Directorate volunteer who could review the draft quickly. If another review is coming, I'll let you know. Al >Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 10:06:22 -0400 >To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> >From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> >Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm >Cc: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com> > >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
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm Weiqiang Sun
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft-iet… Al Morton
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft… Weiqiang Sun
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft… Weiqiang Sun
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft… Al Morton
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft… Weiqiang Sun
- Re: [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: WG Last Call: draft… Al Morton