RE: DPPM [was: New CCAMP I-Ds]

["Weiqiang Sun" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Attila and Adrian,

Thanks for the comments.
Our knowledge of the performance metrics and related methodologies has
largely come from existing and ongoing documents, as well as some
discussions in a discussion group.
For your reference, I listed below a few examples that put the PM docs in
the standard category:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2679.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-03.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-00.txt

Also, there are a few other similar ones developed as informational docs:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-06.txt

Personally, I think it is more appropriate to put the doc in the standard
track, since it proposes not only the metrics and motivations, but the
methodologies as well. The methodologies can be implementation references
for certain users of the metrics, such as online measurement entities and
testing devices.

So far this doc has been developing in a discussion group and also in an
offline manner. We expect to receive more feedbacks from the WG as we are
settling down with the motivations, and can thus be more focused on metrics
and methodologies. Also, we will try to solicit comments from other related
WGs such as PMOL, BMWG and IPPM. It is indeed a wonderful idea to develop
this document under the guidance of CCAMP experts and also with the support
from performance metrics experts.

Cheers,
Weiqiang

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:24 AM
To: Attila Takacs; [e-mail]
Subject: DPPM [was: New CCAMP I-Ds]

Attila wrote

>> draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-02.txt
> Yes. However, I'm not sure if this needs to be a standard, shouldn't it
> be just informational?

Yse, I agree.
Actually, there are one or two IETF-culture things to tweak in this I-D, and

I prpose to give the authors a little help if we agree to take it into 
CCAMP.

Cheers,
Adrian