WG Action: RECHARTER: IP Performance Metrics (ippm)

[IESG Secretary <[e-mail]>]

The charter of the IP Performance Metrics (ippm) working group in the
Transport Area of the IETF has been updated.  For additional information,
please contact the Area Directors or the working group Chairs.

IP Performance Metrics (ippm) 
-------------------------------------------- 
Last Modified: 2009-02-19 
 
Status: Active Working Group 
 
Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/ippm 
 
Chair(s): 
Matthew Zekauskas [[e-mail]] 
Henk Uijterwaal [[e-mail]] 
 
Transport Area Director(s): 
Magnus Westerlund [[e-mail]]  
Lars Eggert [[e-mail]] 
 
Transport Area Advisor: 
Lars Eggert [[e-mail]] 
 
Mailing Lists: 
General Discussion: [e-mail]  
To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm  
In Body: subscribe 
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/index.html 
 
Description of Working Group: 
 
The IPPM WG has developed a set of standard metrics that can be
applied to the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet data
delivery services. These metrics are designed such that they can be
performed by network operators, end users, or independent testing groups.
It is important that the metrics not represent a value judgment (i.e.
define "good" and "bad"), but rather provide unbiased quantitative
measures of performance.

Functions peripheral to Internet data delivery services, such as NOC/NIC
services, are beyond the scope of this working group.

The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and
procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. This
is the current list of fundamental metrics and the existing set of
derived metrics.

- connectivity
- one-way delay and loss
- round-trip delay.
- delay variation
- loss patterns
- packet reordering
- bulk transport capacity
- link bandwidth capacity
- packet duplication

The working group will advance these metrics along the standards track
within the IETF. The WG will document the process of moving documents
along the standards track, based on draft-bradner-metricstest. As this
process is likely to be needed by other groups as well (in particular
BMWG, PMOL), the group will collaborate with other groups in order to
ensure that there is consensus amongst all groups expected to use the
process.

Additionally, the WG will produce Proposed Standard AS documents,
comparable to applicability statements in RFC 2026, that will focus on
procedures for measuring the individual metrics and how these metrics
characterize features that are important to different service classes,
such as bulk transport, periodic streams, packet bursts or multimedia
streams. Each AS document will discuss the performance characteristics
that are pertinent to a specified service class; clearly identify the set
of metrics that aid in the description of those characteristics; specify
the methodologies required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present
the requirements for the common, unambiguous reporting of testing results.
The AS documents can also discuss the use of the metrics to verify
performance expectations, such as SLA's, report results to specific user
groups or investigate network problems. The focus is, again, to define how
this should be done, not to define a value judgment. The WG may define
additional statistics for its metrics if needed. Specific topics of these
AS documents must be
approved by the Area Directors as charter additions.

The WG will work on documents describing how to compose and decompose
the results of its metrics over time or space.

The WG has produced protocols to enable communication among test
equipment that implements the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectively). OWAMP and TWAMP will be advanced along the standards track.
Further development of these protocols will also be done inside the WG.

The metrics developed by the WG were developed inside an active
measurement context, that is, the devices used to measure the metrics
produce their own traffic. However, most metrics can be used inside a
passive context as well. No work is planned is this area though,
this may be changed with AD approval.

The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards
bodies and forums (such as ATIS IIF, ITU-T SG 12, 13 and 15, MEF) to
promote consistent approaches and metrics. Within the IETF process, IPPM
metrics definitions will be subject to as rigorous a scrutiny for
usefulness, clarity, and accuracy as other protocol standards. The IPPM WG
will interact with other areas of IETF activity whose scope intersect with
the requirement of these specific metrics. The WG will, on request,
provide input to other IETF WG on the use of these metrics.

Goals and Milestones:

Done Submit drafts of standard metrics for connectivity and treno-
bulk-throughput.
Done Submit a framework document describing terms and notions used
in the IPPM effort, and the creation of metrics by the working group
to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC.
Done Submit documents on delay and loss to IESG for publication as
Informational RFCs.
Done Submit a document on connectivity to IESG for publication as
an Informational RFC.
Done Submit a document on bulk-throughput to IESG for publication
as an Informational RFC.
Done Submit draft on loss pattern sample metrics to the IESG for
publication as an Informational RFC.
Done Submit draft on metrics for periodic streams to the IESG for
publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Done Submit draft on IP delay variation to the IESG for publication
as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Done First draft for AS on one-way delay and loss.
Done Submit draft on One-Way Active Measurement Protocol
Requirements to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.
Done Create initial draft on a MIB for reporting IPPM metrics.
Done Create initial draft on a packet reordering metric.
Done Create draft on a One-Way Active Measurement Protocol that
satisfies the requirements document.
Done Submit draft on the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol to the
IESG for consideration as a PS.
Done Submit draft on implementation reports for RFCs 2678-2681 to
the IESG
Done Submit initial draft on framework for Composition and
Aggregation Metrics
Done Submit draft on the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol to the
IESG for consideration as a PS
Done Submit draft on a packet reordering metric to the IESG for
Proposed Standard
Done Submit initial applicability statement for the IPPM and ITU
Jitter Measurements to the WG
Done Submit link bandwidth capacity definitions draft to the IESG,
for consideration as an Informational RFC
Done Submit draft on storing results of traceroute measurements to
the IESG
Done Submit draft on Two-way active measurements protocol (TWAMP)
to the IESG for consideration as proposed standard
Done Develop new charter text
Done Delay Variation Applicability Statement (Informational) to
IESG Review

Mar 2009 Assemble editorial team to work on the process draft (WG
version of draft-bradner-metricstest)
Mar 2009 -00 version of SLA validation draft
Apr 2009 Submit draft on spatial composition of metrics to the IESG
Apr 2009 Submit draft on Temporal Aggregation of Metrics to the IESG
Apr 2009 Submit draft on spatial decomposition and multicast metrics
to the IESG
Apr 2009 Submit "more TWAMP" draft to IESG
Jun 2009 Initial version of process draft
Nov 2009 Submit other TWAMP extensions draft to IESG.
Dec 2009 Final version of process draft
Mar 2010 Implementation report based on process draft
Jun 2010 Revise charter