Re: [ippm] Consensus on new IPPM Charter; call for draft adoption as WG items.

[Matt Mathis <[e-mail]>]

In my comments below, "abstain" generally means that I don't see
enough value in the work to be worth my time, but I see insignificant
harm in others supporting it.  Since there is a risk that such items
draw precious energy out of the working group as a whole, an abstain
vote should be counted as a weak no.


On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Brian Trammell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> (1) draft-morton-ippm-2330-update-01
> Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2330bis (Framework update)
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
Yes 2330 needs work, and this is a good starting point/placeholder,
although I think this specific document has too narrow of scope.  Yes
I will review and contribute.

> (2) draft-morton-ippm-2679-bis-01
> Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2679bis (One-Way Delay update)
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
Abstain

> (3) draft-morton-ippm-2680-bis-00
> Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2680bis (One-Way Loss update)
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
Abstain

> (4) draft-morton-ippm-lmap-path-01
> Mon Year - Submit draft on reference path for measurement location
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
Yes, I support this and will help.  Consider folding it into 2330bis.

> (5) draft-mathis-ippm-model-based-metrics-01
> Mon Year - Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity metrics
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
Yes & Yes

> (6) draft-ko-ippm-streaming-performance-00
> Mon Year - Submit draft on model-based streaming performance metrics
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
Abstain

> (7) draft-bi-ippm-ipsec-01
> Mon Year - Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed Standard
Yes, we (other person singular) should do this.  No, I can't help.

> With respect to the following milestone, there are two drafts, which we would presume would be unified through the working group process; it's not necessary at this time to indicate which approach you support.
>
> (8) draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-00, draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-00
> Mon Year - Submit draft on metrics registry to IESG as Proposed Standard

I wonder if this would be a better fit for LMAP?   I think the root
problem here is certifying implementations and operational
interoperability, which are not areas where we have any experience.
IPPM has been about on the wire measurements and properties, not about
user interfaces, etc.
I would say no for an IPPM work item, but would support it under LMAP.

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat
privacy and security as matters of life and death, because for some
users, they are.