Re: [ippm] FW: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ippm/draft-morton-ippm-delay-var-as-04.txt

Dan,

While I "could" understand your point about section 5, I don't 
understand the arguments about removing section 6.
I thought it gave some useful comparison between IPDV and PDV when 
looking at parameters packet loss, path changes, clocks, composition.
- "In conclusion, the PDV results are affected by the packet loss ratio.
   The IPDV results are affected by both the packet loss ratio and the
   packet loss distribution.  In the extreme case of loss of every other
   packet, IPDV doesn't provide any results."
   is an important conclusion (just to reference one) for the selection 
of the DV method
- For example, do we NTP for one-way delay and delay variation is a 
typical question I receive from customers.
- Same thing for "how do I combine DV?"

Again for section 8, I have to explain to customers/partners
- "You want Poisson because it's random. But it's sometimes better to 
get a random start with fixed intervals..."
- "With PDV, it is sufficient to specify the upper percentile (e.g.,  
99.9%), while it's different with IPDV"
- How long should I measure etc...

Considering that this draft is there as an entry point for delay 
variation explanations + a series of guidelines (at least this was my 
intention) I spent quite some time on these sections. Specifically, if 
section 5 is removed, we need to list somewhere the conclusions of the 
published papers referenced in section 5. The place would then be the 
current section 6. Unless you have a different view?

Regards, Benoit.

> IMO section 5 and most of section 6 should probably go away. I am not
> sure that section 8 is within the 'traditional' scope of IPPM. 
>
> Dan
>
>
>  
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Henk Uijterwaal [mailto:henk@ripe.net] 
>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 9:23 PM
>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> Cc: IETF IPPM WG
>> Subject: Re: [ippm] FW: Draft 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ippm/draft-morton-ippm-delay-var-as-04.txt
>>
>> Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>>     
>>>  If the question that is being asked is 'do you believe that the 
>>> document' is in good shape to become an IPPM WG work 
>>>       
>> item?', my answer 
>>     
>>> is 'yes'.
>>>       
>> We already asked that one, the next question is: do you agree 
>> with the contents, what should be added/changed/removed?
>>
>> Henk
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Henk Uijterwaal [mailto:henk@ripe.net]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:26 PM
>>> Subject: Draft
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ippm/draft-morton-ippm-delay-var-as-04.txt
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Last year, you expressed interest in
>>>
>>>    
>>>       
>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ippm/draft-morton-ippm-delay-var-as-04.txt
>>     
>>> and supported it as an IPPM WG document.  Did you read the latest 
>>> version of the document and if so, can you please post 
>>>       
>> comments to the 
>>     
>>> IPPM@ietf.org list.  Even a "yes, I've read it and it is fine" is 
>>> already very helpful.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Henk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ippm mailing list
>>> ippm@ietf.org
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>>
>>>       
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------
>> Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: 
>> henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
>> RIPE Network Coordination Centre          
>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
>> P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
>> 1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
>> The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------
>>
>> Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
>>                                        Alan Greenspan on the 
>> next elections
>>
>> This email was protected during delivery to Avaya with TLS encryption
>>
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>   