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

[Henk Uijterwaal <[e-mail]>]

Dan,

> */Let me say that I am finding this discussion to happen a little bit 
> too early, but I was answering to the challenge coming from Henk. 
> Usually such discussions happen when the document became a work item, or 
> even at WGLC. /*

The document has been accepted as a WG item last year.  Al/Benoit haven't
submitted a version with a draft-ietf-ippm-... filename but I understand
that this will be done before the Philly cut-off date.

Anyway, we can/should discuss the content!

Henk


> *//* 
> */Section 5 includes A LOT of history which seems to me not relevant and 
> usually is not included in IETF documents. Maybe a short summary should 
> be part of Section 6 but not all the details. In section 6 I do not see 
> the point of 6.5 and 6.6, and have doubts about 6.8, but maybe I should 
> read this one again to make sure that I understand the issues. /*
> *//* 
> */The issue with section 8 is that it goes into some details about 
> measurement methods and devices, rather than metrics. It would be 
> interested to hear the opinion of other IPPM folks. /*
> *//* 
> */Dan/*
> *//* 
>  
>  
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 12, 2008 2:05 AM
>     *To:* Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>     *Cc:* Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG
>     *Subject:* 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:[e-mail]] 
>>>     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:[e-mail]]
>>>>     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 
>>>         
>>>>     [e-mail] list.  Even a "yes, I've read it and it is fine" is 
>>>>     already very helpful.
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>     Henk
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     ippm mailing list
>>>>     [e-mail]
>>>>     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: [phone]
>>>     1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: [phone]
>>>     The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: [phone]
>>>     --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     ----------------
>>>
>>>     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
>>     [e-mail]
>>     http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>       
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> 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: [phone]
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: [phone]
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: [phone]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
                                       Alan Greenspan on the next elections
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm