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

[Matt Mathis <[e-mail]>]

I think "The WG also encourages work which improves the availability
of information about the context in which measurements were taken." is
alluding to metadata and related issues.   E.g.
draft-mathis-ippm-data-curation-00.txt

But this draft is about to expire.
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.


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Samita Chakrabarti
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>  Hi Brian,
>
> The revised charter mentions near the 2nd last paragraph -
> "The WG also encourages work which improves the availability of information about the context in which measurements were taken."  ---> is this alluding to usecase document of TWAMP/OWAMP and some of the asociated metrics ( since the currents documents are not very clear)?  We discussed that during the charter discussion at IETF 86.
>
> Also, at the charter discussion, we agreed on MIB definition for the measurement protocols. Not sure if it was captured in the meeting minutes. Looking at the charter I did not find coverage for it. Could this be clarified?
>
> I have some comments on the list of documents below as you requested comments by April 3rd.
> Please see in-line.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:13 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [ippm] Consensus on new IPPM Charter; call for draft adoption as WG items.
>
> Greetings, all,
>
> Having applied comments in this thread to the charter, we've arrived at the draft charter text below this message.
>
> I've seen on the order of a dozen comments supporting adoption of the charter, some with suggestions for improvement that have been applied to the below. Seeing no comments not supporting adoption, it appears that we have clear consensus for the adoption of the draft charter text. Many thanks to all for your comments!
>
> The next step is to adopt drafts from those which have been presented at the IPPM meeting in Orlando and/or discussed to date on the list, and to determine the milestones for those drafts.
>
> For the following drafts and milestones, please indicate:
>
> (a) whether you support the adoption of the draft as a working group item for the associated milestone, and
> (b) whether you have reviewed the draft, and/or are willing to review it as a working group item
>
> (1) draft-morton-ippm-2330-update-01
> Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2330bis (Framework update)
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
>
> ==> Yes on adoption.
>
>
>
> (2) draft-morton-ippm-2679-bis-01
> Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2679bis (One-Way Delay update)
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
>
> ==> Yes on adoption.
>
> (3) draft-morton-ippm-2680-bis-00
> Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2680bis (One-Way Loss update)
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
>
> ==> Yes on adoption.
>
> (4) draft-morton-ippm-lmap-path-01
> Mon Year - Submit draft on reference path for measurement location
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
>
> ==> Yes on adoption.
>
> (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
>
> ===>
> This document's intended status is "experimental". I'd support it for wg document as experimental. More experience is needed to make it a std wg document.
>
> (6) draft-ko-ippm-streaming-performance-00
> Mon Year - Submit draft on model-based streaming performance metrics
>            to IESG as Proposed Standard
>
>
> ===> This document is an INFORMATIONAL document. Not sure why it should be submitted as proposed standard. It has a lot of useful information. But I think it is premature yet to adopt as a wg draft and more time for discussion and understanding is needed.
>
>
> (7) draft-bi-ippm-ipsec-01
> Mon Year - Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed Standard
>
> ===> Support adoption. More work is needed.
>
>
> 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'd like to try to evaluate consensus on adoption on each draft by next Wednesday, April 3, absent continuing discussion.
>
>
> ===> Would like to see more discussion on the merged document and working group review before
>      they individually become wg documents.
>
>
> Best regards,
> -Samita
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Charter text follows]
>
> IP Performance Metrics (ippm)
> -----------------------------
>
>  Charter
>
>  Current Status: Active
>
>  Chairs:
>      Brian Trammell
>      Bill Cerveny
>
>  Transport Area Directors:
>      Martin Stiemerling
>      Martin Stiemerling
>
>  Transport Area Advisor:
>      Martin Stiemerling
>
>  Mailing Lists:
>      General Discussion: [e-mail]
>      To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>      Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm
>
> Description of Working Group:
>
> The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group develops and maintains standard metrics that can be applied to the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet data delivery services and applications. It also develops and maintains protocols for the measurement of these metrics. These metrics are designed such that they can be used by network operators, end users, or independent testing groups. Metrics developed by the IPPM WG are intended to provide unbiased quantitative performance measurements and not a value judgement.
>
> The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The working group will continue advancing these metrics along the standards track, using the guidelines stated in RFC 6576. To the extent possible, these metrics will be used as the basis for future work on metrics in the WG.
>
> The WG will develop the minimum number of new metrics and models needed to more accurately quantitatively characterize the network path(s) under test and/or the performance of transport and application layer protocols on these path(s).
> New metric definitions will state how the definition improves on an existing metric definition, or assesses a property of network performance not previously covered by a defined metric.
>
> Additional methods will be defined for the composition and calibration of IPPM-defined metrics, as well as active, passive and hybrid measurement methods for these metrics. In addition, the WG encourages work which describes the applicability of metrics and measurement methods, especially to improve understanding of the tradeoffs involved among active, passive, and hybrid methods.
>
> The WG may update its core framework RFC 2330 as necessary to accommodate these activities.
>
> The WG has produced protocols for communication among test equipment to enable the measurement of the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP respectively).
> These protocols will be advanced along the standards track. The WG will further develop and improve these protocols. The WG may develop new measurement protocols as necessary to support new metrics. New metric and protocol development will focus on the suitability of measurements for automation, in order to support large-scale measurement efforts.
>
> Agreement about the definitions of metrics and methods of measurement enables accurate, reproducible, and equivalent results across different implementations. To this end, the WG will define and maintain a registry of metric definitions. The WG encourages work which assesses the comparability of measurements of IPPM metrics with metrics developed elsewhere. The WG also encourages work which improves the availability of information about the context in which measurements were taken.
>
> The IPPM WG seeks cooperation with other appropriate standards bodies and forums to promote consistent approaches and metrics. Within the IETF process, IPPM metric definitions and measurement protocols 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 intersects with the requirement of these specific metrics. The WG will, on request, provide input to other IETF working groups on the use and implementation of these metrics.
>
> Milestones:
>
> Mon Year - Submit draft on access rate measurement protocol problem statement
>            to IESG as Informational
> Mon Year - Submit draft on RFC 2680 standards-track advancement testing
>            to IESG as Informational
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm