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

[Konstantinos Pentikousis <[e-mail]>]

Dear Brian, all,


|(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

Here's my $0.02:

|(1) draft-morton-ippm-2330-update-01
|Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2330bis (Framework update)
|           to IESG as Proposed Standard

Yes to both (a) and (b), and could contribute text from a wireless/mobile network perspective.


|(2) draft-morton-ippm-2679-bis-01
|Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2679bis (One-Way Delay update)
|           to IESG as Proposed Standard
|
|(3) draft-morton-ippm-2680-bis-00
|Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2680bis (One-Way Loss update)
|           to IESG as Proposed Standard
|
|(4) draft-morton-ippm-lmap-path-01
|Mon Year - Submit draft on reference path for measurement location
|           to IESG as Proposed Standard

For (2)-(4), Yes to both (a) and (b)


|(5) draft-mathis-ippm-model-based-metrics-01
|Mon Year - Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity
|metrics

Yes to both (a) and (b), and could contribute text from a wireless/mobile network perspective as well.


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

I think this is interesting and would support it as an _informational_ document, as Brian clarified. Although some more discussion and more aspects/considerations should be included in the draft, as I mentioned in the last meeting, I think this can easily be done as this becomes a WG item.


|(7) draft-bi-ippm-ipsec-01
|Mon Year - Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed
|Standard
|

Yes to both (a) and (b), and as a co-author would be happy to see others from the WG joining this work.


|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 think this would be quite useful to have, and therefore Yes to both (a) and (b)

Best regards,

Kostas