Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry

"Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <timothy.carey@nokia.com> Thu, 18 February 2016 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <timothy.carey@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913971B2F2F for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:29:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9iDl9_0XHaDk for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpatc-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.18.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CD531B2EE7 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:29:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70tumx1.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.18.13]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 9C192B7C243CC for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:29:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.63]) by us70tumx1.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u1IKTh7r015120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:29:43 GMT
Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.36]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u1IKThu9020995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:29:43 GMT
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.10.121]) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:29:43 -0500
From: "Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <timothy.carey@nokia.com>
To: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry
Thread-Index: AQHRaosZ1VF7nQ/fnkStH45J0npkvQ==
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:29:42 +0000
Message-ID: <9966516C6EB5FC4381E05BF80AA55F77012A5D594E@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <mailman.27.1455825604.17355.ippm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.27.1455825604.17355.ippm@ietf.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/W_6wLowvhQGyt1P06MEHsvIgjB0>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:29:51 -0000

I tend to agree with Juergen - It would be nice to have examples of the registry.

The scope (3) of the draft does say it will do that...

It does provides a few examples that are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry at this point in time.


BR,
Tim

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:41:15 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption:
	draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry
Message-ID: <20160218074115.GA4397@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi,

since an empty registry is of little value, I think having a initial content defined somewhere is essential. In fact, I believe initial content _and_ at least one concrete use case example is essential in order to know that the registry itself is practically useful.

I am mostly active in LMAP and not too closely following IPPM so please forgive my ignorance. But I generally do believe that a proof of practical usability is essential for good specifications. Hence, concrete metric registry examples might help to convince us that the registry is a cool thing to have or they might show us how to make the registry simpler or easier to use.

/js

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 06:45:00PM +0000, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> +1
> And I'm sorry I totally missed replying to this call in my get-ready-for-holidays frenzied mode (in December).
> Barbara
> 
> > I support the adoption of this draft as a WG item. It is needed to 
> > create entries for the currently defined IPPM metrics into the 
> > metric registry and is complementary to work coming out of the LMAP WG.
> > 
> > Jason
> > 
> > On 12/10/15, 8:49 AM, "ippm on behalf of Brian Trammell"
> > <ippm-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ietf@trammell.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > >Greetings, all,
> > >
> > >Following support in the room for the adoption of 
> > >draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry in Yokohama, this message starts 
> > >a formal call for adoption of the following milestone:
> > >
> > >July 2016: submit a Standards Track document to the IESG defining 
> > >initial contents of performance metric registry
> > >
> > >in support of paragraph 7 of our charter:
> > >
> > >  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.
> > >
> > >and to adopt draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry as the document for 
> > >this milestone.
> > >
> > >Please express support or concerns with adopting this document by 
> > >31 December 2015 to the IPPM working group mailing list, 
> > >ippm@ietf.org
> > >
> > >Many thanks, best regards,
> > >
> > >Brian Trammell (chair hat)
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
> > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or 
> > subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is 
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it 
> > is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, 
> > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, 
> > copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and 
> > attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
> > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify 
> > the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > ippm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>