Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Mon, 14 March 2016 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3DB12DA74 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 zDy4b6Bqr2XB for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975E312DA71 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.255.18]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955C01227EB; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:59:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED55E0030; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:54:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:54:55 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: "nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com" <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>, "joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at" <joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at>, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:54:54 -0400
Thread-Topic: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires
Thread-Index: AdF98ER3H0pcVLvNRe6rzWmfe41GhgAACubw
Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCCEB1@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <56E67356.9020905@tuwien.ac.at> <1532830142.844245.1457959885118.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1532830142.844245.1457959885118.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D445ABCCEB1NJFPSRVEXG0re_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/WavdZVrxRCOoKWU8qG8Y8cRrzaU>
Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:55:01 -0000

Hi Nalini,

By augmenting the framework, we should be augmenting
all the metrics RFCs in an efficient way.

OWAMP and TWAMP are v6-ready, afaik.

That might leave something, but ???
Al

From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 8:51 AM
To: joachim.fabini@tuwien.ac.at; Brian Trammell
Cc: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires



>Although our draft is the initial trigger, my focus was on pointing out
>some extension to improve the proposed process.
>Some ippm drafts that do not gather large interest in the group may be
>of strategic importance to ippm.

Guys, do we have other older RFCs which need IPv6 support (or something else) added?

Nalini