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

hi, Marcelo, Matt, all

As I understand the work, it pretty clearly fits into the (expanded) IPPM charter, with an understanding that what's in the present draft will be elaborated within the working group. This is one of those things that will probably be discussed both on the IPPM and LMAP list, but I agree that expertise on the metrics will be critical in developing the registry; that indicates that it probably belongs in IPPM.

Alternately, if it turns out later that this registry is becoming something LMAP-specific, it could certainly be moved over to LMAP at some point in the future.

Best regards,

Brian

On 2 Apr 2013, at 10:52, marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> El 01/04/13 23:30, Matt Mathis escribió:
>> 
>> 
>> (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 wonder if this would be a better fit for LMAP?   I think the root
>> problem here is certifying implementations and operational
>> interoperability,
> 
> mmm, this is not how i see this.
> I mean, the goal here is to define a registry for metrics that are specified enough so it is practical to implement them.
> Basically, if we intend to have a protocol that can instruct a measurement agent something like "run test number 5 with input parameters a,b and c" then test number 5 should be specified enough so that it is practical to implement it.
> For exmaple, leaving an arbitraty P-type, probably in general is too generic to leave it open. OTOH, defining that the packet is a UDP packet with a variable lenght of padding (where the lentgh of the padding and the source and address ports are input parameters) seems like a more feasible approach.
> 
> So, i dont think certification of implementations is how i would phrase it.
> It is certainly about interoperability, but i guess this is what the IETF is about.
> 
> I believe this belong to IPPM because i think expertise on the metrcis is critical. The idea is to define entries in the registry by narrowing down some of the input paramters of the metrcis that IPPM has already defined.
> 
> It probably could be done also in lmap, but it makes more sense to me in ippm, as the metrics the registry will cover have been defined here.
> 
> Regards, marcelo
> 
> 
> 
>>  which are not areas where we have any experience.
>> IPPM has been about on the wire measurements and properties, not about
>> user interfaces, etc.
>> I would say no for an IPPM work item, but would support it under LMAP.
>> 
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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