[ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-01

Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Sun, 24 October 2010 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012083A6876 for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 07:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.313, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O2MmRkGf9966 for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 07:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00AB63A6857 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 07:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1287930405!50609298!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
Received: (qmail 25693 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2010 14:26:46 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-6.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Oct 2010 14:26:46 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9OER3qU028310 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:27:03 -0400
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9OEQwSg028274 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:26:58 -0400
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9OEQe06014177 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:26:40 -0400
Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9OEQbeZ014158 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:26:37 -0400
Message-Id: <201010241426.o9OEQbeZ014158@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-217-120.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.217.120](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101024142636gw100ei174e>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:26:37 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.217.120]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:27:01 -0400
To: ippm@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-01
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:25:05 -0000

IPPM,

We've put together an improved version of the metricstest draft.

>Filename:       draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest
>Revision:       01
>Title:          IPPM standard advancement testing
>Creation_date:  2010-10-24
>WG ID:          ippm
>Number_of_pages: 39
>
>Abstract:
>This document specifies tests to determine if multiple independent
>instantiations of a performance metric RFC have implemented the
>specifications in the same way.  This is the performance metric
>equivalent of interoperability, required to advance RFCs along the
>standards track.  Results from different implementations of metric
>RFCs will be collected under the same underlying network conditions
>and compared using state of the art statistical methods.  The goal is
>an evaluation of the metric RFC itself, whether its definitions are
>clear and unambiguous to implementors and therefore a candidate for
>advancement on the IETF standards track.
>

Here's a list of the recent changes:

    Changes from WG -00 to WG -01 draft

    o  Discussion on merits and requirements of a distributed lab test
       using only local load generators.

    o  Proposal of metrics suitable for tests using the proposed
       measurement configuration.

    o  Hint on delay caused by software based L2TPv3 implementation.

    o  Added an appendix with a test configuration allowing remote tests
       comparing different implementations accross the network.

    o  Proposal for maximum error of "equivalence", based on performance
       comparison of identical implementations.  This may be useful for
       both ADK and non-ADK comparisons.

regards,
Ruediger and Al