Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-olden-ippm-qoo-02

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear All,
I've read the draft and found it well-written and proposing a
pragmatic approach to a real operational issue. I support the adoption of
this document by the IPPM WG. Below, please find my notes and questions for
future discussions:

   - In your opinion, what is the relationship among this draft,
   draft-teigen-ippm-app-quality-metric-reqs
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-teigen-ippm-app-quality-metric-reqs/>,
and
   TR-452.1? Which of these documents lists the "full set of requirements"?
   - It seems like the perspective of 'we' is not usually used in IETF
   documents. It would be helpful to re-word passages like "we believe", "we
   can", and "we propose".
   - In your opinion, what is the relationship between "active testing from
   applications" and "monitoring from network equipment"? Do you expect that
   both are using the same measurement method or only produce the same
   performance metrics?
   - I think it would be helpful to add references to the measurement
   methods listed in Section 2, e.g., STAMP, IRTT, etc.
   - Also, a reference (or more than one) would be helpful in the following:

   Using Latency distributions to measure network quality is nothing new

   and has been proposed by various researchers/practitioners.


   - Do you mention a passive measurement method as defined in RFC 7799 in
   the following

   Latency Distributions can be gathered via both passive monitoring and
   active testing.

What is an example of the passive measurement method that supports the
measurement of latency distribution?


   - It is stated in the draft that

The active testing can use any type of IP traffic.

It would be helpful if this statement is expanded and supported by some
examples, e.g., TCP-based measurements, raw IP, etc.


   - It seems that an additional information on whether the list of the
   measurement parameters in Section 3 is sufficient to "ensure network
   measurements can be analyzed for precision and confidence".
   - The document introduces notions of "perfection" and "usefulness". What
   are your thoughts about the work on the Precision Availability Metrics
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-pam/>, and its metrics
   that express a service availability/unavailability. I am interested further
   discussing if the terms from PAM can be used in QoO.

Regards,
Greg

   -


On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 9:13 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello IPPM,
>
> This email starts a working group adoption call for "Quality of Outcome”
> (draft-olden-ippm-qoo).
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olden-ippm-qoo/
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-olden-ippm-qoo-02.html
>
> The call will last for 3 weeks, and end on *Tuesday, February 6*. Please
> reply to this email with your review comments and indicate if you support
> adopting this work.
>
> Please note that we did a previous adoption call that did not receive
> sufficient feedback. At the last meeting at IETF 118, we did have a good
> amount of comments and questions, so please do reply to this email if you
> have reviewed the document.
>
> Thanks,
> Tommy & Marcus
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>