Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt

Hi Stanislav, Hi Martin
Here are my comments.

- Section 2. The TWAMP protocol can also be used for obtaining the measurement data to compute any metrics including one-way metrics.
- Section 4. In the list, can you explicitly indicate that the "small set" of metrics can be one-way metrics, two-way metrics or both? Sections 4.1 to 4.5 almost imply there are one-way metrics. Reading section 5 and 5.2, I think you indicate that one-way metrics are preferred but two-way metrics may also be reported. Right?
- Section 4. How will a vendor state compliancy to this RFC? Does one need to support the reporting of all of the metrics in the "small set"?
- Section 4. Should we consider adding a "temporal connectivity" metric to the list as defined in RFC2678? It seems like a very basic and essential metric. During the measurement test, if a successful packet or reply is received, the value of the measurement is "true". I know it may seems to overlap with delay and loss metrics but operators treat it separately.
- Section 5.1. I understand that there are different measurement protocols with different minimum packet sizes. But what is the actual default packet size? If you don't explicitly indicate it, the implementation will always have to report the packet size since the user cannot easily derive it. The other option is to remove the statement.
- General comment. Have you considered defining a MIB as well your draft? As far as I know, the IETF has always favored the reporting of stats in well-defined MIB. I think it will help to compare performance reports from different implementations.

Regards
Steve B

-----Original Message-----
From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: April-06-11 4:26 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG
Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt

IPPM group,

As discussed in Prague, this starts a WGLC for the draft:

      Reporting IP Performance Metrics to Users
      draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt

Please review the draft and raise any issues by Wednesday, April 20, 8:00 UTC.
An URL for the draft is:

    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting/?include_text=1

Matt & Henk

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
RIPE NCC                                  http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
                                          Phone: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
                                 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) _______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm