[ippm] The next steps for the reordering drafts.

[Henk Uijterwaal <[e-mail]>]

How about this...

IPPM Group,

Back in August 2004, we wrote:

>Following the IPPM WG meeting in San Diego, the chairs of the WG met with
>(some of) the authors of the 2 reordering metrics currently under
>discussion in the IPPM WG, in order to discuss the next steps. The drafts
>are:
>
>  draft #1: draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-06.txt
>  draft #2: draft-jayasumana-reorder-density-03.txt

(Now at -08 and -04 respectively)


>We agreed that merging the 2 drafts will be close to impossible due to
>differences in the basic definitions.  We also concluded that both drafts
>contain metrics that are relevant for applications that have to deal with
>reordering.  However, in this area, more study is needed for the second
>draft.  This research is in progress.
>
>We think that the best way forward is:
>
>  1. Add a statement to the introduction of the first draft saying that
>     the current metrics are limited to those that provide some
>     clear insight into network characterization or receiver design,
>     and are not likely to be exhaustive in their coverage of the
>     applications with respect to packet reordering effects. Likewise,
>     additional measurements may be possible.
>  2. Finalize the first draft and publish as a standard track RFC
>  3. Suggest to the WG to take the second draft up as a WG item.
>  4. When the research related to the second draft is done, publish the
>     second draft as either an experimental RFC, or as a followup
>     to the first RFC.
>
>For technical details regarding this discussion, please refer to earlier
>postings.
>
>Comments to the list please,

The WG discussed the drafts in its meeting yesterday.  Of the 4 steps
mentioned above, (1) has been done.  For step 2, Draft-ietf-ippm-reordering 
has gone through several revisions since August and all issues now appear
to have been settled.  The document is expected to be ready for last
call soon.  The chairs propose to finalize this draft as planned on
short notice.

In the meantime, the authors of draft-jayasumana-reorder-density-03.txt
have continued their research, resulting in an -04 version of the
draft and some related publications.   The question is whether the WG
feels that the 2 proposed metrics (RD and RBD) are sufficiently
distinct from the metrics proposed in draft-ietf-ippm-reordering
to warrant a second RFC by this WG (step 3 above).

We would like to hear arguments, pro and con, if the working group
feels that either the RD or the RBD metric (or both, of course) from
draft-jayasumana-reorder-density should become a working group item.

Please send your comments to the list before 1 April.

The chairs,

Matt & Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: [phone]
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: [phone]
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: [phone]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look here junior, don't you be so happy.
And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad.                 (Tom Verlaine)  


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm