IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets

Henk Uijterwaal <henk@uijterwaal.nl> Thu, 28 April 2011 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <henk@uijterwaal.nl>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C62E06ED for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 04:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2bZD5Jt5Mjnj for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 04:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C211EE06D0 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 04:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3SBjs5g080238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:45:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl)
Message-ID: <4DB95371.4070905@uijterwaal.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:45:53 +0200
From: Henk Uijterwaal <henk@uijterwaal.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
References: <4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF0DEC351277@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4D9D7225.6080506@uijterwaal.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4D9D7225.6080506@uijterwaal.nl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:46:30 -0000

IPPM Group,

> In Prague, Steve and colleagues presented
> draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets and asked if this can become a
> WG document.  If you support
> this idea or disagree with it, please speak up on the list before April 21.

Apologies for the delay.

I'm trying to figure out where to go with this proposal.  If I look
at the comments, then there seems to be agreement that we can enhance
TWAMP for packet train based measurements.  We are, however, not in
agreement on how to do this.  In the draft mentioned above, some
of the work is done during the test session phase whereas people
prepare that the entire setup is done during the setup phase.

I suggest that we should first discuss the general direction of this
idea on the list and only then get into details, where draft-baillargeon-...
is one of the solutions.

Would this work for everybody?  If so, please start fighting over this ;-)

Henk



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

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
                                 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email