Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires

Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> Sat, 12 March 2016 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
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 6460D12D797 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 08:52:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k_VSAlQiDRb5 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 08:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B503712D6B0 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 08:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2:e97e:4f6d:5d4f:e29c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2:e97e:4f6d:5d4f:e29c]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDEA11A00D9; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 17:52:21 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EB722E4A-F6A2-4FCA-B014-110C3C56E8F4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <CAKe6YvPGWen+dfoY0W2GRZC048ioyvCvWhxb4xjQw41=pGPGTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 17:52:20 +0100
Message-Id: <1F8D111D-CB2E-43BA-B399-89679A4220B2@trammell.ch>
References: <5E975C36-26D3-422B-A511-A2CE410A8606@trammell.ch> <CAKe6YvPGWen+dfoY0W2GRZC048ioyvCvWhxb4xjQw41=pGPGTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/y91PJCyJKrVbIDQZ4_SSwkRb8ak>
Cc: Peyush Gupta <peyush.gupta@gmail.com>, Srivathsa S <srivathsas@gmail.com>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM WG Status and Agenda for IETF 95 Buenos Aires
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 16:52:26 -0000

hi Vinayak,

I haven't seen much discussion on these since Yokohama. Five minutes should be enough to present deltas. We can put you down for a lightning talk in the returning-work queue.

Cheers,

Brian (chair hat)

> On 11 Mar 2016, at 22:16, Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian, Bill,
> 
> We would like a 15min slot for "Monitoring Service KPIs using TWAMP".
> During the remote presentation in Yokohama, we received some feedback
> from Al, Nalini and Greg. We are planning to incorporate that feedback
> and present a delta of the changes. New draft will be ready by next
> weekend. We have already presented this work twice in the IPPM WG and
> would like the group to adopt it.
> 
> Thanks
> Vinayak
> 
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote:
>> Greetings, all,
>> 
>> First, let us congratulate the IPPM working group on its excellent productivity in finally-published-RFC terms: we've seen five(!) documents published since Yokohama:
>> 
>> - RFC 7679 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis)
>> A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
>> - RFC 7680 (was draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis)
>> A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
>> - RFC 7717 (was draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec)
>> IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement
>> Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
>> - RFC 7718 (was draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry)
>> Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)
>> - RFC 7750 (was draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor)
>> Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion
>> Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement
>> Protocol (TWAMP)
>> 
>> In addition:
>> 
>> - RFC-to-be 7799 (draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06) just entered AUTH48
>> - draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06 has been approved and is in queue
>> 
>> Well done, IPPM!
>> 
>> 
>> With that, it's time to consider what to work on next, in order to plan our agenda for the meeting in Buenos Aires. We have a couple of active Working Group drafts:
>> 
>> - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option, in WGLC until next Friday.
>> - draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry, to be revised on WGLC comments.
>> - draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics, which needs work before a second WGLC.
>> 
>> We'll want time on the agenda for all three of these.
>> 
>> We've also adopted two new WG documents, for which we expect to see dratf-ietf-ippm- revisions before Monday 21 March:
>> 
>> - draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang
>> - draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry
>> 
>> We'll want time on the agenda for these, too.
>> 
>> Beyond that, we've reviewed discussion on the mailing list to see where the working group's energy seems to be for additional documents. First, we have seen a lot of discussion on what we call the "hybrid/coloring cluster", so I think we should have a discussion about approaches here, how they fit together, and what if anything we should consider adopting in this space:
>> 
>> - draft-tempia-ippm-p3m
>> - draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework
>> - draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext
>> 
>> We've already talked to Giuseppe Fioccola about these, and would like to propose a single presentation about all three followed by a long discussion slot.
>> 
>> There's also been some discussion on draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format, and it seems like this one might be close enough to make an adoption call for too.
>> 
>> All other drafts: As discussed in Yokohama, we'd like to reserve time for work that's actually already being discussed on the list, so at the end of the agenda we'll have time for discussion of new work without any substantial discussion so far. These will be organized as 5 minute lightning talks, and allocated FCFS in two queues, with completely new drafts having priority over ones that have already been presented.
>> 
>> We're tentatively scheduled for a 2.5 hour slot on Monday morning, but there is discussion about moving us back to a 2 hour slot on Friday, so we'd propose the following agenda, with the last slot being either 15 or 45 minutes long:
>> 
>> 10:00: Note well, intro, status, agenda bash (chairs, 10m)
>> 10:10: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry
>>      WGLC discussion completion, as req'd (10m)
>> 10:20: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option
>>      WGLC discussion completion (N. Elkins, 15m)
>> 10:35: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics
>>      new revision / second WGLC kickoff (M. Mathis, 10m)
>> 10:45: Coloring/Hybrid Approach Presentation and Discussion (TBD, 45m)
>>      draft-tempia-ippm-p3m
>>      draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework
>>      draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc6812-alt-mark-ext
>>      Discussion; decision on call to adopt?
>> 11:30: draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format (G. Mirsky, 15m)
>>      Discussion: decision on call to adopt?
>> 11:45: Lightning talks for new work: two requests received so far:
>>      draft-bailmir-ippm-twamp-dscp-ctrl-mon-00 (G. Mirsky)
>>      draft-mirsky-ippm-twamp-light-yang-02 (G. Mirsky)
>> 
>> Authors: please let us know if you have any corrections here. Those with new work to present: please let us know if you'd like a lightning talk slot.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Brian and Bill (chair hats)
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> ippm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>