Re: [lmap] Feedback on draft-eardley-lmap-terminology

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Phil,
>
> **
>
> *<<*I'm not too clear if the Measurement Peer are dedicated test 
> server, or real server (google.com, SIP server, youtube)>>
>
> *The Measurement Peer could be either. It's up to the operator of the 
> measurement system to decide what Measurement Methods the Measurement 
> Peer needs and exactly how they're implemented.*
>
Sure, but what if I point all my 100.000 MAs to constantly ping 
http://home.bt.com/news-01363796671918. Not sure if BT will be happy.
I could take a different example with DNS, NTP, CDN, ...
That might be a point for an applicability section somewhere.

Regards, Benoit
>
> **
>
> **
>
> Thanks
>
> phil**
>
> *From:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf 
> Of *Benoit Claise
> *Sent:* 22 July 2013 17:12
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [lmap] Feedback on draft-eardley-lmap-terminology
>
> Dear authors,
>
> A couple of high level points.
> One of the goal behind this email is to generate discussions, either 
> on the list, or during the IETF meeting next week.
>
> -
>
>     The consensus is that the LMAP working group should assume that a
>     Measurement Agent receives Instruction from only a single Controller
>     at any point in time (however it may Report to more than one
>     Collector).
>
> Instead of consensus, I would use "a key assumption"
> The charter says:
>
> A key assumption constraining the initial work is that the measurement 
> system is under the control of a single organization (for example, an 
> Internet Service Provider or a regulator).
>
> -
> Same remark for the term "consensus" in
>
>     The job of a Bootstrap Protocol is to provide an automated way to
>     associate a Measurement Agent to its Controller, including
>     authentication credentials.  Similarly, there should be a way to pull
>     the plug on rogue Measurement Agents.  The current consensus on the
>     LMAP mailing list is that the working group should define the
>     bootstrap process but not a protocol.
>
> The charter mentions:
>
> "The management protocol to bootstrap the MAs in measurement devices 
> is out of scope of the LMAP charter."
>
> -
> I would like to draw your attention to 
> claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry>, 
> which will be presented in IPPM.
>
> -
> I'm not too clear if the Measurement Peer are dedicated test server, 
> or real server (google.com, SIP server, youtube)
> Do the Measurement Peer need the functionality of an IP SLA responder 
> or a TWAMP controller?
> This might be clarified in the use case draft.
>
> -
> This draft is good shape, but it's really a mix of terminology and 
> framework concepts.
> I'm glad that there is a single delivery in the charter for both:
> "1. The LMAP Framework - provides common terminology, basic 
> architecture elements, and justifies the simplifying constraints"
>
>
> Regards, Benoit
>