Re: [lmap] [information model] ma-task-object issues

Holger Wiehen <holger@nic.br> Mon, 23 January 2017 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <holger@nic.br>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB531298BB for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:15:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
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 oJYXoha56L4Q for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.br (mail.nic.br [200.160.4.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D4BC1298B5 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C46232E51; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:15:16 -0200 (BRST)
Authentication-Results: mail.nic.br (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
Received: from mail.nic.br ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.nic.br [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lw4tiuxQJAUA; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:15:16 -0200 (BRST)
Received: from 5.140.net.registro.br (unknown [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:5::140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: holger@nic.br) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0635232D1C; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:15:16 -0200 (BRST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.br; s=dkim; t=1485206116; bh=Lyopqp4FxP5yr+IqBVP2OTKPbwSXpC/czpY+58fesIk=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=laHuqnfyo8w1Qlvai2Gc5pjseGm3DYgdcAbdvMPLeKzbxAN2Ml2EpZO4tSUUFLHdT 8UFiTmTup2nzpXWx6H9bCkSTFWQrUM7bTP6wUyjJb3wjpQH+kTYgyZJivOKwJdNmd9 oFL1mawb9XlpblJYKKz03ZyQe15XZib5JsZxWq5g=
From: Holger Wiehen <holger@nic.br>
Message-Id: <4CF28928-361A-4D56-BEF5-ACC411A84526@nic.br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_759D4A88-04FE-4166-A5F4-537EBB557346"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:15:16 -0200
In-Reply-To: <20170123184110.GC33438@elstar.local>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
References: <08B9F120-0766-4B21-8676-16C9B0D5180F@nic.br> <20170123184110.GC33438@elstar.local>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br B0635232D1C
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/2w8AI50-TBT-dclaGsZO5xT7Qkk>
Cc: lmap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lmap] [information model] ma-task-object issues
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:15:21 -0000

Hi Juergen.

I agree.
Thank’s for your clarification.

Holger Wiehen.


> On 23 Jan 2017, at 16:41, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:51:47PM -0200, Holger Wiehen wrote:
>> Hi. 
>> 
>> I noticed 2 issues with the ma-task-object (LMAP Information Model).
>> 
>> 
>> 1) Missing protocol information (OWAMP, TWAMP,…) 
>> 
>> In order to measure the metric specified on a task, coordination will be necessary between the Measurement Agent and a Measurement Peer, in most cases.
>> Shouldn’t the task indicate the measurement protocol to use, besides the metric to be measured?  In my understanding, the metric coming from the Ippm-Metrics-Registry will be protocol agnostic.
>> Today we rely on some implicit default for the measurement protocol. Alternatively the task could inform which protocol is to be used for a given metric. This would apply to capabilities (“I support metric X measured with Owamp”) and instructions (“measure metric Y, using Owamp”).
>> 
> 
> Simply use task options. Good enough until we have sufficient
> operational experience that something more elaborate is needed.
> 
>> 2) Inconsistency with the Yang Data Model
>> 
>> The information model only specifies “ma-task-functions” (Ippm Metrics) for a task.
>> The data model specifies “functions” (Ippm Metrics) and alternatively a “program” (local executable) to perform a task.
>> Should the “program” attribute appear in the information model?
>> 
> 
> This difference is by design and not by accident. The information
> model view is that the registry takes care of everything. The data
> model view is that there exists stuff that is not covered by a
> (metrics) registry. (And my implementation does not use the registry
> at all right now since I have not really figured out how to make this
> work.) I think it is fine if a data model 'expands' the information
> model.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>