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

[<[e-mail]>]

Benoit,

Thanks for your comments!

I agree with you that "key assumption" is more accurate than "consensus"

I agree that Section 4, "Commentary and notes" wanders into the territory of the Framework. At some point soon, as you say, terminology will be merged into a framework i-d, so this will need to be fixed. I'll try to ensure that the merged doc keeps some text that explains the terminology a bit (personally I find terminology on its own hard to understand, without some accompanying explanation)

Ps your registry i-d is now on my reading list, thanks

<< 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.

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