Re: [lmap] AD review of draft-ietf-lmap-framework-10
marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Sun, 22 February 2015 11:16 UTC
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88241A1BB8 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:16:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 UqRcr0zMCpQJ for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:16:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com (mail-we0-f176.google.com [74.125.82.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18F431A1BB0 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:16:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wevm14 with SMTP id m14so13027690wev.13 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:16:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TysrDptFnvEI5GvNegOcJRPwf3cqfZ8VfuUQAbxmUkY=; b=LCVAaAUg19vDH3+3SP9t6g6Vy3nTSE6zheHneP7VqmVR8EZn35Ferr/qxaKiNdggZH G6m5+lq9lHCP5V5v4WwU3sQTn6Yqh0JzroU1xatDFZP6EZjq6FXxHs52JXarCdx0pgHC xcxurtHi9DU9qLG85nV/RwS10BZNbZ5vSlGSj1ckq7VV31dFk1oRdf5MLqCHJ80QeU5+ r3jHWF5gBFveb7aaLpMLY6FSzCP5lsdQ9+COzYbn6qWP2ZQLJfWUO05ZHiNXYu56G8Kb +O2EGWadQCQ0s9GPw8P+2PSV54Cf3wVAtyngij2Tl+gvFV1RDRrPe1LAjJIGgCtqzYBP E8nA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnekiCSUvI45SARYct6pPur660QV+3F7tsQ5qTjUlQHoK8ecBmcY9JLe07cyirE9h37akmI
X-Received: by 10.180.90.197 with SMTP id by5mr11177714wib.70.1424603778992; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Macintosh-2.local (224.205.221.87.dynamic.jazztel.es. [87.221.205.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yy9sm50672727wjc.20.2015.02.22.03.16.17 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54E9BA80.3090304@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 12:16:16 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "lmap@ietf.org" <lmap@ietf.org>
References: <54E38787.2090009@cisco.com> <54E9B772.101@neomailbox.ch>
In-Reply-To: <54E9B772.101@neomailbox.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/inWoMcpXZDM4IZmJpARlHG17DS4>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lmap-framework@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lmap-framework@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lmap] AD review of draft-ietf-lmap-framework-10
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:16:24 -0000
Hi, I have just submitted a new version of the draft with the proposed changes. Hopefully this clears the path for this draft moving forward. The new version of the draft is: The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-framework/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lmap-framework-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lmap-framework-11 Regards, marcelo El 22/02/15 a las 12:03, marcelo bagnulo escribió: > Hi, > > Thanks for the review. I think we addressed all your points. We will > submit an updated version of the document now and if there are more > changes needed, we submit another one. > > El 17/02/15 a las 19:25, Benoit Claise escribió: >> Dear all, >> >> First of all, very sorry for the delay in getting back to you. >> Thank you for this new draft version. The document really improved >> between version 8 and 10. >> Here is my feedback on version 10. Nothing major. I propose to start >> the IETF LC as soon a new version is posted >> >> - In http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-06, LMAP >> stands for Large-scale Measurement of Broadband Performance. >> Here, in the abstract, it stands for large-scale measurement >> platforms. Please change it. >> > > done > > >> - Some repetitions in section 1 >> It is expected >> that such a system could easily comprise 100,000 devices. >> >> It is expected that a Measurement >> System could easily encompass a few hundred thousand or even >> millions of Measurement Agents. > > agree, rephrased as: > > There is a desire to be able to coordinate the execution of > broadband > measurements and the collection of measurement results across a > large > scale set of Measurement Agents (MAs). These MAs could be > software based > agents on PCs, embedded agents in consumer devices (such as TVs or > gaming consoles), embedded in service provider controlled > devices such as set-top > boxes and home gateways, or simply dedicated probes. > MAs may also be embedded on a device that is part of an ISP's > network, such > as a DSLAM (Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer), router, > Carrier > Grade NAT (Network Address Translator) or ISP Gateway. > It is expected that > a measurement system could easily encompass a few hundred > thousand or even > millions of such MAs. Such a scale > presents unique problems in coordination, execution and measurement > result collection. > >> - Section 2 >> OLD: >> Another possibility is for the >> MA may generate (or receive) traffic specially created for the >> purpose and measure some metric associated with its transfer. >> >> NEW: >> Another possibility is for the >> MA_to_generate (or receive) traffic specially created for the >> purpose and measure some metric associated with its transfer. > > ok > >> - Section 2 >> OLD: >> Messages are transferred over a secure Channel. >> >> NEW: >> Both control and report messages are transferred over a secure >> Channel. > > ok > > >> - >> results repository or Results repository? >> Please check all instances. >> > > it is Results repository because Results is an LMAP defined term while > the repository it is not (it is out of the scope of the framework) > The usage is consisten throughout the document. > > >> - Figure 1 >> The Report goes over the Report Channel, not Control Channel >> > ok > >> - Figure 1 >> The traffic between "End user or Measurement Peer" represents the MA >> passive monitoring. >> If you would add an arrow from the MA to End User or Measurement Peer >> on the right (to show that some MAs can generate active traffic), you >> would have a complete picture. >> Something like this: >> >> +-----------+ +-----------+ ^ >> |End user or| |End user or| | >> |Measurement| |Measurement| Non-LMAP >> | Peer | | Peer | Scope >> +-----------+ +-----------+ v >> ^ ^ ^ >> \ Observed +---------------+ / / ^ >> \.........|...............|........../ / | >> Traffic Flow | Measurement ..|.........../ | >> +----------->| Agent |Measurement Traffic | >> | +---------------+ | >> >> Note that I have reused your terminology: Measurement Traffic and >> Observed Traffic Flow >> > done > >> - Section 5.2.2 >> Instruction: -> >> [(Measurement Task configuration >> URI of Metric( >> [Input Parameter], >> (interface), >> (Cycle-ID))), >> (Report Channel), >> (Schedule), >> (Suppression information)] >> Should we expect a 1:1 mapping between the parameters above and the >> list that follows? >> For example, I see in the list >> * the Measurement Method role. For some Measurement Methods, >> different parties play different roles; for example (figure A3 >> in the Appendix) an iperf sender and receiver. Each Metric >> and >> its associated Measurement Method will describe all >> measurement >> roles involved in the process. >> >> * optionally, the measurement point designation >> [I-D.ietf-ippm-lmap-path >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lmap-framework-10#ref-I-D.ietf-ippm-lmap-path>] >> of the MA and, if applicable, of the >> MP or other MA. This can be useful for reporting. > > Right. > I have include both the role and the measurment point in the figure. >> - Section 5.2.2 >> I guess that most MAs will have one Report Channel, as the default >> option. Right? >> OLD: >> o configuration of the Report Channels, each of which needs: >> >> NEW: >> o configuration of the Report Channel(s), each of which needs: > ok > >> - Section 5.2.3 >> >> OLD: >> the MA failed record the Measurement Results because it >> (unexpectedly) is out of spare memory >> >> NEW: >> the MA failed_to_record the Measurement Results because it >> (unexpectedly) is out of spare memory > ok > >> - Section 5.4.1 >> To match the charter: >> OLD: >> It may also be possible to transfer the information via the MA. >> >> NEW: >> If the subscriber's service parameters are available to the MAs, >> they could be reported >> with the Measurement Results in the Report Protocol. >> > ok > >> - section 6 Deployment considerations >> The Appendix has some examples of possible deployment >> arrangements of >> Measurement Agents and Peers. >> What does this text tell me? Should I read the appendix before >> proceeding? >> If yes (btw, I think this is the natural reading flow), why is this >> an appendix, and not in the core of the document? >> Note: this appendix contains some nice examples that really glue all >> the concepts into practical examples. >> > > ok, i have moved the examples to section 6 > >> - Appendix A >> OLD: >> Next, we consider Measurement Methods that measure user traffic. >> NEW: >> Next, we consider Measurement Methods that meter the Observed >> Traffic Flow. > ok > >> NEW figure A4 >> +--------+ +----------------+ +--------+ ^ >> |End user| | MA: Monitor | Observed |End user| | >> | or MP |<--|----------------|--Traffic ->| or MP | non-LMAP >> | | | | Flow | | Scope >> +--------+ | | +--------+ | >> ...|................|............................v.. >> | LMAP interface | ^ >> +----------------+ | >> ^ | | >> Instruction | | Report | >> | +-----------------+ | >> | | | >> | v LMAP >> +------------+ +------------+ Scope >> | Controller | | Collector | | >> +------------+ +------------+ v >> >> >> Figure A4: Schematic of LMAP-based Measurement System, >> with a Measurement Agent monitoring traffic >> > ok > >> - Security Considerations >> There is a privacy aspects for Observed Traffic Flow (typically the >> figure A4), as you mentioned in sections 8.2, 8.3, 8.4.5 (and maybe >> some others). FYI. This has been addressed in IPFIX: see >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7011#section-11.8 >> > > ok, i added a reference to RFC7011 in section 8.3 > >> - Question: Have you discussed the ability for LMAP to use sampling >> for Observed Traffic Flows? Is this necessary? >> See http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/psamp/documents/ >> > > The current framework doesnt go deep into the specifics of the > different measurement (just what is needed to understand the > framework), so i believe this probably is too specific for this > document. I dont really have a strong opinion. If you have an specific > text you would like to include in the document, feel free to suggest, > we will be happy to discuss it. > > Regards, marcelo > >> Regards, Benoit > > _______________________________________________ > lmap mailing list > lmap@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
- [lmap] AD review of draft-ietf-lmap-framework-10 Benoit Claise
- Re: [lmap] AD review of draft-ietf-lmap-framework… marcelo bagnulo
- [lmap] Fwd: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-lmap-fram… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [lmap] AD review of draft-ietf-lmap-framework… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [lmap] AD review of draft-ietf-lmap-framework… Benoit Claise