Re: [lmap] Call for contributions and Agenda time in Berlin

["MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Javier wrote:
1.- I don't know if we should use the term Quality of Experience, because that is related more to the user's expectatives and context and, as far as I know, the proposed infrastructure doesn't measure that. Quality of Service (QoS), that is more related to technical metrics, could be better.

+1.0
I've made this comment previously in connection with LMAP.
We haven't discussed any perceptual estimation measurements.
We have been talking about Network Performance and QoS.
There's no doubt that making measurements is a growing part
of user experience, but we have yet to establish how this
influences user's QoE w.r.t. an application and context...

Al

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Javier Bustos Jiménez
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:26 PM
To: Marc Linsner
Cc: Nagami Kenichi; lmap WG
Subject: Re: [lmap] Call for contributions and Agenda time in Berlin

Well, my 2 cents:

1.- I don't know if we should use the term Quality of Experience, because that is related more to the user's expectatives and context and, as far as I know, the proposed infrastructure doesn't measure that. Quality of Service (QoS), that is more related to technical metrics, could be better.

2.- I missed in the documents the peer-to-peer measurement. For instance, it could be very interesting to know how is the path/connection/performance between two peers to test if the ISP fulfills some neutrality law (as we have here in Chile), or to optimize routes between peers, etc.  If the collector knows all nodes that are participating on the measurements, it could be easy to select randomly a pair and then perform the test between them.

Best regards
Javier

El 09-07-2013, a las 10:54, Marc Linsner (mlinsner) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> escribió:


All,

We are working on an update to the Use Case draft.  Feel free to send comments to the list and/or authors.

-Marc-

From: <Romascanu>, "Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 7:43 AM
To: Javier Bustos <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Nagami Kenichi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: lmap WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [lmap] Call for contributions and Agenda time in Berlin

Hi Javier and Nagami,

Thank you for letting the lmap list know about your applications and for offering your help. It may be useful if you would talk with Marc Linsner and Phil Eardley who have authored the use case document and see if your experience can add to this. The current version in the tracker is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-linsner-lmap-use-cases/ but there may be a revision in preparation for the Internet Draft submission cut-off next Monday.

Will you attend the Berlin meeting?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan



From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Javier Bustos
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 4:32 PM
To: Nagami Kenichi
Cc: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL); lmap WG
Subject: Re: [lmap] Call for contributions and Agenda time in Berlin

Dear Al and Dan

We would like to contribute for LMAP too.

Here in Chile we have performed active measurements for wired internet (around 10,000 probes) and passive measurements for mobile internet (around 750 probes).

Regards,
Javier Bustos.

2013/7/1 Nagami Kenichi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Dear Al and Dan,

We would like to contribute some use case for LMAP.
We have measured the broadband performance in Japan using measurement
software. We have distributed 500,000 applications.

Regards,
Ken Nagami

2013/6/22 MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
> LMAP,
>
> Last week, the draft LMAP charter went forward for external review.
> LMAP has been approved for a placeholder session at IETF-87,
> either as a Working Group if approved in time, or as a BoF if not.
> If charter-related issues remain to be resolved, they will be
> discussed during the session with highest priority.
>
> However, ...
>
> If you have new/revised contributions covered under the current
> draft of the LMAP charter, please reply to the list identifying the topic,
> the filename(if applicable) and the related issues you would like to discuss at
> a face-to-face session, and try to do this by June 28, 2013.
>
> thanks and regards,
> Dan and Al
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:ietf-announce-<mailto:ietf-announce->
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of The IESG
>> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:42 AM
>> To: IETF-Announce
>> Cc: lmap WG
>> Subject: WG Review: Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance
>> (lmap)
>>
>> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and
>> Management Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The
>> following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational
>> purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg
>> at ietf.org<http://ietf.org/>) by 2013-06-24.
>>
>> Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (lmap)
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Current Status: Proposed WG
>>
>> Assigned Area Director:
>>   Benoit Claise <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>...
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
>
_______________________________________________
lmap mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap