IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lmap] Merged framework draft

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Mon, 23 September 2013 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
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 4EE7121F9D74 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 02:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.257
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.259, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_72=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fmYsk4s3Veuk for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 02:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpe1.intersmtp.com (smtp62.intersmtp.com [62.239.224.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248A321F9D52 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 02:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVMHT66-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.103) by RDW083A006ED62.smtp-e2.hygiene.service (10.187.98.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:04:03 +0100
Received: from EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([169.254.1.51]) by EVMHT66-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([10.36.3.103]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:04:02 +0100
From: philip.eardley@bt.com
To: dromasca@avaya.com, lmap@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:04:02 +0100
Thread-Topic: Merged framework draft
Thread-Index: Ac64OWpJZzk6ojk7TGeVOttUV8E7gAAAODBwAABhXIA=
Message-ID: <A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D3FF9CFD7E0@EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D3FF9CFD7CE@EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E22FE@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128E22FE@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D3FF9CFD7E0EMV67UKRDdoma_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [lmap] Merged framework draft
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:04:09 -0000

Personally I think it is

From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]
Sent: 23 September 2013 09:56
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUB8 R; lmap@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Merged framework draft

Hi,

Thanks to Philip and all the authors for the good work.

We need however to be a little more aggressive. The WG charter includes the following milestone.

Sep 2013

Initial WG I-D for the LMAP Framework including terminology


According to the authors - is this I-D in good enough shape for becoming the initial WG I-D? If the authors say 'yes' the chairs can ask on the WG list about consensus on this issue.

We have a similar milestone for the Use Cases document.

Regards,

Dan



From: lmap-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:lmap-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:lmap-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:47 AM
To: lmap@ietf.org<mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
Subject: [lmap] Merged framework draft

We have been working on a framework draft that merges the previous 2 framework drafts & the terminology draft, as well as including various things that have been discussed on the list since.
Our plan is to produce an update before the Vancouver deadline. We have a few things that we're planning to work on, but we wanted to get it out in order to get everyone else's comments.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-folks-lmap-framework-00.txt

Terminology:
Information Model definition tweaked, new definition for Subscriber and Test Traffic.

Protocol Model:
Added a high-level protocol model

Privacy considerations:
A substantial new section. It may be better removing it and security considerations into a new draft about threats and how to alleviate them?

Looking forward to the discussions!
Phil, Al, Paul, Marcelo, Aamer, Trevor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email