Re: [lmap] LMAP framework issue #1 User-initiated Measurement Tasks

[<[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the comments - conclusion so far I think the text needs to be clarified:-

- make sure it's clear these are both possibilities, with various pros and cons
- clarify that in case 2 there'd be a GUI or mgt interface to request tests and see results (just as this is mentioned for case 1)
- clarify that in case 2 - if a user reports Measurement Results to a third party, these would be sent by the Collector and not direct from the MA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> marcelo bagnulo braun
> Sent: 04 September 2013 09:20
> To: Burbridge,T,Trevor,TUB8 R
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [lmap] LMAP framework issue #1 User-initiated Measurement
> Tasks
> 
> El 04/09/13 09:49, [e-mail] escribió:
> > I think both are very valid options. Comments below...
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> >> Of marcelo bagnulo braun
> >> Sent: 04 September 2013 08:30
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [lmap] LMAP framework issue #1 User-initiated
> >> Measurement Tasks
> >>
> >> So, my concern here is that in the first option, it seems that the
> >> user initiated tests can be controlled by the ISP and the ISP could
> >> be aware fo what tests the user is trying to do and react
> accordingly
> >> (suppose the ISP usually caps some type of traffic and when it
> >> realizes the user is trying to test for the capacity, it opens the
> cap).
> > It is the ISPs measurement system. It is a perfectly valid option for
> the ISP to allow the users to use the same measurement system. The
> scenario you describe could actually be a benefit since the test
> traffic is known to the ISP who will discount this traffic from usage
> caps.
> >
> > I really don't see any ISP trying to pretend their line speeds etc.
> are higher than they actually are - they wouldn't have to modify the
> network to do this - just lie about the result, but I really don't see
> this as plausible.
> >
> 
> mmm, i think it is a legitimate need that the user can do measurements
> that are not supervised by the ISP.
> 
> 
> >> The second option, i think it is the way to go, but as you wrote it
> it reads a
> >> bit weak. I woudl rather a stronger wording, like a MUST or at least
> a
> >> SHOULD (i mean, the user initiated measurement function MUST be
> availabel
> >> in the MA)
> > If this is a separate measurement system there IS a Controller. The
> user owns that Controller. There will be some management interface to
> that Controller to schedule or request tests, or maybe it's just a
> standard test schedule that is run. The management interface I think
> doesn't need to be standardised.
> 
> the way i see it is that the controller is the user itself i.e. the
> user
> interface. I mean, something like speedtest, right? The user clicks a
> button in the GUI and it triggers a test. The wording here would simply
> say that the user must have access to a UI with the MA and that it will
> allow the user to initate measurements.
> 
> Regards, marcelo
> 
> 
> >> regards, marcelo
> >>
> >>
> >> El 03/09/13 18:58, [e-mail] escribió:
> >>> We've now started creating an LMAP framework doc that merges 3 I-Ds
> >>> (terminology and the 2 framework docs) - hoping it could be the
> basis
> >>> for a WG doc - as mentioned in Berlin.
> >>>
> >>> One section will be about proposed constraints /assumptions -
> >>> extending
> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eardley-lmap-framework-02#section-
> 3
> >>>
> >>> I'm going to send a series of emails to try and capture where I
> think
> >>> the discussion got to in Berlin &/or propose text for the I-D &/or
> >>> generate discussion on open issues.
> >>>
> >>> Constraint: User-initiated Measurement Tasks out of scope of LMAP
> WG
> >>>
> >>> We expect LMAP & IPPM functionality to be used for user-initiated
> >>> Measurement Tasks, but the WG will not define how. There are at
> least
> >>> two ways user-initiation could happen, in outline
> >>>
> >>> * a user could somehow (perhaps via a webpage) request the ISP- (or
> >>> regulator-) run measurement system to test his/her line. The ISP
> (or
> >>> regulator) Controller would then send an Instruction to the MA in
> the
> >>> usual LMAP way. The Measurement Results could be returned back via
> the
> >>> webpage. Note that a user can't directly initiate a Measurement
> Task
> >>> on an ISP- (or regulator-) controlled MA in their home
> >>>
> >>> * a user could deploy their own measurement system, with their own
> MA,
> >>> Controller and Collector (possibly with all three functions in the
> >>> same box). The user may also want to report Measurement Results to
> a
> >>> third party. One possible situation is that the home contains a
> >>> user-controlled MA and an ISP-controlled MA; then the test traffic
> of
> >>> one MA is treated by the other MA just like any other user traffic.
> >>> Note that a single MA is instructed by a single Controller and is
> only
> >>> in one measurement system.
> >>>
> >>> For further details see
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lmap/current/msg00714.html and
> >>> related messages.
> >>>
> >>> Comments?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> phil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> lmap mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> lmap mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap