Re: [OPSAWG] agenda requests for opsawg in Vancouver

Hi,

The chairs advised us that we should explain how the past suggestions
had been addressed here before the determination of the final agenda.

The following are suggestions and questions already we received
(not in the appearance order).
1. why tunnel specific?
2. when used? testing or all time?
3. reuse IPPM metrics, do not produce a new one
4. sequence number overhead, happens fragmentation
5. the use of "passive" seems not accurate
6. how this secured?
7. discusstion should be in IPPM

The last one has been discussed in the PMOL mailing list.
I am going to state the rest issues later.

Please see also for detail:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg00015.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg00017.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg00018.html
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/opsarea.txt
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/minutes/opsawg.txt

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kikuchi-tunnel-measure-req-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kikuchi-passive-measure-01.txt

-- Yu.

> Hi,
> 
> We would like to discuss about our I-D
> draft-kikuchi-tunnel-measure-req-02.txt
> ``Quality Measurement Requirements for Tunneling Protocols''.
> The newest version will be appeared later.
> 
> -- Best Regards, Yu.
> 
> > 
> > this is a first call for timeslots on the opsawg session in Vancouver
> > 
> > we are currently scheduled for tuesday afternoon from 1520 to 1720
> > 
> > Scott & Ted
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > OPSAWG@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> > 
> 

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg