[PMOL] Fwd: RMCAT

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

PM Dir members,

FYI - Carlos Pignataro has volunteered to be our
Liaison/Advisor to the Network Complexity Research Group.
They will be working on metrics of network/configuration complexity
which should be a challenging topic.

In the message appended below, Lars Eggert has identified
work and a draft of potential interest to the PM Dir,
on evaluation metrics for congestion control of real-time media.

1- Do we have someone at IETF-85 who can attend rmcat this Thursday,
    and feedback info to the rest of the Directorate on metric development
   there?

2- Do we have a volunteer to review this work on an on-going basis?

I will look in on this myself too, but I plan to return home
to the "more-Sandy-than-usual" Jersey Shore on Thursday morning
to deal with additional issues there, so I'll miss rmcat this time.

thanks and regards,
Al
PM Dir admin

>X-Originating-IP: [135.31.41.113]
>X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,715,1344236400";
>    d="p7s'?scan'208";a="707204331"
>From: "Eggert, Lars" <[e-mail]>
>To: Al Morton <[e-mail]>
>CC: Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>
>Subject: RMCAT
>Thread-Topic: RMCAT
>Thread-Index: AQHNu4BxAaAyiEzhrE2seqoTWOO2tQ==
>Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:06:51 +0000
>Accept-Language: en-US
>X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.114]
>X-Spam: [F=0.0967741935; B=0.500(0); spf=0.500; 
>STSI=0.500(-49); STSM=0.300(-49); CM=0.500; 
>MH=0.500(2012110508); S=0.200(2010122901); SC=none]
>X-MAIL-FROM: <[e-mail]>
>X-SOURCE-IP: [216.240.18.37]
>X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=PMy4D4WC c=1 sm=0 a=DIr8ZNXyXqu9Ub98gekLxA==:17 a]
>X-AnalysisOut: [=M9a1YIcYKwYA:10 a=2MUsH4NA2g4A:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=JDj]
>X-AnalysisOut: [sHSkAAAAA:8 a=TA9xfephONY9FTyEowIA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=z]
>X-AnalysisOut: [CHD0xgTAAAA:8 a=aw9yd_vvCxrm4Rc-QgwA:9 a=ZVk8-NSrHBgA:10 a]
>X-AnalysisOut: [=dALb8cO8VnmdAbJO:21 a=qtuVMX0CIW0jGHo1:21]
>
>Hi Al,
>
>since you mentioned the metrics directorate 
>earlier today: RMCAT will likely work on 
>evaluation metrics for congestion control 
>mechanisms for realtime media. 
>draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval is one draft in this 
>space. Not sure if this is of interest to the 
>directorate; just wanted to make sure its on your radar.
>
>Lars



From [e-mail]  Mon Nov 12 22:24:39 2012
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0621D21F88CD for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:24:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.297
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RpMZNgdX7kRO for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:24:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay02.rad.co.il [62.0.23.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83D121F88CC for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay02 (envelope-from yaakov?[e-mail]) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Nov 2012 07:18:51 +0200
Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:24:27 +0200
From: Yaakov Stein <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Thread-Topic: RESEND: two new PM-related drafts in L3VPN
Thread-Index: Ac2+j4erEZLRl+j9T3+iP8Na+f5T7AC18qYQ
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:24:26 +0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [207.232.33.112]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045EE4F6EXRAD5adradcoil_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Commtouch-Refid: str01.0A090201.50A1E79C.0033,ss=1,fgs=0
Subject: [pm-dir] RESEND: two new PM-related drafts in L3VPN
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:24:39 -0000

--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045EE4F6EXRAD5adradcoil_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't see this email in the archive, so I guess it was sent out too early for "pm-dir" to function.

Y(J)S

From: Yaakov Stein
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 17:33
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: two new PM-related drafts in L3VPN

Hi all (trying out the new list address),

I am sitting in L3VPN and hearing presentations on two new drafts related to PM.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-l3vpn-pm-analysis-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-l3vpn-pm-framework-00

The idea is to properly identify the packets belonging to a particular VPN
and then to use RFC 6374<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6374>  to measure delay and packet loss.

As such, there are really no new PM issues here.


Y(J)S


--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045EE4F6EXRAD5adradcoil_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="&#1;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
  <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
 </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I don't see this email in the archive, so I guess it was sent out too early for &quot;pm-dir&quot; to function.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Y(J)S<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"> Yaakov Stein
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 09, 2012 17:33<br>
<b>To:</b> '[e-mail]'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> two new PM-related drafts in L3VPN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Hi all (trying out the new list address),
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I am sitting in L3VPN and hearing presentations on two new drafts related to PM.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:blue"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-l3vpn-pm-analysis-00">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-l3vpn-pm-analysis-00</a><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:blue"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-l3vpn-pm-framework-00">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-l3vpn-pm-framework-00</a><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">The idea is to properly identify the packets belonging to a particular VPN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">and then to use <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6374">
RFC 6374</a> &nbsp;to measure delay and packet loss.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">As such, there are really no new PM issues here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Y(J)S<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045EE4F6EXRAD5adradcoil_--

From [e-mail]  Thu Nov 15 00:53:48 2012
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0A221F8809 for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:53:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.894
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.295, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3O734idLxcvf for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:53:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BDC21F85EB for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:53:48 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAAEvoFCHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEw1WBCIIeAQEBAQMBAQEPHgo0FwYBCA0EBAEBCwYMCwEHJh8HAQEFBAEEEwgah2gLmXuEK5wBjBUagwmCRmEDlxiEcYo2gnCBYw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,759,1344225600"; d="scan'208";a="36240895"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 03:46:22 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.16]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 03:30:31 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:53:45 +0100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] WGLC on SIP Benchmarking Drafts (04)
Thread-Index: Ac3AMZP4u6U+/ZctSpa51OdG9aaj6AC3QsYg
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: [pm-dir] FW: [bmwg] WGLC on SIP Benchmarking Drafts (04)
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:53:49 -0000

I believe that pm-dir should also be informed about this WGLC (and
similar). 

Regards,

Dan



-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Al Morton
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:45 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Worley, Dale R (Dale); [e-mail]
Subject: [bmwg] WGLC on SIP Benchmarking Drafts (04)

TO: BMWG,
CC: RAI Dir Reviewer Dale Worley, sipcore wg,

A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Drafts on SIP Device
Benchmarking:

   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term/
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth/

will be open from 11 Nov 2012 through 10 Dec 2012.

These drafts are continuing the BMWG Last Call Process. See
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00846.html
The first WGLC was completed on 5 April 2010 with comments.
The second WGLC was completed on 18 May 2012 with comments.

Please read and express your opinion on whether or not these
Internet-Drafts should be forwarded to the Area Directors for
publication as Informational RFCs.  Send your comments to this list or
[e-mail]

Al
bmwg chair 

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

From [e-mail]  Fri Nov 16 12:35:24 2012
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8097721F8AD3; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:35:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3dMiy5Txmoyk; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B442621F8A6D; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:35:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]>
To: IETF Announcement List <[e-mail]>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.36
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:35:23 -0800
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: [pm-dir] New Non-WG Mailing List: pm-dir -- Performance Metrics Directorate	Discussion list
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:35:24 -0000

A new IETF non-working group email list has been created for the 
Performance Metrics Directorate.  This email list replaces the 
[e-mail] email list previously used by the directorate.

List address: [e-mail]
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir

Purpose: This list is for discussions relating to the development, 
clarification, and documentation of performance metrics in the IETF (and 
IRTF) according to RFC 6390. The Directorate web page is currently 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html 

For additional information, please contact the list administrators.

From [e-mail]  Fri Nov 23 08:20:34 2012
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA8C21F8570 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:20:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.491
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u+34rR3Uw02W for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD9E21F856C for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:20:29 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qANG9EoY028222 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:09:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qANG9DHC013754 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:09:13 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:09:13 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040401030904060705060108"
Subject: [pm-dir] Meeting minutes: PMOL/ Perf Metrics directorate: meeting at the IETF 85, Nov 7th 2012
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:20:34 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040401030904060705060108
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear all,

Topics addressed:
1. Are we defining the performance metrics the right way?
      is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?
2. Shared repository of performance metrics (at least for the ones 
created in the IETF)?
3. How should this directorate function?

ACTION Al: modify the mailing list
Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <mailto:[e-mail]>
     [e-mail]
     Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and 
documentation of performance metrics in the IETF (and IRTF) according to 
RFC 6390.

ACTION Benoit: script to generate a weekly email with drafts containing 
"performance metric", "6390", etc..

ACTION Benoit: WIKI, I'm targeting 
https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/PERFORMANCE_METRICS_DIR
     I sent an email to [e-mail].
     Hopefully, this is the right way

ACTION All: once the WIKI is in place, populate the WIKI with the 
IETF-specified performance metrics, along with the reference.

ACTION: once the pm-dir process is in place, advertise it
     Potentially: discussion with other ADs, send email to the WG 
chairs, next plenary

Did I miss something?

Regards, Benoit


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?
Date: 	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:29:13 -0400
From: 	Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
To: 	[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
CC: 	Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" 
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Wesley Eddy 
<[e-mail]>, me <[e-mail]>



Dear PMOL directorate members,

During my review of the latest AVTCORE and  XRBLOCK drafts ( 
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv and draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch), I came 
to the conclusion that we have an issue in terms of performance metrics 
at the IETF, and actually in the industry.

As background information, here is my DISCUSS on the two drafts

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISCUSS:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    My entire point is more a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, for both
    draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19 and draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05.txt.
    Sorry to pick on these two drafts, but we need to have an IESG
    performance metrics discussion.
    Where does the list of performance metric definitions come from at the
    IETF?
    We have multiple sources:
    - IPPM for IP performance metrics
    - RTCP for RTP performance metrics:
       Definitions in the document themselves or potentially referencing some
    other SDOs
       Example:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05
        bits 014-011
                 0: MAPDV2, Clause 6.2.3.2 of [G.1020],
                 1: 2-point PDV, Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540].
    - PMOL: Performance Metrics at Other Layers, with
       RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics
    - IPFIX will one day or the other exports performance metrics.
       I see for example
       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-03
       It's again a redefinition, and it should not be!

    My concerns are that we start to define performance metrics in different
    parts of the IETF, without consistency.

    We have defined RFC 6390 on "Guidelines for Considering New Performance
    Metric Development", which ask for specific definition
    Seehttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6390#section-5.4.4

    I believe that the IETF should at least:
    - define the performance metrics in a consistent way according to
    RFC6390.
    - document those performance metrics in a single location

    So my questions are:
    - are we defining the performance metrics the right way?
    - where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for
    the ones created in the IETF)?
    - is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?

After discussing with Dan Romascanu, we came to this conclusion

    I had a discussion with Dan Romascanu, and we settled on:
    - RFC 6390 template is required for new perf metric definition
    - RFC 6390 template is a nice-to-have when we refer to an existing perf metric
    Nice-to-have because the performance metric reference doesn't always include
    all the required information about: measurement points, measurement timing, use
    and applications, reporting model, etc... but focus only on the "Method of
    Measurement or Calculation"

I would like to have a meeting during the IETF, with the following agenda

- are we defining the performance metrics the right way?
- where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for
the ones created in the IETF)?
- is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?
- conclusion discussed with Dan

Here is a doodle invite. Please let me know if/when you are available.
Your feedback on this mailer is also welcome.

Regards, Benoit








--------------040401030904060705060108
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Dear all,<br>
    <br>
    Topics addressed:<br>
    <div class="moz-forward-container">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
        charset=ISO-8859-1">
      1. Are we defining the performance metrics the right way?&nbsp; <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?<br>
      2. Shared repository of performance metrics (at least for the ones
      created in the IETF)? <br>
      3. How should this directorate function?<br>
      <br>
      ACTION Al: modify the mailing list<br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="mailto:[e-mail]">Performance Metrics
        Directorate Discussion list</a><br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</a><br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and
      documentation of performance metrics in the IETF (and IRTF)
      according to RFC 6390. <br>
      <br>
      ACTION Benoit: script to generate a weekly email with drafts
      containing "performance metric", "6390", etc..<br>
      <br>
      ACTION Benoit: WIKI, I'm targeting
      <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/PERFORMANCE_METRICS_DIR">https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/PERFORMANCE_METRICS_DIR</a><br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I sent an email to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</a>.<br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Hopefully, this is the right way<br>
      <br>
      ACTION All: once the WIKI is in place, populate the WIKI with the
      IETF-specified performance metrics, along with the reference.<br>
      &nbsp; <br>
      ACTION: once the pm-dir process is in place, advertise it<br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Potentially: discussion with other ADs, send email to the WG
      chairs, next plenary<br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
      Did I miss something?<br>
      <br>
      Regards, Benoit &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
      <div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
        <br>
        -------- Original Message --------
        <table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0"
          cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:

              </th>
              <td>PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date:
              </th>
              <td>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:29:13 -0400</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From:
              </th>
              <td>Benoit Claise <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:[e-mail]">&lt;[e-mail]&gt;</a></td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
              <td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                  href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</a> <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:[e-mail]">&lt;[e-mail]&gt;</a></td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC: </th>
              <td>Ron Bonica <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:[e-mail]">&lt;[e-mail]&gt;</a>,
                <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:[e-mail]">"[e-mail]"</a>
                <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:[e-mail]">&lt;[e-mail]&gt;</a>,
                <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                  href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</a>,
                Wesley Eddy <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:[e-mail]">&lt;[e-mail]&gt;</a>,
                me <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:[e-mail]">&lt;[e-mail]&gt;</a></td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
        <br>
        <br>
        <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
          charset=ISO-8859-1">
        Dear PMOL directorate members,<br>
        <br>
        During my review of the latest AVTCORE and&nbsp; XRBLOCK drafts (
        draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv and draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch),
        I came to the conclusion that we have an issue in terms of
        performance metrics at the IETF, and actually in the industry.<br>
        <br>
        As background information, here is my DISCUSS on the two drafts<br>
        <blockquote>
          <pre wrap="">----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My entire point is more a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, for both
draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19 and draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05.txt.
Sorry to pick on these two drafts, but we need to have an IESG
performance metrics discussion.
Where does the list of performance metric definitions come from at the
IETF?
We have multiple sources:
- IPPM for IP performance metrics
- RTCP for RTP performance metrics: 
  Definitions in the document themselves or potentially referencing some
other SDOs
  Example: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05</a>
   bits 014-011
            0: MAPDV2, Clause 6.2.3.2 of [G.1020],
            1: 2-point PDV, Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540].
- PMOL: Performance Metrics at Other Layers, with 
  RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics
- IPFIX will one day or the other exports performance metrics.
  I see for example
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-03">  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-03</a>
  It's again a redefinition, and it should not be!

My concerns are that we start to define performance metrics in different
parts of the IETF, without consistency.

We have defined RFC 6390 on "Guidelines for Considering New Performance
Metric Development", which ask for specific definition
See <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6390#section-5.4.4">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6390#section-5.4.4</a>

I believe that the IETF should at least:
- define the performance metrics in a consistent way according to
RFC6390.
- document those performance metrics in a single location

So my questions are:
- are we defining the performance metrics the right way?
- where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for
the ones created in the IETF)?
- is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?</pre>
        </blockquote>
        After discussing with Dan Romascanu, we came to this conclusion<br>
        <blockquote>
          <pre>I had a discussion with Dan Romascanu, and we settled on:
- RFC 6390 template is required for new perf metric definition
- RFC 6390 template is a nice-to-have when we refer to an existing perf metric
Nice-to-have because the performance metric reference doesn't always include
all the required information about: measurement points, measurement timing, use
and applications, reporting model, etc... but focus only on the "Method of
Measurement or Calculation"</pre>
        </blockquote>
        I would like to have a meeting during the IETF, with the
        following agenda<br>
        <pre wrap="">- are we defining the performance metrics the right way?
- where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for
the ones created in the IETF)?
- is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively?
- conclusion discussed with Dan

Here is a doodle invite. Please let me know if/when you are available.
Your feedback on this mailer is also welcome.
</pre>
        Regards, Benoit<br>
        <br>
        <br>
        <br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
    </div>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------040401030904060705060108--

From [e-mail]  Sat Nov 24 05:29:51 2012
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90FC21F854F for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.409
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvXnyo7MpkwV for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD5C21F854B for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-12) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id dcbc0b05.0.1771374.00-460.4877767.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from <[e-mail]>);  Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:29:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 50b0cbce196a6474-49fccfad442d58d5315546fbd0ce2f02bbcd5722
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAODTniI030273 for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:49 -0800
Received: from fflint04.pst.cso.att.com (fflint04.pst.cso.att.com [150.234.39.64]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAODTg5H030235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO) for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:45 -0800
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by fflint04.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:26 -0800
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAODTPsP004318 for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:29:25 -0500
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAODTG0V004201 for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:29:24 -0500
Received: from lt-hp1044652.att.com (vpn-135-70-99-109.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.99.109](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20121124132921gw100632ije>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:29:22 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.99.109]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:27:22 -0500
To: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
From: Al Morton <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <[e-mail]>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.128.153]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=MZfbTeDf c=1 sm=0 a=xwOvzTHDVLE4u4nGvK72ag=:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=itPZAO0FG0UA:10 a=Z0ZokH5oSI4A:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLc]
X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 aÝyPf683]
X-AnalysisOut: [TFsA:10 a=Q6nK2EKl45xkBENrKx0A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10]
Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Meeting minutes: PMOL/ Perf Metrics directorate: meeting at the IETF 85, Nov 7th 2012
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:29:52 -0000

At 11:09 AM 11/23/2012, Benoit Claise wrote:
>...Did I miss something?
>
>Regards, Benoit

Not that I know of, except to add that this is the first message
using the new pm-dir list, so the first action item is done.

Al

>