[PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: Performance Metrics at Other Layers (pmol)]
Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu> Mon, 29 October 2007 22:16 UTC
Return-path: <pmol-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Imcul-00028Z-90; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:16:55 -0400
Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Imb9a-0004Gm-3W for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:24:06 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Imb9Z-0004GW-P0; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:24:05 -0400
Received: from dhcp-18-188-10-61.dyn.mit.edu ([18.188.10.61] helo=carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Imb9X-0004nA-1T; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:24:03 -0400
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 0674B4A45; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:24:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
References: <47263CC1.8000104@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:24:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <47263CC1.8000104@thinkingcat.com> (Leslie Daigle's message of "Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:04:17 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslwst5y8il.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6640e3bbe8a4d70c4469bcdcbbf0921d
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:16:54 -0400
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org, pmol@ietf.org
Subject: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: Performance Metrics at Other Layers (pmol)]
X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers <pmol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pmol>
List-Post: <mailto:pmol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>> "Leslie" == Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com> writes: I doubt I'll use the output in security protocols. Leslie> Leslie. Leslie> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: WG Review: Leslie> Performance Metrics at Other Layers (pmol) Date: Mon, 22 Leslie> Oct 2007 14:15:02 -0400 From: IESG Secretary Leslie> <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org To: Leslie> ietf-announce@ietf.org Leslie> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Leslie> Operations and Management Area. The IESG has not made any Leslie> determination as yet. The following draft charter was Leslie> submitted, and is provided for informational purposes Leslie> only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list Leslie> (iesg@ietf.org) by October 29. Leslie> +++ Leslie> Performance Metrics at Other Layers (pmol) Leslie> ============================================== Leslie> Current Status: Proposed Working Group Leslie> WG Chairs: TBD Leslie> Operations and Management Area: Dan Romascanu Leslie> <dromasca@avaya.com> Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Leslie> Description: Leslie> The successful implementation and operation of IP based Leslie> applications often depends on some underlying performance Leslie> measurement infrastructure that helps service operators or Leslie> network managers to recognize when performance is Leslie> unsatisfactory and identify problems affecting service Leslie> quality. Standardized performance metrics add the Leslie> desirable features of consistent implementation, Leslie> interpretation, no comparison. Leslie> The IETF has two Working Groups dedicated to the Leslie> development of performance metrics however each has strict Leslie> limitations in their charters: Leslie> - The Benchmarking Methodology WG has addressed a range of Leslie> networking technologies and protocols in their long Leslie> history (such as IEEE 802.3, ATM, Frame Relay, and Routing Leslie> Protocols), but the charter strictly limits their Leslie> Performance characterizations to the laboratory Leslie> environment. Leslie> - The IP Performance Metrics WG has the mandate to develop Leslie> metrics applicable to the performance of Internet data Leslie> delivery, but it is specifically prohibited from Leslie> developing metrics that characterize traffic (such as a Leslie> VoIP stream). Leslie> The IETF also has current and completed activities related Leslie> to the reporting of application performance metrics Leslie> (e.g. RAQMON and RTCP XR) and is also actively involved in Leslie> the development of reliable transport protocols which Leslie> would affect the relationship between IP performance and Leslie> application performance. Leslie> Thus there is a gap in the currently chartered coverage of Leslie> IETF WGs: development of performance metrics for IP-based Leslie> protocols and applications that operate over UDP, TCP, Leslie> SCTP, DCCP, Forward Error Correction (FEC) and other Leslie> robust transport protocols, and that can be used to Leslie> characterize traffic on live networks. Leslie> The working group will focus on the completion of two Leslie> RFCs: Leslie> 1. A PMOL framework and guidelines memo that will describe Leslie> the necessary elements of performance metrics of protocols Leslie> and applications transported over IETF-specified protocols Leslie> (such as the formal definition, purpose, and units of Leslie> measure) and the various types of metrics that Leslie> characterize traffic on live networks (such as metrics Leslie> derived from other metrics, possibly on lower layers). The Leslie> framework will also address the need to specify the Leslie> intended audience and the motivation for the performance Leslie> metrics. There will also be guidelines for a performance Leslie> metric development process that includes entry criteria Leslie> for new proposals (how a proposal might be evaluated for Leslie> possible endorsement by a protocol development working Leslie> group), and how an successful proposal will be developed Leslie> by PMOL WG in cooperation with a protocol development WG. Leslie> 2. A proof-of-concept RFC defining performance metrics for Leslie> SIP, based on draft-malas-performance-metrics. This memo Leslie> would serve as an example of the framework and the PMOL Leslie> development process in the IETF. Leslie> Discussion of new work proposals is strongly discouraged Leslie> under the initial charter of the PMOL WG, except to advise Leslie> a protocol development WG when they are evaluating a new Leslie> work proposal for related performance metrics. Leslie> The PMOL WG will also be guided by a document describing Leslie> how memos defining performance metrics are intended to Leslie> advance along the IETF Standards track Leslie> (draft-bradner-metricstest). Leslie> PMOL WG will take advantage of expertise and seek to avoid Leslie> overlap with other standards development organizations, Leslie> such as ETSI STQ, ITU-T SG 12, ATIS IIF, ATIS PRQC, and Leslie> others. Leslie> Milestones Leslie> June 08 SIP Performance Metrics Draft to IESG Review for Leslie> consideration as Proposed Standard Leslie> Sept 08 PMOL Framework and Guidelines Draft to IESG Review Leslie> for consideration as BCP Leslie> _______________________________________________ Leslie> IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org Leslie> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce Leslie> -- Leslie> ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie> "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Leslie> Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com Leslie> ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol
- [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: Perf… Yangwoo Ko
- [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: Perf… Sam Hartman
- [PMOL] A question about [Fwd: WG Review: Performa… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Randy Presuhn
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Stephen Kent
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Joe Touch
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Joe Touch
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Joe Touch
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Sam Hartman
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Joe Touch
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Stephen Kent
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Joe Touch
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … David R Oran
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Sam Hartman
- RE: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Dan Schutzer
- RE: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: … Romascanu, Dan (Dan)