RE: [PMOL] Revised Charter

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

I would add to the milestones that the framework document will be
considered for BCP and the SIP Performance metrics document as
standards-track. 

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Morton [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 2:32 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [PMOL] Revised Charter
> 
> Folks,
> here's the latest version of the charter text, addressing 
> most, if not all, comments to date.
> Al
> 
> Proposed Charter (0.3)
> 
> 
> Performance Metrics at Other Layers WG (PMOL)
> 
> The successful implementation and operation of IP based 
> applications often depends on some underlying performance 
> measurement infrastructure that helps service operators or 
> network managers to recognize when performance is 
> unsatisfactory and identify problems affecting service 
> quality.  Standardized performance metrics add the desirable 
> features of consistent implementation, interpretation, nd comparison.
> 
> The IETF has two Working Groups dedicated to the development 
> of performance metrics however each has strict limitations in 
> their charters:
> 
>    - The Benchmarking Methodology WG has addressed a range of 
> networking technologies
>      and protocols in their long history (such as IEEE 802.3, 
> ATM, Frame Relay, and
>      Routing Protocols), but the charter strictly limits 
> their performance
>      characterizations to the laboratory environment.
> 
>    - The IP Performance Metrics WG has the mandate to develop 
> metrics applicable
>      to the performance of Internet data delivery, but it is 
> specifically prohibited
>      from developing metrics that characterize traffic (such 
> as a VoIP stream).
> 
> The IETF also has current and completed activities related to 
> the reporting of application performance metrics (e.g. RAQMON 
> and RTCP XR) and is also actively involved in the development 
> of reliable transport protocols which would affect the 
> relationship between IP performance and application performance.
> 
> Thus there is a gap in the currently chartered coverage of IETF WGs:
> development of performance metrics for IP-based applications 
> that operate over UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP, Forward Error 
> Correction (FEC) and other robust transport protocols, and 
> that can be used to characterize traffic on live networks.
> 
> The working group will focus on the completion of two RFCs:
> 
> 1. A PMOL framework and guidelines memo that documents the motivation
>      for work to define performance metrics for applications 
> transported
>      over IETF-specified protocols, and how that work fills a 
> need and a gap
>      in IETF-chartered work (motivation and gap 
> identification having been part
>      of the original BOF proposal). The framework will 
> describe the necessary
>      elements of performance metric drafts (such as the 
> formal definition,
>      purpose, and units of measure) and the various types of metrics
>      that may be prepared in this work (such as metrics 
> derived from other
>      metrics, possibly on lower layers). The framework will 
> also address the
>      need to specify the intended audience and the motivation for the
>      performance metrics. There will also be guidelines for a 
> performance
>      metric development process that includes entry criteria for
>      new proposals (how a proposal might be evaluated for possible
>      endorsement by a protocol development working group), and how a
>      successful proposal will be developed by PMOL WG in 
> cooperation with a
>      protocol development WG.
> 
> 2. A proof-of-concept RFC defining performance metrics for 
> SIP, based on
>      draft-malas-performance-metrics.  This memo would serve 
> as an example of
>      the framework and the PMOL development process in the IETF.
> 
> Discussion of new work proposals is strongly discouraged 
> under the initial charter of the PMOL WG, except to advise a 
> protocol development WG when they are evaluating a new work 
> proposal for related performance metrics.
> 
> The PMOL WG will also be guided by a document describing how 
> memos defining performance metrics are intended to advance 
> along the IETF Standards track (draft-bradner-metricstest).
> 
> PMOL WG will take advantage of expertise and seek to avoid 
> overlap with other standards development organizations, such 
> as ETSI STQ, ITU-T SG 12, ATIS IIF, ATIS PRQC, and others.
> 
> Milestones
> June 08  SIP Performance Metrics Draft to IESG Review Sept 08 
>  PMOL Framework and Guidelines Draft to IESG Review
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PMOL mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol
> 


_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol