Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM
Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Wed, 05 September 2012 14:07 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC1721F855E for <pmol@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 07:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077, 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 JPF07V16SN2m for <pmol@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 07:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com [209.65.160.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AD121F84E4 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 07:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 9bc57405.0.737302.00-450.2012006.nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com (envelope-from <acmorton@att.com>); Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:07:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 50475cba7d1798a4-613d92d5f74229a391fa5a68b181380224de8597
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 q85E7qFd010614 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 07:07:53 -0700
Received: from fflint03.pst.cso.att.com (fflint03.pst.cso.att.com [150.234.39.63]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q85E7gTY010458 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 07:07:50 -0700
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by fflint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 07:07:23 -0700
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 q85E7NUi029971 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 10:07:23 -0400
Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q85E6tUU028169 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 10:07:17 -0400
Message-Id: <201209051407.q85E6tUU028169@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-196-48.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.196.48](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120905140628gw100sspe1e>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:06:29 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.196.48]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:05:52 -0400
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>, pmol@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04080C1493@307622ANEX5.globa l.avaya.com>
References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045627F6@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <201209041320.q84DKuw9024588@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04080C142B@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <201209051246.q85Ckp56026660@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04080C1493@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <acmorton@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.128.153]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=5OA5Q0ntZfkA:10 a=DbBEmFV2Wm4A:10 a=ofMgfj31e3]
X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=xwOvzTHDVLE4u4]
X-AnalysisOut: [nGvK72ag==:17 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=gC5eEwqj]
X-AnalysisOut: [w8qy6_I8S9gA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=Hz7Ir]
X-AnalysisOut: [DYlS0cA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10]
Cc: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM
X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list <pmol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pmol>
List-Post: <mailto:pmol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:07:55 -0000
the roles and assignments of various SDOs are defined there.
BBF's claim to certain roles is understood at a high level.
If we agree it makes sense for BBF to define the architecture,
that's fine -- but let's agree on that first.
Al
At 08:53 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
My understanding from the reading of their interaction with the IETF and ITU-T is that the BBF intent to take the responsibility of defining the testing architecture and the procedures, re-using components defined in other SDOs, and possibly pointing to existing gaps and requirements for extensions that could fill these.
Is this your understanding also? Do you believe that we should do more than pointing to the protocols and metrics defined in the IETF and considering requirements for extensions if these show up?
Regards,
Dan
From: Al Morton [ mailto:acmorton@att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:46 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Yaakov Stein; pmol@ietf.org
Cc: Benoit Claise; Ronald Bonica
Subject: RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM
Hi Dan,
At 07:33 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
One question you wrote:
Ø IMO, the next steps are to agree on a test architecture and
divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement,
and supporting protocol development among SDOs
Do you believe that there is a need for new protocol development for BB access performance?
Not necessarily new protocols, but likely protocol extensions
to enable control among the various entities in the TBD architecture.
For example, we have OWAMP and TWAMP test protocols, but they probably
don't yet specify all the controls needed. Once the results are
measured, how are they transferred for further processing,
display, and archiving? What could we augment to do this efficiently?
And, what SDO has the mandate to determine the testing architecture?
Al
- [PMOL] FW: Liaison Statement from the Broadband F… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- [PMOL] FW: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the… Yaakov Stein
- Re: [PMOL] FW: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [PMOL] FW: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from… Al Morton
- Re: [PMOL] FW: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from… Al Morton
- Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM… Al Morton
- Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM… Al Morton
- Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM… Benoit Claise
- Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM… Al Morton