RE: [PMOL] Revised Charter
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Mon, 15 October 2007 12:43 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 1IhPIE-0000wk-A4; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:43:34 -0400
Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IhPIC-0000t0-On for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:43:32 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhPIB-0000rt-RW for pmol@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:43:31 -0400
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.71.100]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhPIB-0001eI-2E for pmol@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:43:31 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,277,1188792000"; d="scan'208";a="65894564"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2007 08:43:27 -0400
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
Subject: RE: [PMOL] Revised Charter
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:42:47 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A044EF399@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <200710151233.l9FCXkVA025804@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Revised Charter
Thread-Index: AcgPKCdRgU0/hWpoRuqvj5KGZALKTQAAJQuA
References: <200710151233.l9FCXkVA025804@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>, pmol@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ff03b0075c3fc728d7d60a15b4ee1ad2
Cc:
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
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:acmorton@att.com] > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 2:32 PM > To: pmol@ietf.org > 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 > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol > _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol
- [PMOL] Revised Charter Al Morton
- RE: [PMOL] Revised Charter Romascanu, Dan (Dan)