Re: [PMOL] FW: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

At 10:33 AM 9/3/2012, Yaakov Stein wrote:

Although I am sure that most of you have already seen this message,

I am forwarding it, because I believe that this liaison function should be the responsibility of the performance directorate.

Interesting possibility.  I can certainly imagine members of
the Directorate commenting on this liaison, but why would we
claim responsibility for development of a reply?

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, where the
first step is to package existing standards that are relevant
and identify new standards development needed.

Some background on this Liaison:

The current text:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/" rel="nofollow"> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/
is the first of two liaisons from BBF.  There is a more recent
liaison from BBF's meeting last week which has not found its way
[e-mail] yet.  (I just forwarded it myself, attached.)
The response should be to the combination of both liaisons (now that
there are two), not the first alone.  David Sinicrope
is IETF's Liaison Manager with BBF.

Apparently (second-hand info from a BBF attendee), the FCC has sent
a letter to both the BBF and the IETF requesting the development
of industry standards for broadband performance measurement,
and the FCC letter was discussed at BBF last week.
*Russ or someone in IETF/IAB should have received that letter.*
I don't have a copy.

Ron Bonica has asked for comments on the first liaison on ietf@ietf.
Some questions were raised among IPPM folks after Matt Z forwarded
Ron's request on ippm-list.

Finally, ITU-T SG 12 prepared an informative reply to the first
BBF liaison last June (also attached).

Al