[PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 22 October 2012 22:29 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 6002711E8099 for <pmol@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 rrrPVpjk0ucG for <pmol@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-sj.cisco.com (av-tac-sj.cisco.com [171.68.227.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA6221F8203 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from fire.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-sj.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9MMTFD8003602; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.21.167.60] ([10.21.167.60]) by fire.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9MMTDrm017766; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5085C8B9.2050508@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:29:13 -0400
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "pmol@ietf.org" <pmol@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010009020903050202060102"
Cc: xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Subject: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?
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: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:29:21 -0000
Dear PMOL directorate members, During my review of the latest AVTCORE and XRBLOCK drafts ( draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv and draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch), I came to the conclusion that we have an issue in terms of performance metrics at the IETF, and actually in the industry. As background information, here is my DISCUSS on the two drafts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My entire point is more a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, for both draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19 and draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05.txt. Sorry to pick on these two drafts, but we need to have an IESG performance metrics discussion. Where does the list of performance metric definitions come from at the IETF? We have multiple sources: - IPPM for IP performance metrics - RTCP for RTP performance metrics: Definitions in the document themselves or potentially referencing some other SDOs Example:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05 bits 014-011 0: MAPDV2, Clause 6.2.3.2 of [G.1020], 1: 2-point PDV, Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540]. - PMOL: Performance Metrics at Other Layers, with RFC 6076 on Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics - IPFIX will one day or the other exports performance metrics. I see for example http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-03 It's again a redefinition, and it should not be! My concerns are that we start to define performance metrics in different parts of the IETF, without consistency. We have defined RFC 6390 on "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development", which ask for specific definition Seehttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6390#section-5.4.4 I believe that the IETF should at least: - define the performance metrics in a consistent way according to RFC6390. - document those performance metrics in a single location So my questions are: - are we defining the performance metrics the right way? - where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for the ones created in the IETF)? - is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively? After discussing with Dan Romascanu, we came to this conclusion I had a discussion with Dan Romascanu, and we settled on: - RFC 6390 template is required for new perf metric definition - RFC 6390 template is a nice-to-have when we refer to an existing perf metric Nice-to-have because the performance metric reference doesn't always include all the required information about: measurement points, measurement timing, use and applications, reporting model, etc... but focus only on the "Method of Measurement or Calculation" I would like to have a meeting during the IETF, with the following agenda - are we defining the performance metrics the right way? - where is this shared repository of performance metrics (at least for the ones created in the IETF)? - is the PMOL directorate (RFC 6390) used effectively? - conclusion discussed with Dan Here is a doodle invite. Please let me know if/when you are available. Your feedback on this mailer is also welcome. Regards, Benoit
- [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Benoit Claise
- Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Benoit Claise
- Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Benoit Claise
- Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Benoit Claise
- Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Aamer Akhter (aakhter)
- [PMOL] Reminder: meeting today: PMOL directorate:… Benoit Claise