Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit,

There's clearly a need to coordinate with BBF.

After some digging, we found that information attached
to a letter from the US FCC to the BBF proposes a
division of work between IETF and BBF, and that the
FCC intended to contact IETF formally with more details
(see the exchange I had with Ron below, it answers some
of your questions).

IETF has considerable products that are immediately applicable,
but there's additional work needed - some of which is critical
to the topic of broadband access measurement.

regards,
Al

At 11:31 AM 9/17/2012, Al Morton wrote:

Sounds good, lets get through the 2544 stuff first...

At 11:01 AM 9/17/2012, Ronald Bonica wrote:

Al,
 
It took a while, but I just connected the dots….
 
Back in March, I gave a talk on IPv6 at the FCC. After the talk, Henning Schulzrinne (CTO FCC) mentioned the measurement project and I offered whatever help we (the IETF) could give. If you think that it would be helpful, I would be glad to set up a conference call with you and Henning.
 
                                                                                     Ron
 
 
From: Al Morton [ mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 8:44 AM
To: Ronald Bonica
Subject: RE: WT-304 Liaison to IEEE, IETF, and ITU
 
At 10:04 AM 9/14/2012, Ronald Bonica wrote:

Would you be willing to draft a reply?

                               Ron

Yes, but we need to wait a bit, because IETF is intended
to receive a Liaison/letter from the FCC directly,
and we should respond to BBF after understanding
additional input from FCC.

The BBF mentions an "fcc document" they received (attached)
in the 2nd BBF Liaison to IETF which arrived at end of August
(which is here https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1185/" rel="nofollow"> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1185/   )
It has been clarified that document was actually an attachment
to a short FCC letter, and the document came from the New America
Foundation (NAF), although it was clearly written with the FCC's
interest in mind.

This NAF document mentions informal and follow-up contacts with IETF
(near the bottom of page 2):
We have had informal discussion with the IETF regarding their possible role in standardizing metrics used to characterize broadband performance and intend to submit a request to the IETF to undertake a work program towards this end. We believe that the data collection infrastructure also requires standardization and are submitting this proposal to the Broadband Forum to begin a work program to this end. It is our present understanding that this proposal would match the objectives of the Broadband Access Service Attributes and Performance Metrics (WT-304) work program and would be appropriate for submission to this work group.
Since this describes a high-level division of work between BBF and IETF,
I'll be looking for similar detail (as the document provides to BBF on the
pages that follow) in the planned request to IETF.

Incidentally, this NAF document also refers to BBF's WT-304 doc as though
it is a product with some substance, but I confirmed from a co-editor
that it is just an outline and some text for the scope, nothing more.

I've been in contact with our external affairs people who have frequent
contact with the FCC - we're trying to determine the status of the
planned FCC contact.  I think that's worth waiting for, since it should
portray the project as a joint effort and we can pursue it that way
in our reply to BBF.

Al

At 07:54 AM 9/20/2012, Benoit Claise wrote:

Hi,

[copying Wes Eddy, Transport A.D., responsible for IPPM]

This is what I can read in the liaison statement:

This project will address the following topics.

1.         Specification of the test architecture

2.         A set of definitions to enable standard performance testing and reporting which includes:

a.         The Network Segment(s) being tested

b.         Tests and methodologies appropriate for each segment

c.         Test methods including test controller and test end-point requirements

3.         Recommended testing intervals for performance characterization and summarization purposes.

4.         Support of tests that span multiple operator networks.

5.         A standard method for quantifying and comparing access services.

6.         A common language for effective communication of service attributes between service providers and the customer.

7.         Templates for application providers on the network performance requirements.

 

The BBF welcomes input and contributions on this project from partnering SDO’s, and will keep you informed of progress on the Working Text. 

My initial reaction, in no particular order:
- test architecture:
    active or passive?
    if active, does BBF plan on reusing TWAMP, OWAMP?
    if passive, does BBF plan on defining the architecture on its own?
- a set of definitions: it would be ideal to have performance metrics specified according to our BCP RFC 6390
- "support of tests than span multiple operator networks".  Protocol extensions to what we have in the IETF (as mentioned by Al already)?
- basically, which IETF building blocks could BBF reuse? And which one(s) do they plan on reusing?   
    Example: IPPM OWAMP and TWAMP, IPPM spatial and temporal aggregation, PMOL way of specifying metric, etc...
- we should separate what's generic (architecture and perf. metrics definition) from what's specific to an environment (" Recommended testing intervals for performance characterization and summarization purposes.", "A standard method for quantifying and comparing access services.", "Templates for application providers on the network performance requirements.")

Thoughts?

How should we draft the response?

Regards, Benoit.

I'd like to read the recent letter from the FCC, because I doubt
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:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:46 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Yaakov Stein; [e-mail]
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