[PMOL] Reminder: meeting today: PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Reminder: Wed Nov 7th at 1440 - 1540 in the IESG breakout room 202

Regards, Benoit
> Dear PMOL directorate members,
>
> Based on doodle, this meeting will take place on Wed Nov 7th at 1440 - 
> 1540 in the IESG breakout room, to be confirmed.
> I hope to see you all.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>> 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
>>
>