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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Al,

I would let our (OPS) ADs decide together with the Transport ADs
sponsoring IPPM who is to be charged with drawing a response. 

One question - you wrote: 

*	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? 

Regards,

Dan


		_____________________________________________
		From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Al Morton
		Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:20 PM
		To: Yaakov Stein; [e-mail]
		Subject: MCAFEE E-MAIL SCAN ALERT!~RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM]
FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM
		

		
		Attachment file :
bbf2012.1068.01.Liaison_to_IEEE__IETF__and_ITU_Regarding_WT-304_Status.d
oc\3.OLE
		Scanner Detected: Suspicious Extensions (Virus)
		Action taken : No Action Taken (File has a multiple
extension) 
		
		
		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/
			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 <mailto:[e-mail]> 
			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
			
		
		
		 << File:
bbf2012.1068.01.Liaison_to_IEEE__IETF__and_ITU_Regarding_WT-304_Status.d
oc >>  << File: T09-SG12-120529-TD-GEN-0875!r1!!MSW-E.doc >>  << File:
ATT1826957.txt >>