RE: [PMOL] Draft Agenda for PMOL at IETF-70

I would agree that IPPM may be a better place to discuss this draft, as
IPPM metrics apply to a large extend already to what is being proposed.
The question of using IPPM metrics at the ends of the tunnel was already
raised I believe in the OPSAWG when this was presented first. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:39 AM
> To: ext KIKUCHI Yutaka
> Cc: zin@jaist.ac.jp; ogashiwa@noware.co.jp; 
> rbonica@juniper.net; satoru@ft.solteria.net; pmol@ietf.org; 
> nagami@inetcore.com
> Subject: Re: [PMOL] Draft Agenda for PMOL at IETF-70
> 
> On 2007-11-20, at 22:26, ext KIKUCHI Yutaka wrote:
> > May I have a slot to discuss an I-D for tunnel measurement?
> >
> > 4. One-way Passive Measurement of End-to-End Quality (Yutaka) 
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kikuchi-passive-measure-01.t
> > xt
> >
> > I had presented the -00 version in OPSAWG at the last IETF, 
> but it is 
> > more adapted to discuss in PMOL than in OPSAWG.
> 
> Given that tunnels can be a part of an IP path, I'd think 
> that this draft would be in scope of IPPM, rather than PMOL 
> or OPSAWG. Even more so, because some of the metrics you 
> define for a tunnel seem to overlap with metrics IPPM has 
> already defined for IP paths.
> 
> Lars
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PMOL mailing list
> PMOL@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol
> 

_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
PMOL@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol