Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?

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

Hi Benoit, 

 

Wednesday at 3:40PM does not seem right, as it enters plenary time,
unless we believe that we shall not need more than 20 min. 

 

Dan

 

 

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Benoit Claise
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:48 AM
To: Benoit Claise
Cc: [e-mail]; Ron Bonica;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Wesley Eddy
Subject: Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?

 

With doodle this time http://www.doodle.com/fz3gxri76ngzqygv
Thanks Carlos

B.

	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
<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
	See http://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