RE: [PMOL] Draft Charter for discussion

Hi Al, 

I have a couple of comments: 

- when describing the mandate of IPPM it would be more complete to
mention that IPPM explicitly limits its scope in the charter to a set of
metrics related to Internet data delivery 
- Guidelines should mention submission to the IESG rather than 'AD
review' and specify the target status for each of the two documents -
BCP for the framework and guidelines document, and Proposed Status for
the SIP metrics document. 

Also language-like it may be better to refer to 'applications and
sessions' rather than just 'applications' to make clear that with PMOL
we do not target only application layers metrics. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:24 PM
> To: pmol@ietf.org
> Subject: [PMOL] Draft Charter for discussion
> 
> Here's the initial draft of the charter.
> Comments welcome, of course.
> 
> Al
> 
> Proposed Charter (0.0)
> 
> Performance Metrics at Other Layers WG (PMOL)
> 
> There are often uncertainties about the performance and 
> suitability of new technologies and applications for their 
> intended audience, and the Internet is no exception. Most 
> uncertainties are effectively addressed through quantified 
> assessment of key performance indicators.  Standardized 
> performance metrics add the desirable features of consistent 
> implementation, interpretation, and comparison.
> 
> Although the IETF has two Working Groups dedicated to the 
> development of performance metrics, they each have strict 
> limitations in their
> charters:
> 
>   - The Benchmarking Methodology WG has addressed a range of 
> networking technologies and protocols in their long history 
> (such as IEEE 802.3, ATM, Frame Relay, and Routing 
> Protocols), but the charter strictly limits their performance 
> characterizations to the laboratory environment.
> 
>   - The IP Performance Metrics WG has the mandate to develop 
> metrics applicable to live IP networks, but it is 
> specifically prohibited from developing metrics that 
> characterize traffic (such as a VoIP stream).
> 
> The IETF also has current and completed activities related to 
> the reporting of application performance metrics (e.g. 
> RAQMON) and is also actively involved in the development of 
> reliable transport protocols which would affect the 
> relationship between IP performance and application performance.
> 
> Thus there is a gap in the currently chartered coverage of IETF WGs:
> development of performance metrics for IP-based applications 
> that operate over UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP, Forward Error 
> Correction (FEC) and other robust transport protocols, and 
> that can be used to characterize traffic on live networks.
> 
> The working group will focus on the completion of two RFCs:
> 
> 1. A PMOL framework and guidelines memo that includes the motivation
>     of work to define performance metrics for applications transported
>     on IETF-specified protocols, and how that work fills a 
> need and a gap
>     in IETF-chartered work. The framework will describe the necessary
>     elements of performance metric drafts and the various 
> types of metrics
>     that may be prepared in this work. The framework will 
> also address the
>     need to specify the intended audience and the motivation for the
>     performance metrics. There will also be guidelines for a 
> performance
>     metric development process that includes entry criteria for
>     new proposals (how a proposal might be evaluated for possible
>     endorsement by a protocol development working group), and how a
>     successful proposal will be developed by PMOL WG in 
> cooperation with a
>     protocol development WG.
> 
> 2. A proof-of-concept RFC defining performance metrics for 
> SIP, based on
>     draft-malas-performance-metrics.  This memo would serve 
> as an example of
>     the framework and the PMOL development process in the IETF.
> 
> Discussion of new work proposals is strongly discouraged in 
> the PMOL WG, except to advise a protocol development WG when 
> they are evaluating a new work proposal for related 
> performance metrics.
> 
> The PMOL WG will also be guided by a document describing how 
> memos defining performance metrics are intended to advance 
> along the IETF Standards track (draft-bradner-metricstest).
> 
> Milestones
> June 08  SIP Performance Metrics Draft to AD Review Sept 08  
> PMOL Framework and Guidelines Draft to AD Review
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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