[PMOL] Revised Charter
Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Mon, 15 October 2007 12:34 UTC
Return-path: <pmol-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhP9m-0005TL-ED; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:34:50 -0400
Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IhP9k-0005Ri-5R for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:34:48 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhP9X-0005NF-7P for pmol@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:34:35 -0400
Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com ([216.82.245.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhP9M-000786-1v for pmol@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:34:29 -0400
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1192451642!6990499!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.149]
Received: (qmail 10406 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2007 12:34:03 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.149) by server-9.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Oct 2007 12:34:03 -0000
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l9FCY1qB030427 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 05:34:02 -0700
Received: from flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (flph023.ffdc.sbc.com [150.234.117.36]) by flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l9FCXtRF030364 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 05:34:01 -0700
Received: from ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l9FCXsDW025876 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 05:33:55 -0700
Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l9FCXkVA025804 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 05:33:52 -0700
Message-Id: <200710151233.l9FCXkVA025804@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (ehuda01.mt.att.com[135.16.251.73](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20071015123346gw10010gdce>; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:33:46 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:32:26 -0400
To: pmol@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8
Subject: [PMOL] Revised Charter
X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers <pmol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pmol>
List-Post: <mailto:pmol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org
Folks, here's the latest version of the charter text, addressing most, if not all, comments to date. Al Proposed Charter (0.3) Performance Metrics at Other Layers WG (PMOL) The successful implementation and operation of IP based applications often depends on some underlying performance measurement infrastructure that helps service operators or network managers to recognize when performance is unsatisfactory and identify problems affecting service quality. Standardized performance metrics add the desirable features of consistent implementation, interpretation, nd comparison. The IETF has two Working Groups dedicated to the development of performance metrics however each has 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 the performance of Internet data delivery, 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 RTCP XR) 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 documents the motivation for work to define performance metrics for applications transported over IETF-specified protocols, and how that work fills a need and a gap in IETF-chartered work (motivation and gap identification having been part of the original BOF proposal). The framework will describe the necessary elements of performance metric drafts (such as the formal definition, purpose, and units of measure) and the various types of metrics that may be prepared in this work (such as metrics derived from other metrics, possibly on lower layers). 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 under the initial charter of 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). PMOL WG will take advantage of expertise and seek to avoid overlap with other standards development organizations, such as ETSI STQ, ITU-T SG 12, ATIS IIF, ATIS PRQC, and others. Milestones June 08 SIP Performance Metrics Draft to IESG Review Sept 08 PMOL Framework and Guidelines Draft to IESG Review _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol
- [PMOL] Revised Charter Al Morton
- RE: [PMOL] Revised Charter Romascanu, Dan (Dan)