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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

[copying Wes Eddy, Transport A.D., responsible for IPPM]

This is what I can read in the liaison statement:

    This project will address the following topics.

    1.Specification of the test architecture

    2.A set of definitions to enable standard performance testing and
    reporting which includes:

    a.The Network Segment(s) being tested

    b.Tests and methodologies appropriate for each segment

    c.Test methods including test controller and test end-point requirements

    3.Recommended testing intervals for performance characterization and
    summarization purposes.

    4.Support of tests that span multiple operator networks.

    5.A standard method for quantifying and comparing access services.

    6.A common language for effective communication of service
    attributes between service providers and the customer.

    7.Templates for application providers on the network performance
    requirements.

    The BBF welcomes input and contributions on this project from
    partnering SDO's, and will keep you informed of progress on the
    Working Text.

My initial reaction, in no particular order:
- test architecture:
     active or passive?
     if active, does BBF plan on reusing TWAMP, OWAMP?
     if passive, does BBF plan on defining the architecture on its own?
- a set of definitions: it would be ideal to have performance metrics 
specified according to our BCP RFC 6390
- "support of tests than span multiple operator networks". Protocol 
extensions to what we have in the IETF (as mentioned by Al already)?
- basically, which IETF building blocks could BBF reuse? And which 
one(s) do they plan on reusing?
     Example: IPPM OWAMP and TWAMP, IPPM spatial and temporal 
aggregation, PMOL way of specifying metric, etc...
- we should separate what's generic (architecture and perf. metrics 
definition) from what's specific to an environment ("Recommended testing 
intervals for performance characterization and summarization purposes.", 
"A standard method for quantifying and comparing access services.", 
"Templates for application providers on the network performance 
requirements.")

Thoughts?

How should we draft the response?

Regards, Benoit.
> I'd like to read the recent letter from the FCC, because I doubt
> the roles and assignments of various SDOs are defined there.
> BBF's claim to certain roles is understood at a high level.
> If we agree it makes sense for BBF to define the architecture,
> that's fine -- but let's agree on that first.
>
> Al
>
> At 08:53 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> My understanding from the reading of their interaction with the IETF 
>> and ITU-T is that the BBF intent to take the responsibility of 
>> defining the testing architecture and the procedures, re-using 
>> components defined in other SDOs, and possibly pointing to existing 
>> gaps and requirements for extensions that could fill these.
>>
>> Is this your understanding also? Do you believe that we should do 
>> more than pointing to the protocols and metrics defined in the IETF 
>> and considering requirements for extensions if these show up?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Al Morton [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:46 PM
>> *To:* Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Yaakov Stein; [e-mail]
>> *Cc:* Benoit Claise; Ronald Bonica
>> *Subject:* RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE 
>> BROADBAND FORUM
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> At 07:33 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>>
>>
>> One question -- you wrote:
>>
>> Ø       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?
>>
>> Not necessarily new protocols, but likely protocol extensions
>> to enable control among the various entities in the TBD architecture.
>> For example, we have OWAMP and TWAMP test protocols, but they probably
>> don't yet specify all the controls needed. Once the results are
>> measured, how are they transferred for further processing,
>> display, and archiving? What could we augment to do this efficiently?
>>
>> And, what SDO has the mandate to determine the testing architecture?
>>
>> Al