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

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

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]] 
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