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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

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
>        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
>     Seehttp://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
>