Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 29 October 2012 01:07 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF51A21F84AB for <pmol@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YDZW4qDM6Qxr for <pmol@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490D621F849E for <pmol@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9T17noL025579; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:07:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.60.67.92] (ams-bclaise-89111.cisco.com [10.60.67.92]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9T17kfg000346; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:07:47 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <508DD6E2.30405@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:07:46 -0500
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
References: <5085C8B9.2050508@cisco.com> <5085CD38.7010409@cisco.com> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040833674A@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040833674A@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020505020106000809050208"
Cc: xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, pmol@ietf.org, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?
X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list <pmol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pmol>
List-Post: <mailto:pmol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:07:55 -0000
Hi Dan, You're right. Daylight savings yesterday in Belgium + daylight saving next Sunday in Atlanta + a little bit of distraction of my side = my mistake. I was unable to remove the entry, so I marked myself unavailable for that slot. All, please don't forgot to insert your availabilities. Regards, Benoit > > Hi Benoit, > > Wednesday at 3:40PM does not seem right, as it enters plenary time, > unless we believe that we shall not need more than 20 min. > > Dan > > *From:*pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf > Of *Benoit Claise > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:48 AM > *To:* Benoit Claise > *Cc:* xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Ron Bonica; > ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; pmol@ietf.org; Wesley Eddy > *Subject:* Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? > > 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 <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 >
- [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Benoit Claise
- Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Benoit Claise
- Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Benoit Claise
- Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Benoit Claise
- Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF? Aamer Akhter (aakhter)
- [PMOL] Reminder: meeting today: PMOL directorate:… Benoit Claise