[PMOL] PMOL Working Group was approved!

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Thu, 01 November 2007 18:47 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 1Inf54-0000fp-UQ; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:47:50 -0400
Received: from pmol by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Inf53-0000en-Er for pmol-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:47:49 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Inf53-0000eT-3z for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:47:49 -0400
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.100] helo=co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Inf52-0002Fv-HT for pmol@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:47:49 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,359,1188792000"; d="scan'208";a="80132974"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2007 14:47:47 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:47:05 +0100
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A045A9F95@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: PMOL Working Group was approved!
Thread-Index: Acgct5jOVDTZzY2zT7SYRTtMFMKCRw==
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: pmol@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8
Subject: [PMOL] PMOL Working Group was approved!
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

The IESG approved in the telechat today the formation of the PMOL
Working Group.

Congratulations and good luck!

Please see below the charter that was approved by the IESG.

Regards,

Dan

Performance Metrics at Other Layers (pmol)
==============================================

Last Modified: 2007-10-22

Current Status: Proposed Working Group

WG Chairs:
TBD

Operations and Management Area:
Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>
Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>

Description:

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, no 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 protocols and
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 will describe the necessary
elements of performance metrics of protocols and applications
transported over IETF-specified protocols (such as the formal
definition, purpose, and units of measure) and the various types of
metrics that characterize traffic on live networks (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
an successful proposal will be developed. Also, it is recognized that
there are applications and protocols that do not need to use this
framework and can make use of simpler specific methods for determining
performance. 

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 Working Group will work closely with the RAI and APPS areas,
performing early review of the documents with the two areas and inviting
their particpation in the WGLC. 

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 for consideration
as Proposed Standard

Sept 08 PMOL Framework and Guidelines Draft to IESG Review for
consideration as BCP

Nov 08 - Discuss rechartering of the WG for new PMOL metrics work or
shut down

 


_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
PMOL@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol