Re: [PMOL] PMOL directorate: meeting at the IETF?
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 31 October 2012 00:40 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 50F0D21F8767 for <pmol@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, 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 gJmR-QOwMRBV for <pmol@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:40:16 -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 1117321F861B for <pmol@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:40:15 -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 q9V0eCCH012919; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:40:13 +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 q9V0eBIK016944; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:40:11 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5090736A.5030108@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:40:10 -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: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <5085C8B9.2050508@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5085C8B9.2050508@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080909080802080100060302"
Cc: xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "pmol@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: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:40:17 -0000
Dear PMOL directorate members, Based on doodle, this meeting will take place on Wed Nov 7th at 1440 - 1540 in the IESG breakout room, to be confirmed. I hope to see you all. Regards, Benoit > 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 >
- [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