[PSAMP] RE: [PMOL] Draft Charter for discussion
"STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN" <emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com> Fri, 21 September 2007 14:26 UTC
Return-path: <psamp-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYjSP-0005EE-Vj; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:26:13 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYjSO-0005AV-8v; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:26:12 -0400
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.15]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYjSH-0002HM-Rq; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:26:12 -0400
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:25:50 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:25:57 +0200
Message-ID: <DD8B8FEBBFAF9E488F63FF0F1A69EDD103E39DA0@ftrdmel1>
In-Reply-To: <200709211324.l8LDOG7M031034@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Draft Charter for discussion
Thread-Index: Acf8UufHTiycZ08lRUK2U70TsSIm0wAAW47w
References: <200709211324.l8LDOG7M031034@flph023.ffdc.sbc.com>
From: STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN <emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2007 14:25:50.0659 (UTC) FILETIME=[4F55B930:01C7FC5B]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c83ccb5cc10e751496398f1233ca9c3a
Cc: psamp@ietf.org, pmol@ietf.org, lars.eggert@nokia.com, ippm@ietf.org
Subject: [PSAMP] RE: [PMOL] Draft Charter for discussion
X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" <psamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp>, <mailto:psamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/psamp>
List-Post: <mailto:psamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:psamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp>, <mailto:psamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Al, Is the WG pmol created in the transport area? To take in account the last IPPM meeting output, I will remove the passive metrics stuffs from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-04. These performance metrics are performed on real applications traffic transported by IETF-specified protocols. Are they an emanation of PSAMP WG or of the (IETF-specified) protocol actually observed? Regards Emile > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com] > Envoyé : vendredi 21 septembre 2007 15:24 > À : pmol@ietf.org > Objet : [PMOL] Draft Charter for discussion > > Here's the initial draft of the charter. > Comments welcome, of course. > > Al > > Proposed Charter (0.0) > > Performance Metrics at Other Layers WG (PMOL) > > There are often uncertainties about the performance and > suitability of new technologies and applications for their intended > audience, and the Internet is no exception. Most uncertainties are > effectively addressed through quantified assessment of key performance > indicators. Standardized performance metrics add the desirable features > of consistent implementation, interpretation, and comparison. > > Although the IETF has two Working Groups dedicated to the development > of performance metrics, they each have 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 live IP networks, 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 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 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 includes the motivation > of work to define performance metrics for applications transported > on IETF-specified protocols, and how that work fills a need and a gap > in IETF-chartered work. The framework will describe the necessary > elements of performance metric drafts and the various types of metrics > that may be prepared in this work. 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 a > successful proposal will be developed by PMOL WG in cooperation with a > protocol development WG. > > 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 in the PMOL > WG, except to advise a protocol development WG when they are evaluating > a new work proposal for related performance metrics. > > 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). > > Milestones > June 08 SIP Performance Metrics Draft to AD Review > Sept 08 PMOL Framework and Guidelines Draft to AD Review > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol _______________________________________________ PSAMP mailing list PSAMP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp
- [PSAMP] RE: [PMOL] Draft Charter for discussion STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN