[secdir] [new-work] WG Review: IP Performance Metrics (ippm)

IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Thu, 06 June 2013 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <new-work-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E189121E80A9; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1370544104; bh=ombworTecX+H6XOHY+kkw9bwh/WT83hhUlklH6GW0M0=; h=MIME-Version:From:To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=HTJUwepasK4lmQDrcHm36hC0RkgRIDWmlVe2rZFLBHg+Yr1cmIFjIHxSswyEedEsp lvi1Cqi/LDhhKRlmGKOc4UeM2gZuI44Z5lSNztZNQ9QR5aiG9bdOZ9jmn9djaaSOk0 cV8bpGLHLjS0tSdESxiSpxE+XNddmvb8gwBOtimk=
X-Original-To: new-work@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: new-work@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEE021E80AC; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.461
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oe4FfunwMrB9; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C8821E809C; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: new-work@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.50
Message-ID: <20130606184140.30639.90561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:41:40 -0700
X-BeenThere: new-work@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-work-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: new-work-bounces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:03:22 -0700
Subject: [secdir] [new-work] WG Review: IP Performance Metrics (ippm)
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:41:45 -0000

The IP Performance Metrics (ippm) working group in the Transport Area of
the IETF is undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any
determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is
provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to
the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-06-13.

IP Performance Metrics (ippm)
Current Status: Active WG

  Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
  Bill Cerveny <bill@wjcerveny.com>

Assigned Area Director:
  Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>

Mailing list
  Address: ippm@ietf.org
  To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
  Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/


The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group develops and maintains
standard metrics that can be applied to the quality, performance, and
reliability of Internet data delivery services and applications running
over transport layer protocols (e.g. TCP, UDP) over IP.  Direct
measurement of raw network- or lower-layer protocols, such as OAM based 
performance measurement, is out of scope for IPPM. It also develops
and maintains protocols for the measurement of these metrics. These
metrics are designed such that they can be used by network operators, 
end users, or independent testing groups. Metrics developed by the IPPM 
WG are intended to provide unbiased quantitative performance 
measurements and not a value judgement.

The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and
procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The
working group will continue advancing the most useful of these metrics
along the standards track, using the guidelines stated in RFC 6576. To
the extent possible, these metrics will be used as the basis for future 
work on metrics in the WG.

The WG will seek to develop new metrics and models to more accurately
characterize the network paths under test and/or the performance of
transport and application layer protocols on these paths. The WG will
balance the need for new metrics with the desire to minimize the
introduction of new metrics, and will require that new metric 
definitions state how the definition improves on an existing metric 
definition, or assesses a property of network performance not previously 
covered by a defined metric. Metric definitions will follow the template 
given in RFC 6390. It is possible that new measurement protocols will be 
needed to support new metrics; if this is the case, the working group 
will be rechartered to develop these protocols.

Additional methods will be defined for the composition and calibration 
of IPPM-defined metrics, as well as active, passive and hybrid 
measurement methods for these metrics. In addition, the WG encourages 
work which describes the applicability of metrics and measurement 
methods, especially to improve understanding of the tradeoffs involved 
among active, passive, and hybrid methods.

The WG may update its core framework RFC 2330 as necessary to 
accommodate these activities.

The WG has produced protocols for communication among test equipment to
enable the measurement of the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectively). These protocols will be advanced along the standards
track. The work of the WG will take into account the suitability of 
measurements for automation, in order to support large-scale measurement 
efforts. This may result in further developments in protocols such as 

Agreement about the definitions of metrics and methods of measurement
enables accurate, reproducible, and equivalent results across different
implementations. To this end, the WG will define and maintain a registry
of metric definitions. The WG encourages work which assesses the
comparability of measurements of IPPM metrics with metrics developed 
elsewhere. The WG also encourages work which improves the availability 
of information about the context in which measurements were taken.

The IPPM WG seeks cooperation with other appropriate standards bodies 
and forums to promote consistent approaches and metrics. Within the IETF
process, IPPM metric definitions and measurement protocols will be
subject to as rigorous a scrutiny for usefulness, clarity, and accuracy 
as other protocol standards. The IPPM WG will interact with other areas 
of IETF activity whose scope intersects with the requirement of these 
specific metrics. The WG will, on request, provide input to other IETF 
working groups on the use and implementation of these metrics.

Specific near-term milestones include:

1. Advancement of protocols for one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and 
TWAMP respectively) along the standards track.

2. Update of the IPPM framework document (RFC 2330) to reflect 
experience with the framework, and to cover planned future metric 

3. Definition of a registry of metric definitions to improve the
equivalency of metric results across multiple implementations.

4. Publication of a rate measurement problem statement.

5. Publication of documents supporting the use of IPSec to protect 

6. Publication of documents related to model-based TCP bulk transfer
capacity metrics.


new-work mailing list