IETF Logo Mail Archive

[xrblock] 答复: Fwd: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EE411E81A2 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.305
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.305 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.755, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uHnyVVCI5xGl for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CA721F8F32 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AVP54449; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:09:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:08:50 +0100
Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:09:01 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.43]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:08:54 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] Fwd: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft
Thread-Index: AQHOgswXCrBeN3+Ho0SIto2hlFr8WJlwdnEQgA2D54CAARzb4A==
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:08:45 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B70D48@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <51E41F08.4060407@cisco.com> <51E65CAC.9030900@cisco.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B6D084@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <51F8C271.5010900@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51F8C271.5010900@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.149.241]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B70D48nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" <aakhter@cisco.com>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: [xrblock] 答复: Fwd: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:09:20 -0000

c. what procedure should I follow if I identify additional set of permanence metrics beyond that is given in the section 4? It is not clear in the draft.
What do you propose?

[Qin]:
I think first you should identify performance metrics as much as possible, so it may take a long time to finish this draft.
Secondly, would it make sense to add a statement to say:
“
Other Performance Metrics that is identified should be reported to Performance measurement Directorate and can be added in future documents as the need
arises.
”

Regards, Benoit


Regards!
-Qin
From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 4:58 PM
To: xrblock@ietf.org<mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: [xrblock] Fwd: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft

Dear all,

You're feedback is welcome regarding this draft.

Regards, Benoit


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:

[ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft

Date:

Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:10:48 +0200

From:

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com><mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>

To:

IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org><mailto:ippm@ietf.org>



Dear all,



Let me introduce

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry/

This draft creates of a new IANA registry, for performance metrics that

follows the RFC6390 template.

And, let's not forget that the IPPM charter mentions: "Metric

definitions will follow the template given in RFC 6390."



Thanks Brian for giving me 10 min to present this draft.



Regards, Benoit.







_______________________________________________

ippm mailing list

ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email