Subject: [ippm] Current agenda for IPPM at IETF 52 - Salt Lake City

From: "Matthew J Zekauskas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:34:15 -0500

[note: this assumes we have the 1st half of the 2hr slot holding both
IPPM and MEGACO.  If my assumption is wrong, we'll let you know ASAP.]
-=-=-=-

IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
Wednesday, December 12 at 13:00 - 14:00
====================================
CHAIRS: Merike Kaeo <[email-masked]>
        Matt Zekauskas <[email-masked]>

AGENDA:

1. Agenda bashing (<= 5 min)

2. Summarizing latest radical revision of npmps draft as per the I-D (10 min)
     -- Al Morton [email-masked]

     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-npmps-05.txt

     The formatting of the submitted version is "not nice"; a version
     with "more standard" formatting, and believed to be otherwise identical,
     is available from
     http://www.advanced.org/IPPM/docs/draft-ietf-ippm-npmps-05p.txt

3. Practical experience with the IPDV draft  (15 min)
     -- Henk Uijterwaal

     This item will discuss issues relating to the draft arising from
     an implementation.  It particularly relates to the previous (technically
     now-expired) version of the draft, which is available from
     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-ipdv-07.txt
      and
     http://www.advanced.org/IPPM/docs/draft-ietf-ippm-ipdv-07.txt

     In addtion, note that a newer version was submitted, but unfortunately
     not in time before the cutoff.  That version will appear soon after
     this meeting.  It was sent to the mailing list, and also appears at
     http://www.advanced.org/IPPM/docs/draft-ietf-ippm-ipdv-08.txt
      
4. One-way Active Measurements Protocol Requirements (15 min)
     -- Stanislav Shalunov

     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-reqs-01.txt
      see also
     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-03.txt

5. IPPM metric management needs (10 min)
     -- Emile STEPHAN

     In particular, we'd like to address issues raised by this draft and
     it's relationship to the protocol requirements draft above.
     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stephan-ippm-mgmt-reqs-00.txt
       see also
     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stephan-ippm-mib-00.txt

    NOTE: there is also going to be a discussion of IPPM MIB-related issues
    in the RMONMIB WG on Monday evening, see
    http://www.ietf.org/ietf/01dec/rmonmib.txt
    We encourage interested parties to attend that session.

6. Discussion on charter/milestones/potential new work (5 min).
     -- Matt & Merike

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:25:24 +0100 (CET)

Matt, others,

> Wednesday, December 12 at 13:00 - 14:00

1 hour for this meeting looks extremely short to me.  In particular #5
needs a lot of discussion (like what are these drafts trying to
accomplish, why are they needed, relation between the various blocks,
etc), followed by a discussion which WG is going to do what.

I much rather see an hour or two scheduled for this, and cut the meeting
short if we run out of material, than the current 30 minutes on Monday, 10
on Wednesday which (probably) ends up in another endless discussion going
nowhere on the list.

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: [email-masked]
RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand,
then I won't tell my friends how you defended it.                 (Anonymous)

---

From: Steven Van den Berghe <[email-masked]>
Date: 05 Dec 2001 10:09:26 +0100

Hi all,

Just my 2 (euro)cents....

one of the jobs of ippm is (as the charter expresses it) promoting the
application of the metrics. Now, these metrics have been popping up in a
variety of places (e.g. rmon, tewg) and i can assure you that there are
other applications on their way. 

These applications have different requirements than the "new inter
administrative domain ping" the current triplet owdp-test, owdp-control,
owdp-mgmt is mainly aiming at. The only thing which is, still to my
humble opinion, a necessity is the owdp-test (especially if equipment
vendors would put this in their boxes). owdp-control, owdp-mgmt are just
one way of using it, and might be replaced by other ways of control
(which is forseen in the reqm draft).

Conclusion: neither owdp-control/owdp-mgmt are strictly required for
being able to get interoperability between boxes. As with other
management functionalities like CLI, SNMP, COPS or psychic control,
might be be put in place. Given this, there are multiple approaches
possible for ippm:

 1. we don't care, let the different approaches be spread over their
appropriate working groups (with sending a single fyi message to the
ippm mailinglist)
 2. we care but nothing more: we let ippm be a forum where these
approaches can be 'published' as a bcp and make sure they don't conflict
with the metrics requirements
 3. we foster them

i don't have a strong opinion on which option to choose, but it should
be decided asap, before the current mix between 1 and 3 gets out of hand
(and to reduce the number of endless discussions on it).  

Cheers (and have a succesful 1h10m in SLC),
Steven 

-- 
--
Steven Van den Berghe
[email-masked]
Workgroup Broadband Communication Networks
Department Information Technology
Ghent University - Belgium
Phone:  +32 (0)9 267 35 86 | Fax  :  +32 (0)9 267 35 99
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
DiffServ over MPLS for Linux: http://dsmpls.atlantis.rug.ac.be
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
A computer is like an Old Testament god, with a lot of
rules and no mercy. - Joseph Campbell
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:38:35 +0100 (CET)

Steven,

> other applications on their way.

Great (hey, I'm implementing these metrics).

> owdp-mgmt is mainly aiming at.

This is what I think we should try to accomplish.  At an abstract level,
we need:

 1. Metrics and measurement devices that implement them,
 2. Protocol(s) that allows measurements between different
    implementations,
 3. A control mechanism that allows a user from any other area to do a
    measurement
 4. A reporting protocol that returns the result to the user.

So-far, IPPM has been doing (1) and we started on (2) and (3) a year or so
ago.  (4) is still open.  At the moment, other groups (RMON, TE, ...)
started to work on (3) and (4), which clearly overlaps with the work in
IPPM.

I think we should try to coordinate these efforts and keep the number of
control and report mechanisms to preferably 1 or at least a small number.

This basically why I think we need to have a longer discussion with RMON
(etc) to see what they need, which building blocks are needed and which
group is going to define what, before things start to diverge.

If we don't do this now, then we might as well forget about (2) and have
various implementations tuned towards specific users of the metrics (with
all disadvantages of that approach).

Henk

---

From: Merike Kaeo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 01:50:00 -0800

>started to work on (3) and (4), which clearly overlaps with the work in

I've been following TEWG and Matt has been following RMON.....who else that 
you know of is working on (3) and (4)?  Agreed that coordination is 
required on all fronts - hope to come to some consensus in SLC albeit the 
time limitation.

- merike

---

From: Matthew Roughan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 09:56:38 -0500

> control and report mechanisms to preferably 1 or at least a small number.

I agree strongly here. Having a uniform control and reporting mechanism
makes life a great deal easier. I think there is a lot to be gained from
talking to the RMON group -- we don't want to reimplement a lot of stuff
they have already thought about in slightly different contexts. 

Matt

---

From: Steven Van den Berghe <[email-masked]>
Date: 05 Dec 2001 19:39:35 +0100

> required on all fronts - hope to come to some consensus in SLC albeit the 
so, you got the easy job:). You might want to check out
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-choi-tunman-stats-00.txt
for another measurement-related application.

Cheers,
Steven