Subject: [ippm] Follow-up on Dublin discussion

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:17:25 +0100

Hi all,

We didn't have as much time to work on this after Dublin as we'd
hoped but I managed to put a first draft of a new charter that
includes everything we discussed in Dublin together.  Comments to
the list please, or in our meeting in Minneapolis.   Note that
we cannot pick up any of the drafts suggested in Dublin until
we have an approved new charter.

Henk

- - - -

Description of Working Group:

The IPPM WG has developped a set of standard metrics that can be applied to
the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet data delivery
services. These metrics are designed such that they can be performed by
network operators, end users, or independent testing groups. It is
important that the metrics not represent a value judgment (i.e. define
"good" and "bad"), but rather provide unbiased quantitative measures of
performance.

Functions peripheral to Internet data delivery services, such as NOC/NIC
services, are beyond the scope of this working group.

The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and
procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The
metrics are:

   - connectivity

   - one-way delay and loss

   - round-trip delay and loss

   - delay variation

   - loss patterns

   - packet reordering

   - bulk transport capacity

   - link bandwidth capacity

   - packet duplication

It is not expected that new metrics have to be added to this list.

The working group will advance these metrics along the standards track
within the IETF.  It will be guided by applicable IESG documents in this
area. Additionally, the WG will produce Proposed Standard AS documents,
comparable to applicability statements in RFC 2026, that will focus on
procedures for measuring the individual metrics and how these metrics
characterize features that are important to different service classes, such
as bulk transport, periodic streams, or multimedia streams.  Each AS
document will discuss the performance characteristics that are pertinent to
a specified service class; clearly identify the set of metrics that aid in
the description of those characteristics; specify the methodologies
required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present the requirements for
the common, unambiguous reporting of testing results.  The AS documents can
also discuss the use of the metrics to verify performance expectations,
such as SLA's, or investigate network problems.  The focus is, again, to
define how this should be done, not to define a value judgement. The WG may
define additional statistics for its metrics if needed. Specific topics of
these AS documents must be approved by the Area Directors as charter
additions.

The WG has produced a protocol to enable communication among test equipment
that implements the one- and two-way metrics.  Further development of these
protocols will be done inside the WG.

The metrics developped by the WG were developed inside an active
measurement context, that is, the devices used to measure the metrics
produce their own traffic.  However, most metrics can be used inside a
passive context as well.  The WG will work on documents describing such
use.

The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards
bodies and forums (such as T1A1.3, ITU-T SG 12 and SG 13) to promote
consistent approaches and metrics. Within the IETF process, IPPM metrics
definitions 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 intersect with the
requirement of these specific metrics.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam  (Cato & Henk)
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:37:47 -0500

Henk, all,

I'd like to make a few suggestions for the charter text.

see below,
Al

At 03:17 AM 11/4/2008, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>...

Comment: it seems that none of IPPM RFCs cover RT loss,
section 1 of RFC 2681 says:

    This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a future
    companion document for Packet Loss.

>It is not expected that new metrics have to be added to this list.

Comment:
Twice we have listed the "complete set of metrics" in our charter,
and then found that we need to expand the list.  This is continues
to be possible because we have included "derived metrics" in the
list (delay variation is a derived metric). So, I'd rather we said
something less-final in summary.  How about:

This is the current set of fundamental metrics, and the existing
set of derived metrics.

>that implements the one- and two-way metrics.

I think, because we use two different names and well-known ports, it's more
accurate to say:

The WG has produced two similar protocols for communication among test
equipment that enable one-way and two-way measurements.

>  ... Further development of these

Suggest:
The WG will advance these protocols along the standards track
and continue their development.

>bodies and forums (such as T1A1.3, ITU-T SG 12 and SG 13) to promote

bodies and forums (such as ATIS IIF, ITU-T SG 12, 13 and 15, MEF) to promote

---

From: "Krzanowski, Roman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:46:41 -0500

Few additional comments on the charter:

I think , I may be missing something here that we need some kind of:

*         availability metric - this is a hot and debated topic.. and I
am not sure if we in IPPM have it

*         there is a need to have a methodology work in out WG - I
think.. the charter of IPPM WG could and in my view should include not
only what to measure but how to on informational bases - I see it as
best practices.. - transfer and dissemination of experience whatever you
call it;

thx

roman

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Al Morton
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:38 AM
To: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG
Subject: Re: [ippm] Follow-up on Dublin discussion

Henk, all,

see below,

Al

 

Comment:

set of derived metrics.

>that implements the one- and two-way metrics.

I think, because we use two different names and well-known ports, it's
more

accurate to say:

Suggest:

 

>bodies and forums (such as T1A1.3, ITU-T SG 12 and SG 13) to promote

bodies and forums (such as ATIS IIF, ITU-T SG 12, 13 and 15, MEF) to
promote

ippm mailing list

[email-masked]