Subject: [ippm] Draft new charter

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:08:12 +0100

Dear All,

Please find below the next draft of the new charter, it should include all
comments made on the list and in this week's meeting.  Further comments
are welcome, including "yes, I've read this and it looks fine".

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

   - connectivity

   - one-way delay and loss

   - round-trip delay.

   - delay variation

   - loss patterns

   - packet reordering

   - bulk transport capacity

   - link bandwidth capacity

   - packet duplication

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, report results to specific user groups 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 protocols to enable communication among test equipment
that implements the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP respectivily).
OWAMP and TWAMP will be advanced along the standards track.   Further
development of these protocols will also 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.  No work is planned is this area though,
this may be changed with AD approval.

The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards
bodies and forums (such as ATIS IIF, ITU-T SG 12, 13 and 15, MEF) 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: "Jay Karthik (jakarthi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:51:37 -0500

Hi Henk,

Was wondering if "Packet Replication" would be considered in scope of
this WG.

Packet Replication, is the ability of a branch node in a
point-to-multipoint environment (Label Switched Multicast) to replicate
incoming packets and then routing/switching them to their destinations.

Other than this, "yes, I've read this and it looks fine".

Thanks,
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 11:08 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG
Subject: [ippm] Draft new charter

Dear All,

Please find below the next draft of the new charter, it should include
all comments made on the list and in this week's meeting.  Further
comments are welcome, including "yes, I've read this and it looks fine".

Henk

- - - -

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.

   - connectivity

   - one-way delay and loss

   - round-trip delay.

   - delay variation

   - loss patterns

   - packet reordering

   - packet duplication

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, report results to
specific user groups 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 protocols to enable communication among test
equipment that implements the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectivily).
OWAMP and TWAMP will be advanced along the standards track.   Further
development of these protocols will also 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.  No work is planned is this area though, this
may be changed with AD approval.

The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards
bodies and forums (such as ATIS IIF, ITU-T SG 12, 13 and 15, MEF) 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

---

From: "Geib, Ruediger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:38:38 +0100

Hi Henk,

yes, your proposed text looks fine.

Regards,

Ruediger 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:08 PM
To: IETF IPPM WG
Subject: [ippm] Draft new charter

Dear All,

Henk

- - - -

   - connectivity

   - one-way delay and loss

   - round-trip delay.

   - delay variation

   - loss patterns

   - packet reordering

   - packet duplication

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:46:57 +0100

Hi Jay,

> incoming packets and then routing/switching them to their destinations.

I'm a little bit puzzled how this would fit into the IPPM WG.  It looks
like a property of a device, not something related to IP performance.
Please explain.

Henk

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:38:04 -0000

Hi, Henk, 
  I went through the new charter and it looks fine. Thanks a lot for
your effort. 
  However, I didn't find explicit interest in multiple points of
measurement as addressed in the multimetrics, neither for de/composition
metrics. Is it because the relevant work is considered done?

Cheers,
Lei

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: 21 November 2008 16:08
To: IETF IPPM WG
Subject: [ippm] Draft new charter

Dear All,

all

Henk

- - - -

to

   - connectivity

   - one-way delay and loss

   - round-trip delay.

   - delay variation

   - loss patterns

   - packet reordering

   - packet duplication

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, report results to specific user groups 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 protocols to enable communication among test
equipment
that implements the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectivily).
OWAMP and TWAMP will be advanced along the standards track.   Further
development of these protocols will also be done inside the WG.

promote
interact with other areas of IETF activity whose scope intersect with
the

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:59:55 -0500

An answer might be that the multiparty metrics draft covers
intentional replication, because we intend to observe the same
source packet at multiple destinations.

Al

---

From: "Krzanowski, Roman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:24:46 -0500

Things that maybe included ( or already implicitely are )

Best practicies - recommendations
burst measurement
Contribution to avalability metric even a statement from the IPPM WG on
WG position on it - 
We need to list composition/decomposition metrics
Cetrification of metric/methods
Support for work related in PWE or other WGs on related topics 

With or without my comments the charter as is -  is a fine work
rmk

I would review the existing drafts and to cleanup on some of them 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Geib, Ruediger
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:39 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft new charter

Hi Henk,

Regards,

Ruediger 

-----Original Message-----

Dear All,

Henk

- - - -

   - connectivity

   - one-way delay and loss

   - round-trip delay.

   - delay variation

   - loss patterns

   - packet reordering

   - packet duplication