Subject: [ippm] Consensus on new IPPM Charter; call for draft adoption as WG items.

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:12:33 +1300

Greetings, all,

Having applied comments in this thread to the charter, we've arrived at the draft charter text below this message.

I've seen on the order of a dozen comments supporting adoption of the charter, some with suggestions for improvement that have been applied to the below. Seeing no comments not supporting adoption, it appears that we have clear consensus for the adoption of the draft charter text. Many thanks to all for your comments!

The next step is to adopt drafts from those which have been presented at the IPPM meeting in Orlando and/or discussed to date on the list, and to determine the milestones for those drafts. 

For the following drafts and milestones, please indicate:

(a) whether you support the adoption of the draft as a working group item for the associated milestone, and
(b) whether you have reviewed the draft, and/or are willing to review it as a working group item

(1) draft-morton-ippm-2330-update-01
Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2330bis (Framework update)
           to IESG as Proposed Standard

(2) draft-morton-ippm-2679-bis-01
Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2679bis (One-Way Delay update) 
           to IESG as Proposed Standard

(3) draft-morton-ippm-2680-bis-00
Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2680bis (One-Way Loss update) 
           to IESG as Proposed Standard

(4) draft-morton-ippm-lmap-path-01
Mon Year - Submit draft on reference path for measurement location
           to IESG as Proposed Standard

(5) draft-mathis-ippm-model-based-metrics-01
Mon Year - Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity metrics
           to IESG as Proposed Standard

(6) draft-ko-ippm-streaming-performance-00
Mon Year - Submit draft on model-based streaming performance metrics 
           to IESG as Proposed Standard

(7) draft-bi-ippm-ipsec-01
Mon Year - Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed Standard

With respect to the following milestone, there are two drafts, which we would presume would be unified through the working group process; it's not necessary at this time to indicate which approach you support.

(8) draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-00, draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-00
Mon Year - Submit draft on metrics registry to IESG as Proposed Standard

I'd like to try to evaluate consensus on adoption on each draft by next Wednesday, April 3, absent continuing discussion.

Many thanks, best regards,

Brian

[Charter text follows]

IP Performance Metrics (ippm)
-----------------------------

 Charter

 Current Status: Active

 Chairs:
     Brian Trammell 
     Bill Cerveny
     
 Transport Area Directors:
     Martin Stiemerling
     Martin Stiemerling

 Transport Area Advisor:
     Martin Stiemerling

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion: [email-masked]
     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
     Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm

Description of Working Group:

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. 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 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 develop the minimum number of new metrics and models needed to more
accurately quantitatively characterize the network path(s) under test and/or
the performance of transport and application layer protocols on these path(s).
New metric definitions will state how the definition improves on an existing
metric definition, or assesses a property of network performance not previously
covered by a defined metric.

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 WG will further
develop and improve these protocols. The WG may develop new measurement
protocols as necessary to support new metrics. New metric and protocol
development will focus on the suitability of measurements for automation, in
order to support large-scale measurement efforts.

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.

Milestones:

Mon Year - Submit draft on access rate measurement protocol problem statement
           to IESG as Informational
Mon Year - Submit draft on RFC 2680 standards-track advancement testing
           to IESG as Informational