Subject: [ippm] initial rough draft of capacity definitions

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:08:32 -0500

Hello all:
Attached is an initial draft of the capacity definition document that 
Joe Ishac (NASA Glenn) and I worked on. It is still pretty rough, but 
there is enough there to discuss at the IPPM meeting this coming week 
in Minneapolis.

Please send any comments to the list.
Regards,
Phil Chimento

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:53:55 +0100

Phil, others,

>Attached is an initial draft of the capacity definition document that Joe 
>Ishac (NASA Glenn) and I worked on. It is still pretty rough, but there is 
>enough there to discuss at the IPPM meeting this coming week in Minneapolis.
>

First comments:

1. I think the draft uses an old boilerplate

2. I don't like "proposed definitions" and "example metrics".  I think we
    should define metrics (perhaps for specific cases), then define what
    we have to define.  "example metrics" sounds too vague to me.

3. 2.2.  "if there is no traffic on any of the possible paths between S
    and D".  I don't think one can ever measure or claim that.

4. Section 3: I think one has to mention cross traffic here.

I still have to digest this draft further,

Henk

>Phil Chimento

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look here junior, don't you be so happy.
And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad.                 (Tom Verlaine)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:11:54 -0600

Hi Henk:

1. I am using Marshall Rose's XML rfc/draft creation tool. If you can  
point me toward the current boilerplate, I will use it....
2&3. I agree that these are vague; things are proposed or examples at  
this point, because they haven't been exposed to the WG and gotten any  
feedback. I have to confess, that I am uncomfortable about exactly what  
most of the tools are actually measuring, or even exactly what it means  
to measure capacity in this way. I am trying with these definitions to  
make ideas precise (IF you want to measure capacity, then this is  
exactly what you must measure, vs. this is a metric; now what does it  
measure). If in a practical sense, the metrics that we can define have  
to back off from what we want to measure, then we have to be able to  
say in what way, the metric is only an approximation of what we want to  
measure.
4. I agree that we need to go deeper there.

Regards,
Phil Chimento
[email-masked]