Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft new charter

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:12:09 +0100

Hi Roman,

> Best practicies - recommendations

This is meant by the the AS (applicability statements)

> burst measurement

Add.

> Contribution to avalability metric even a statement from the IPPM WG on
> WG position on it - 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.   We have the connectivity
metric which basically says if the box on the other end is there or not.

> We need to list composition/decomposition metrics

Will be done.

> Cetrification of metric/methods

Again, please explain.

> Support for work related in PWE or other WGs on related topics 

Added.

> I would review the existing drafts and to cleanup on some of them 

The list of drafts in the IPPM section of www.ietf.org is autogenerated,
it contains all active drafts and all RFC's.  There is little we can do
about this.  There are no RFC's which have been obsoleted (I think),
so they are all still valid.

The milestones can do with a clean-up.  I'd suggest that when the new
charter is done, we remove all milestonds we've reached and include
new ones.

I'll post a next version of the charter later.  If you have comments,
please provide specific text.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:19:12 +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".

This is the next version with minor changes in the wording.   If there are
no further comments in a week or so, then we'll declare this final and send
it to the IESG for approval.

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, packet bursts 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 will work on documents describing how to compose and decompose
the results of its metrics over time or space.

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.  The WG will, on request, provide
input to other IETF WG on the use of these metrics.

---

From: Joel Sommers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:17:43 -0500

Henk,

Just some minor typos I noticed:
developped -> developed (a couple instances of this)
respectivily-> respectively (3rd to last paragraph)

Otherwise, the content looks reasonable to me.

Joel

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:28:01 +0100

Hi all,

There have been no further comments (other than Joel catching two
spelling mistakes) so this will go to the IESG.

Henk

- - - -

The IPPM WG has developed a set of standard metrics that can be applied to

   - connectivity

   - one-way delay and loss

   - round-trip delay.

   - delay variation

   - loss patterns

   - packet reordering

   - packet duplication

define a value judgment. The WG may define additional statistics for

The WG has produced protocols to enable communication among test equipment
that implements the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP respectively).
OWAMP and TWAMP will be advanced along the standards track.   Further
development of these protocols will also be done inside the WG.

The metrics developed by the WG were developed inside an active