Subject: [PMOL] Draft Agenda for PMOL at IETF-70

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:35:47 -0500

Folks,

The draft agenda for our session in Vancouver is below.

Future updates may be found here:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/agenda/pmol.txt

Al and Alan
co-chairs

Performance Metrics for Other Layers WG (pmol)

THURSDAY, December 6, 2007
1300-1500 Afternoon Session I
Salon F    	OPS	

Co-Chairs:
Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Alan Clark <[email-masked]>

Please help contribute to a successful meeting by reading the drafts
and references *before* we meet.

AGENDA:   Draft as of 11/20/2007

0. Agenda Bashing

1. Brief overview of the PMOL charter (Chairs - Al)
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pmol-charter.html

2. Metrics Framework Draft            (Alan)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morton-perf-metrics-framework-01.txt

3. SIP Performance Metrics Draft      (Daryl)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malas-performance-metrics-07.txt

4. AOB

To offer comments on PMOL work in progress or the agenda itself,
please send email to:

               <[email-masked]>

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

---

From: KIKUCHI Yutaka <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:26:48 +0900 (JST)

Al, Alan, and Everyone,

May I have a slot to discuss an I-D for tunnel measurement?

4. One-way Passive Measurement of End-to-End Quality (Yutaka)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kikuchi-passive-measure-01.txt

I had presented the -00 version in OPSAWG at the last IETF,
but it is more adapted to discuss in PMOL than in OPSAWG.
The I-D includes a trial of metrics evaluation with
draft-morton-perf-metrics-framework-00.txt (sorry for not 01.txt).

Please see also the following I-D describing the requirements
to measure tunnels.

"Quality Measurement Requirements for Tunneling Protocols"
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kikuchi-tunnel-measure-req-02.txt

-- Regards, Yu.

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:42:02 -0500

Yu,

Sorry, but our charter says:

>Discussion of new work proposals is strongly discouraged under the
>initial charter of the PMOL WG, except to advise a protocol
>development WG when they are evaluating a new work proposal for
>related performance metrics.

However, if your experience working with the framework memo
has generated any constructive comments, please send them
to the list and/or bring them up during discussion at the meeting.

Al
pmol co-chair

---

From: KIKUCHI Yutaka <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:51:56 +0900 (JST)

Al,

Thanks for the reply.
How about preparing some slides to discuss the framework
according to our experience, not for intending to discuss the metrics?

-- Yu.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:39:02 +0200

> but it is more adapted to discuss in PMOL than in OPSAWG.

Given that tunnels can be a part of an IP path, I'd think that this  
draft would be in scope of IPPM, rather than PMOL or OPSAWG. Even more  
so, because some of the metrics you define for a tunnel seem to  
overlap with metrics IPPM has already defined for IP paths.

Lars

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:24:44 +0100

I would agree that IPPM may be a better place to discuss this draft, as
IPPM metrics apply to a large extend already to what is being proposed.
The question of using IPPM metrics at the ends of the tunnel was already
raised I believe in the OPSAWG when this was presented first. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eggert [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:39 AM
> To: ext KIKUCHI Yutaka
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [PMOL] Draft Agenda for PMOL at IETF-70
> 
> but it is 
> > more adapted to discuss in PMOL than in OPSAWG.
> 
> Given that tunnels can be a part of an IP path, I'd think 
> that this draft would be in scope of IPPM, rather than PMOL 
> or OPSAWG. Even more so, because some of the metrics you 
> define for a tunnel seem to overlap with metrics IPPM has 
> already defined for IP paths.
> 
> Lars
> 
>

---

From: KIKUCHI Yutaka <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:55:14 +0900 (JST)

Lars-san, Dan-san,
Thank you very much for the help to find suitable place.

I think our approach is very different from IPPMs'.
Our intention is to maintain all of tunnel flows in operation
to check continuously the SLAs of the flows.

The measurment method should be very light-weight and scalable.
This is the top priority to deploy.
The metrics depend on less resource situation.
It is not much argurable how the metrics should be.

Also, the method must be passive.
IPPM seems not to deal with passive measurement.

In addition, we already asked the IPPM mailing list about the draft,
according to a suggestion from Dan in 68th Czech IETF,
and we got a following answer from the IPPM chairs after 69th IETF.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg01196.html

-- still in a floating boat (*_*), Yu.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:43:22 +0200

Hi,

> IPPM seems not to deal with passive measurement.

This is all well and good, but IPPM is *the* working group that  
defines metrics for IP paths. Starting work in the same space in  
another WG is not going to be productive.

If IPPM isn't currently chartered to work on the kinds of solutions  
that you require, there is an established process for proposing to  
recharter working groups. If your proposal fails to see traction in  
IPPM for other reasons, you'd do well to review the comments you  
receive in order to improve your proposal.

> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg01196.html

That message was sent at a time when the exact scope of PMOL was yet  
to be defined. Now it has been defined, and focuses on

    (... the) development of performance metrics for IP-based  
protocols and
    applications that operate over UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP, Forward Error
    Correction (FEC) and other robust transport protocols, and that  
can be
    used to characterize traffic on live networks.

A metric to quantify packet sequentiality for tunneled flows doesn't  
fall into this charter, IMO.

Lars

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:56:09 +0100

Hi,

> That message was sent at a time when the exact scope of PMOL was yet to 
> be defined. Now it has been defined, [...]

So it looks like we have a problem.  Right now, IPPM focusses on
active measurements at the IP layer.  This draft deals with passive
measurements at a higher layer and thus doesn't fit into IPPM.  It
also doesn't fit into PMOL.   I do think that it is a good draft
though, so I think we have to find a place for it.  \

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

Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
                                       Alan Greenspan on the next elections

---

From: KIKUCHI Yutaka <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:22:47 +0900 (JST)

> > This draft deals with passive measurements at a higher layer
> 
> not all that passive
> 
> Scott

It is completely passive.

Folks, see also the OPSAWG mailing list now discussing about the issue.

-- Yu.

---

From: KIKUCHI Yutaka <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:50:50 +0900 (JST)

Lars-san, good morning from Japn.

> another WG is not going to be productive.

I do agree with the last sentence, but I do not agree with
the second last sentence because our proposals should be
discussed in the operational sense.

A typical use case of the drafts is...

0. operators in an xSP or an iDC...
1. after setting up for watching every one of flows to servers,
2. while working with other tasks and listening music with iPod,
3. getting an alarm on a failure of some tunnels, and
4. checking the reason whether equipment fault, route changed or the other.
5. The xSP will refund money according as the SLA and the measured quality.

I think such the scenario is much different from the IPPM color.

> fall into this charter, IMO.

Does "... development of PM for IP-based protolcols ..." include?
I think our draft is in the target range.

Anyway I knew PMOL does not handle new proposals in the current charter.

-- Yu.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:28:13 -0500 (EST)

not all that passive

Scott