Subject: [PMOL] Proposed Adoption of draft-malas-performance-metrics-08

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:28:48 -0500

PMOL Working Group:

A comment period for the Internet-Draft on

"SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics"

<draft-malas-performance-metrics-08.txt>

will be open from 23 January 2008 through 6 February 2003.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-malas-performance-metrics-08

The purpose of this comment period is to examine whether there is PMOL WG
consensus to adopt this draft as the basis for the SIP Performance Metrics
"Proof of Concept" work item described in the PMOL WG Charter,
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pmol-charter.html
and if so to progress this as a Working Group Draft.

STATUS

When this topic was raised at the IETF-70 PMOL session, there
was substantial readership and some support expressed to take-up
this version as the WG draft. There were also some
reservations expressed at the meeting about how well
the current draft matches the (evolving and not yet complete)
framework draft. Thus, completing this milestone will require
further development of the framework (and process) draft, as well.

Also, this draft has enjoyed interest and review of the SIPPING WG,
and members of the SIP development community continue to apply
their expertise to fine-tune the performance metric definitions.

Please weigh-in with any comments to this list or to the co-chairs:
<[email-masked]> and <[email-masked]>.

Al Morton
Alan Clark
pmol co-chairs

Note: The current version of the framework and process draft is here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-perf-metrics-framework-01

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

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:36:39 -0800

Hi,

I'd like to make a few comments - some in my role as one of the RAI  
ADs and some just as an individual contributor.

With my AD hat on,

This draft was bounced around several places before we figured out  a  
good place to get this work done. I worked with Dan in his OPs AD role  
and with the chairs of the related WGs to try and determine where we  
wanted this work to happen.  We came to the conclusion that this was  
the best WG to do the work in. Now that does not mean the IETF has to  
do this work at all, but if we are going to do it, I think this is the  
right place to do it. I know that multiple people in the RAI area  
expressed their opinions that this work was worth doing. Of course I  
want the work to meet the quality level expected by this WG - that was  
part of the reasons Dan and I believed this group was the best place  
to do the work. I would expect that would mean evolving this draft to  
be consistent with the framework document as they both get closer to  
WGLC. This evolution certainly could be done after the draft was  
adopted as a WG document. I don't think the WG has to finish the  
framework document before they can adopt this and start doing work -  
both can happen in parallel if the WG choices to do that. The  
important thing to me is that when this WG sends the drafts to IESG,  
the WG has consensus that they are of adequate quality and consistency  
that they should be published as RFCs.

I note that we IETF Last Called the charter text that has
   2. A proof-of-concept RFC defining performance metrics for SIP, based
      on draft-malas-performance-metrics. This memo would serve as an
      example of the framework and the PMOL development process in the  
IETF.
and I don't believe I received any comments about this not being a  
good starting point.

 From a RAI point of view, I don't claim to know what is the best  
starting document to get this work done but the RAI folks would like  
to see some of the issues this draft addresses described in some RFC.

WIth my individual contributor hat on,

Of all the proposed drafts that this WG could adopted to meet it  
milestones, this one seems to be the best :-) I support adopting it as  
a WG item. I'm sure I don't know what needs to change to make it  
"right" but once it is a WG draft instead of an individual draft,  
whatever the consensus of the WG is can get put into this draft. I  
think this will be the fastest path to finishing the work and having  
people agree on it.

Thanks, Cullen

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