Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05AEB3A693D; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:06:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.916, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UHNSfecyjVgO; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:06:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1313A6AA1; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:06:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4923A693D for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:06:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oXx3OKEF40Hf for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA453A6830 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2Q04Z6D014558 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:04:35 -0600 Received: from srvxchg3.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.25) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/511/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:04:35 -0700 (MST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/511/kyzyl.cablelabs.com) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:04:35 -0600 Message-ID: <160DE07A1C4F8E4AA2715DEC577DA49193643B@srvxchg3.cablelabs.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PMOL] SIP Metrics draft: Timers wording Thread-Index: AciO1PodgBD2TG2rRAOiJe6CcpF0rQ== From: "Daryl Malas" To: X-Approved: ondar Subject: [PMOL] SIP Metrics draft: Timers wording X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Hello all, Thank you for the extensive feedback at the IETF conference in Philly regarding the SIP Performance Metrics draft. During the session, there were volunteers to provide me some verbiage for the draft regarding the variability of timers relative to the draft. For those who volunteered, please send me your suggested wording, and I will include it in my next revision of the draft. Thank you, Daryl --------------------- Daryl Malas CableLabs d.malas@cablelabs.com tel:+1-303-661-3302 _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AE028C6AB; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:02:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.706 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yCn17Ii+GzXy; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A5E28C44F; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:01:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748883A6D2E for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:01:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q3+3f+Lhf2TH for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAF828C52C for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:01:00 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m2IFwe206399 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:58:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.65.200] (ams3-vpn-dhcp456.cisco.com [10.61.65.200]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m2IFweL19774 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:58:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47DFE6B0.2090703@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:58:40 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] feedback on draft-morton-perf-metrics-framework-02 X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0661867438==" Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0661867438== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070500030302070602010603" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070500030302070602010603 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, Here is my feedback after reading the draft. - First of all, as mentioned during the WG meeting, the following 3 items seem to be a structure for the draft. There are at least three phases in the development of performance standards. They are: 1. Definition of a Performance Metric and its units of measure 2. Specification of a Method of Measurement 3. Specification of the Reporting Format I understand it's not the case, so the focus of the document compared to these 3 points should be explained - you mention "Performance Metrics Entity" in the abstract. If capitalized, doesn't it imply a definition? The draft only mentions: This memo refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, or PM Entity, which may in future be a working group or directorate or a combination of these two. You might to mention what its goal is. - " (ii) the correlation between the metric and the quality of service / experience delivered to the user (person or other application)" Ideally the metric is the quality of service/experience - In section 3.4.2, an example of the Service Level Contract/Service Level Agreement would seem ideal, as the SLA must be clearly, including the way of metering it. - - 3.4.4. Metric Definition Template Name Description Measurement Method Units of measurement Measurement or Sampling Interval Use and Applications Implementation Reporting Model Which ones MUST/SHOULD be present? All of them? - Section 3.7 "Reporting protocols typically introduce some limitations and assumptions with regard to the definition of a metric." After discussing with Alan after the meeting, I understand what you want to say. However, I think it should be expanded. - Section 3.12. I don't understand why we have the following excerpt in there: The key areas of variation between different metric users include: o Suitability of passive measurements of live traffic, or active measurements using dedicated traffic o Measurement in laboratory environment, or on a network of deployed devices o Accuracy of the results o Access to measurement points and configuration information o Measurement topology (point-to-point, point-to-multipoint) o Scale of the measurement system o Measurements conducted on-demand, or continuously o Required reporting formats ------------------- end of Al's sections, but more in 4.2 ----- _Editorial:_ - you might want to give a reference to RAQMON - section 3.1 " Metrics are intended for use in measuring the performance of an application, network or service." while section 3.2 mentions "A metric is a measure of an observable behavior of an application, protocol or other system." - realign (i) Description of metric The description should explain (ii) Metric use and applications (iii) Implementation (iv) Reporting Model Regards, Benoit. --------------070500030302070602010603 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all,

Here is my feedback after reading the draft.

- First of all, as mentioned during the WG meeting, the following 3 items seem to be a structure for the draft.
   There are at least three phases in the development of performance
   standards.  They are:

   1.  Definition of a Performance Metric and its units of measure

   2.  Specification of a Method of Measurement

   3.  Specification of the Reporting Format
I understand it's not the case, so the focus of the document compared to these 3 points should be explained
- you mention "Performance Metrics Entity" in the abstract. If capitalized, doesn't it imply a definition?
The draft only mentions: 
   This memo refers to a Performance Metrics Entity, or PM Entity, which
   may in future be a working group or directorate or a combination of
   these two.
You might to mention what its goal is.
- " (ii) the correlation between the metric and the quality of service / experience delivered to the user (person or other application)"
Ideally the metric is the quality of service/experience
- In  section 3.4.2,  an example of the Service Level Contract/Service Level Agreement would seem ideal, as the SLA must be clearly, including the way of metering it.
- 
- 3.4.4. Metric Definition Template

Name
Description
Measurement
Method
Units of measurement
Measurement or Sampling Interval
Use and Applications
Implementation
Reporting Model
Which ones MUST/SHOULD be present? All of them?
- Section 3.7 "Reporting protocols typically introduce some limitations and assumptions with regard to the definition of a metric."
After discussing with Alan after the meeting, I understand what you want to say. However, I think it should be expanded.
- Section 3.12. I don't understand why we have the following excerpt in there:
   The key areas of variation between different metric users include:

   o  Suitability of passive measurements of live traffic, or active
      measurements using dedicated traffic

   o  Measurement in laboratory environment, or on a network of deployed
      devices

   o  Accuracy of the results

   o  Access to measurement points and configuration information

   o  Measurement topology (point-to-point, point-to-multipoint)

   o  Scale of the measurement system

   o  Measurements conducted on-demand, or continuously

   o  Required reporting formats

   ------------------- end of Al's sections, but more in 4.2 -----



Editorial:
- you might want to give a reference to RAQMON
- section 3.1 " Metrics are intended for use in measuring the performance of an application, network or service." while section 3.2 mentions "A metric is a measure of an observable behavior of an application, protocol or other system."
- realign 
   (i) Description of metric The description should explain (ii) Metric
   use and applications (iii) Implementation (iv) Reporting Model
Regards, Benoit.

--------------070500030302070602010603-- --===============0661867438== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol --===============0661867438==-- Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671E53A6D92; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:56:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.041 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.407, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZdhVQJIedkZ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00FB43A6DCB; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:56:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20443A6DCB for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:56:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ORT0DKTMdfF2 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D003A6D6D for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:56:25 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-203.messagelabs.com!1205247240!8162242!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 16515 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2008 14:54:01 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-14.tower-203.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 11 Mar 2008 14:54:01 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2BEs54X000318 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:54:05 -0700 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2BEs0qt032735 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:54:00 -0700 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m2BEs0Yc028003 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:54:00 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m2BEruGc027451 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:53:56 -0500 Message-Id: <200803111453.m2BEruGc027451@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.85.10](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080311145355gw100l7p1ve>; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:53:56 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:53:55 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [PMOL] Remote Participation URLs X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org For those who wish to participate remotely, we have: Start time: Today, March 11, 13:00 EDT (GMT-4:00) Much of the info below is available on the tools team agenda: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/71/ Jabber Instructions http://www.ietf.org/meetings/text_conf.html Jabber Room pmol@jabber.ietf.org Slides, there may be updates (scroll down to pmol in OPS area) https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/71/materials.html Unicast Audio http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ pmol is on Channel 8 in Salon J Al pmol co-chair _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-pmol-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF50E3A6A42; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 05:35:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.972 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.592, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.219] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ArN0lDD9jrqT; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 05:35:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A4D28C250; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 05:35:44 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: pmol@ietf.org Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id D95AC28C72D; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:45:01 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080229194501.D95AC28C72D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:45:01 -0800 (PST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 05:35:42 -0800 Cc: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-00.txt X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pmol-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pmol-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Performance Metrics for Other Layers Working Group of the IETF. Title : SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics Author(s) : D. Malas Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-00.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2008-2-25 This document defines a set of metrics and their usage to evaluate the performance of end-to-end Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based services in both production and testing environments. The purpose of this document is to combine a set of common metrics, allowing interoperable performance measurements, easing the comparison of industry implementations. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-2-29114117.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol --NextPart--