From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 4 00:09:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C373A6942; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:09:31 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957323A68D8 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:09:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.995 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.603, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 jRxqQ-YIaTzk for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AC23A6942 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KxGyV-0006dT-2M for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:09:21 +0100 Received: from RIPE-NCC-101045.local (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C1D2F583 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:09:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4910032E.6070606@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:09:18 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d51af530c02328cd1fd2008288accc2087 Subject: [ippm] Draft agenda for Minneapolis X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, Here is the draft agenda for Minneapolis, comments and additions are welcome, Henk - - - - AGENDA: ======= 1. Administrativia (Chairs, 5') 2. CURRENT WORK. a) Status of Drafts and Milestones (Chairs, 10') b) TWAMP extensions. (3x5') = Mixed Mode Extension for TWAMP (Morton and Hedayat) = TWAMP Reflect Padding Feature (Morton and Ciavattone) = Individual Session Control Feature for TWAMP (Morton) c) Reporting IP Performance Metrics to Users (Shalunov, Swany) d) Composition drafts (Morton et al) 3. FUTURE WORK. a) New charter for the group b) Discussion. 4. AOB -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 4 00:17:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009323A69AB; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:17:34 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE173A699C for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:17:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.863 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.736, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 oUxmyaj9Lzt5 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021DA3A68A0 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KxH6L-0006xa-OU for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:17:28 +0100 Received: from RIPE-NCC-101045.local (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A150E2F583 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:17:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49100515.4080906@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:17:25 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5980aea59c87bc6ba08de64ff9e2b22c9 Subject: [ippm] Follow-up on Dublin discussion X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, We didn't have as much time to work on this after Dublin as we'd hoped but I managed to put a first draft of a new charter that includes everything we discussed in Dublin together. Comments to the list please, or in our meeting in Minneapolis. Note that we cannot pick up any of the drafts suggested in Dublin until we have an approved new charter. 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. The metrics are: - connectivity - one-way delay and loss - round-trip delay and loss - delay variation - loss patterns - packet reordering - bulk transport capacity - link bandwidth capacity - packet duplication It is not expected that new metrics have to be added to this list. 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, 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, 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 has produced a protocol to enable communication among test equipment that implements the one- and two-way metrics. Further development of these protocols will 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. The WG will work on documents describing such use. The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards bodies and forums (such as T1A1.3, ITU-T SG 12 and SG 13) 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 5 23:59:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F7D3A6943; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 23:59:20 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CDD3A693A for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:57:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 mnmCKeko1xjp for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:57:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [217.6.95.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9573A6972 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:57:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de (s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de [10.151.180.168]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:57:54 +0100 Received: from S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.10]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:57:53 +0100 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:57:52 +0100 Message-Id: <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1C01F570CA@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: <4910032E.6070606@ripe.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] Draft agenda for Minneapolis Thread-Index: Ack+VK5ojdH8tYpXQvKZxrhrNTSapQAAKTPA References: <4910032E.6070606@ripe.net> From: "Geib, Ruediger" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2008 08:57:53.0714 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C53B120:01C93E5B] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:59:19 -0800 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft agenda for Minneapolis X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi Henk, a brief status report on the metric compatibility: My colleague Gerhard Hasslinger briefly reviewed a draft I mailed to him and, as expected, gave me a couple of comments. We will not be able to edit a first version to be published prior to early 2009. All I can offer by now is to provide some slides with a "10000 meter view" on what he and I suggest. It is going to be a list of statistical methods proposed (the names of the methods, not the mathematics) and some words why we picked those. A reader could learn more about the philosophy, if he has an idea on the statistical methods mentioned. Let me know, whether there's interest (please note that I will not be reachable from 11. November until the end of the Minneapolis meeting). Regards, Ruediger -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:09 AM To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] Draft agenda for Minneapolis Hi all, Here is the draft agenda for Minneapolis, comments and additions are welcome, Henk - - - - AGENDA: ======= 1. Administrativia (Chairs, 5') 2. CURRENT WORK. a) Status of Drafts and Milestones (Chairs, 10') b) TWAMP extensions. (3x5') = Mixed Mode Extension for TWAMP (Morton and Hedayat) = TWAMP Reflect Padding Feature (Morton and Ciavattone) = Individual Session Control Feature for TWAMP (Morton) c) Reporting IP Performance Metrics to Users (Shalunov, Swany) d) Composition drafts (Morton et al) 3. FUTURE WORK. a) New charter for the group b) Discussion. 4. AOB -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From Gautam-nahgatay@leithacura.com Fri Nov 7 12:38:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FAC3A68FA for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:38:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -22.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE=2.809, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, 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 LLNr7jxVFXjh for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from toroon63-1177741478.sdsl.bell.ca (TOROON63-1177741478.sdsl.bell.ca [70.50.232.166]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCE03A68A6 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:38:03 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: important information From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081107203803.ADCE03A68A6@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:38:03 -0800 (PST)
Click Here!
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.

?2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
From nac-eciv_1960@leithacura.com Fri Nov 7 12:41:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D57D3A68A6 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:41:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -21.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-21.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE=2.809, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, 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 g+NnnvLmv4lA for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:41:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from toroon63-1177741478.sdsl.bell.ca (TOROON63-1177741478.sdsl.bell.ca [70.50.232.166]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23F83A67D7 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:41:19 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: urgent news From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081107204119.C23F83A67D7@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Click Here!
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.

?2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
From Josue-iarehgen@emasur.com Fri Nov 7 15:19:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0347628C14F for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:19:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -46.165 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-46.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P=2.144, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL=1.495, HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE=2.809, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, 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 ULzsopzHq-nq for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:19:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-71-113-80-85.sttlwa.dsl-w.verizon.net (pool-71-113-80-85.sttlwa.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.113.80.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0EA28C164 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:19:44 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: important information From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081107231944.3F0EA28C164@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:19:44 -0800 (PST)
Click Here!
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.

?2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
From livzttub_1984@brokershome.com Sat Nov 8 03:45:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869123A67A6 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 03:45:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -25.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-25.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P=2.144, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL=1.495, HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE=2.809, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, 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 3sA+l6aeiDfo for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 03:45:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-96-238-39-176.prvdri.fios.verizon.net (pool-96-238-39-176.prvdri.fios.verizon.net [96.238.39.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9203C3A68BE for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 03:45:31 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: confirm please From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081108114531.9203C3A68BE@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 03:45:31 -0800 (PST)
Click Here!
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.

?2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Sun Nov 9 07:20:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8E53A6989; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 07:20:35 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0EF3A6989 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 07:20:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 yl2RVnyImCeN for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 07:20:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54BBB3A6931 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 07:20:28 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-203.messagelabs.com!1226244024!26174160!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 19713 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2008 15:20:24 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-11.tower-203.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 9 Nov 2008 15:20:24 -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 mA9FKNgU020106 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 07:20:23 -0800 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 mA9FKL3k020098 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 07:20:22 -0800 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 mA9FKLHg000628 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 09:20:21 -0600 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 mA9FKG4L032567 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 09:20:17 -0600 Message-Id: <200811091520.mA9FKG4L032567@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.105.84](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20081109152012gw100nqh1ke>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 15:20:16 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:19:25 -0500 To: ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Tim Polk , Dan Romascanu , Pasi Eronen , ippm-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Use TLS in TWAMP-Control? X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org IPPM folks, At the last IPPM session in Dublin, we had a short discussion on TWAMP security in the context of the various TWAMP extensions proposed there: From http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/minutes/ippm.txt >Discussion about TWAMP security >- Lars: Formerly there were some strong security concerns about OWAMP, > but allowed to go through. Building TWAMP on OWAMP raised those > concerns again. Are extensions like this going to raise more > concerns? What can be done to make security people happier? >- Al: Going to have to ask security people what their concerns are. >- Henk, Stas: Do not have records of reservations from security people. I took the opportunity to discuss the proposed extensions with Pasi Eronen one evening in Dublin. To briefly summarize, Pasi did not have concern with the proposed TWAMP features, but suggested that IPPM take a look at using TLS in the TWAMP Control protocol and assess the interest to implement a TLS-Control option if it were available. I agreed to re-initiate the investigation and discussion, and that's what I'm doing now... I put a few slides together and posted them here temporarily: http://wftp3.itu.int/packet/Background%20Docs/TLS_in_TWAMP_1108.ppt I've only looked at the initial Control session set-up impact. We can discuss this topic on the list, and perhaps if there's time on the IPPM agenda, perhaps we can spend a few minutes there as well. Some of the issues with using TLS in OWAMP-Control are identified in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4656#section-6.6 Another resource is a draft from the NETCONF wg: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-tls-06 This memo describes how to use TLS to secure NETCONF. There are some clear synergies between NETCONF and TWAMP-Control, but 1,$ s/NETCONF/TWAMP-Control/g isn't going to do it for us. :-D regards, Al _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 17 01:19:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFEC3A68FC; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:19:11 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C0F3A68FC for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:19:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] 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 3VGt-pfTWtIg for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:19:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3003:2::4:11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D4C3A6841 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:19:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id D75F61C011F for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:19:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36191C00F6 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:19:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C831FA1D95A for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:19:07 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:19:07 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: ippm@ietf.org Message-ID: <20081117091907.GA6946@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux lenny/sid X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-1-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: [ippm] Anyone implemented storetraceroutes draft? X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [Looking for a software project for the next week-end. It is too rainy to picnic.] Did anyone implemented draft-ietf-ippm-storetraceroutes-12? It does not seem too difficult, using one of the existing free traceroutes but I wonder if it was already done? [No, I am not in Minneapolis.] _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 17 09:07:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1748F28C1CC; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:07:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCB628C1CC for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:07:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] 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 0rK4uk4gYEwB for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:07:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF53E28C1BA for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:06:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L27Ys-0007Wt-E2 for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:06:56 +0100 Received: from RIPE-NCC-101045.local (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B0612F583 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:06:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4921A4AD.2010402@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:06:53 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d59ac56f6692e0805d6052ca10ba77b764 Subject: [ippm] Slides for M'polis meeting X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, If you are presenting tomorrow, then please send me your slides. 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 18 08:38:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21FDA3A6A98; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:38:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDDF3A6A98 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:38:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 eZ0q9FCTtaPy for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:38:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail167.messagelabs.com (mail167.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945053A68D0 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:38:02 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1227026280!8431508!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 31938 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2008 16:38:00 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-3.tower-167.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Nov 2008 16:38:00 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAIGbx8i009479 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:37:59 -0500 Received: from alph001.aldc.att.com (alph001.aldc.att.com [135.53.7.26]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAIGbsnU009411 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:37:54 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mAIGbrPr021061 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:37:54 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mAIGbnas020834 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:37:49 -0500 Message-Id: <200811181637.mAIGbnas020834@alph001.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.96.253](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20081118163748gw1000u69ge>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:37:49 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:37:47 -0500 To: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <49100515.4080906@ripe.net> References: <49100515.4080906@ripe.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ippm] Follow-up on Dublin discussion X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Henk, all, I'd like to make a few suggestions for the charter text. see below, Al At 03:17 AM 11/4/2008, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >... >- - - - > >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. The >metrics are: > > - connectivity > > - one-way delay and loss > > - round-trip delay and loss Comment: it seems that none of IPPM RFCs cover RT loss, section 1 of RFC 2681 says: This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a future companion document for Packet Loss. > - delay variation > > - loss patterns > > - packet reordering > > - bulk transport capacity > > - link bandwidth capacity > > - packet duplication > >It is not expected that new metrics have to be added to this list. Comment: Twice we have listed the "complete set of metrics" in our charter, and then found that we need to expand the list. This is continues to be possible because we have included "derived metrics" in the list (delay variation is a derived metric). So, I'd rather we said something less-final in summary. How about: This is the current set of fundamental metrics, and the existing set of derived metrics. >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, 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, 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 has produced a protocol to enable communication among test equipment >that implements the one- and two-way metrics. I think, because we use two different names and well-known ports, it's more accurate to say: The WG has produced two similar protocols for communication among test equipment that enable one-way and two-way measurements. > ... Further development of these >protocols will be done inside the WG. Suggest: The WG will advance these protocols along the standards track and continue their development. >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. The WG will work on documents describing such >use. > >The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards >bodies and forums (such as T1A1.3, ITU-T SG 12 and SG 13) to promote 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. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 18 08:47:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EEB28C218; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:47:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EEE028C21A for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:47:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 UYDqFitx5f5n for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from irvmail2.verizon.com (irvmail2.verizon.com [192.76.80.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A5A28C218 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtptpa4.verizon.com (smtptpa4.verizon.com [138.83.71.177]) by irvmail2.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mAIGlNle023071; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:47:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from ftwintrmemf2.verizon.com (ftwintrmemf2.verizon.com [138.83.131.184]) by smtptpa4.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mAIGlNEM000870; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:47:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ftwintrmemf2.verizon.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ftwintrmemf2.verizon.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id E620B528003; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:47:22 -0500 (EST) X-AuditID: 8a5383b8-a36bbbb000000647-73-4922f19ae20d Received: from smtptpa3.verizon.com (unknown [138.83.71.176]) by ftwintrmemf2.verizon.com (EMF) with ESMTP id A18854E4003; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:47:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from FHDP1CCMXCG02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.240.34]) by smtptpa3.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mAIGlFQq024870; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:47:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from FHDP1CCMXCV02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.240.12]) by FHDP1CCMXCG02.us.one.verizon.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:47:09 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:46:41 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200811181637.mAIGbnas020834@alph001.aldc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] Follow-up on Dublin discussion Thread-Index: AclJnCDRjEnfCsJMQ1aNh+EQeLHzkAAAFwUw References: <49100515.4080906@ripe.net> <200811181637.mAIGbnas020834@alph001.aldc.att.com> From: "Krzanowski, Roman" To: "Al Morton" , "Henk Uijterwaal" , "IETF IPPM WG" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2008 16:47:09.0641 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C59B390:01C9499D] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: Re: [ippm] Follow-up on Dublin discussion X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0819896773==" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0819896773== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9499D.3B614372" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9499D.3B614372 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Few additional comments on the charter: I think , I may be missing something here that we need some kind of: * availability metric - this is a hot and debated topic.. and I am not sure if we in IPPM have it * there is a need to have a methodology work in out WG - I think.. the charter of IPPM WG could and in my view should include not only what to measure but how to on informational bases - I see it as best practices.. - transfer and dissemination of experience whatever you call it; =20 thx roman =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:38 AM To: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] Follow-up on Dublin discussion =20 Henk, all, =20 I'd like to make a few suggestions for the charter text. =20 see below, Al =20 At 03:17 AM 11/4/2008, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >... >- - - - >=20 >Description of Working Group: >=20 >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. >=20 >Functions peripheral to Internet data delivery services, such as NOC/NIC >services, are beyond the scope of this working group. >=20 >The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and >procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The >metrics are: >=20 > - connectivity >=20 > - one-way delay and loss >=20 > - round-trip delay and loss =20 Comment: it seems that none of IPPM RFCs cover RT loss, section 1 of RFC 2681 says: =20 This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a future companion document for Packet Loss. =20 =20 > - delay variation >=20 > - loss patterns >=20 > - packet reordering >=20 > - bulk transport capacity >=20 > - link bandwidth capacity >=20 > - packet duplication >=20 >It is not expected that new metrics have to be added to this list. =20 Comment: Twice we have listed the "complete set of metrics" in our charter, and then found that we need to expand the list. This is continues to be possible because we have included "derived metrics" in the list (delay variation is a derived metric). So, I'd rather we said something less-final in summary. How about: =20 This is the current set of fundamental metrics, and the existing set of derived metrics. =20 =20 >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, 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, 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. >=20 >The WG has produced a protocol to enable communication among test equipment >that implements the one- and two-way metrics. =20 I think, because we use two different names and well-known ports, it's more accurate to say: =20 The WG has produced two similar protocols for communication among test equipment that enable one-way and two-way measurements. =20 > ... Further development of these >protocols will be done inside the WG. =20 Suggest: The WG will advance these protocols along the standards track and continue their development. =20 =20 >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. The WG will work on documents describing such >use. >=20 >The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards >bodies and forums (such as T1A1.3, ITU-T SG 12 and SG 13) to promote =20 bodies and forums (such as ATIS IIF, ITU-T SG 12, 13 and 15, MEF) to promote =20 >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. =20 _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9499D.3B614372 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Few additional comments on the = charter:

I think , I may be missing something here that we need some kind = of:

·         availability metric - this = is a hot and debated topic.. and I am not sure if we in IPPM have = it

·         there is a need to have a = methodology work in out WG - I think.. the charter of IPPM WG could and in my view = should include not only what to measure but how to on informational bases - I see it as = best practices.. - transfer and dissemination of experience whatever you call = it;

 

thx

roman

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Al Morton
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:38 AM
To: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG
Subject: Re: [ippm] Follow-up on Dublin discussion

 

Henk, all,

 

I'd like to make a few suggestions for the charter = text.

 

see below,

Al

 

At 03:17 AM 11/4/2008, Henk Uijterwaal = wrote:

>...

>- - - -

> 

>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. The

>metrics are:

> 

>   - connectivity

> 

>   - one-way delay and = loss

> 

>   - round-trip delay and = loss

 

Comment: it seems that none of IPPM RFCs cover RT = loss,

section 1 of RFC 2681 says:

 

    This memo is intended to be parallel in = structure to a future

    companion document for Packet = Loss.

 

 

>   - delay variation

> 

>   - loss patterns

> 

>   - packet = reordering

> 

>   - bulk transport = capacity

> 

>   - link bandwidth = capacity

> 

>   - packet = duplication

> 

>It is not expected that new metrics have to be added to this = list.

 

Comment:

Twice we have listed the "complete set of metrics" in = our charter,

and then found that we need to expand the list.  This is = continues

to be possible because we have included "derived = metrics" in the

list (delay variation is a derived metric). So, I'd rather we = said

something less-final in summary.  How = about:

 

This is the current set of fundamental metrics, and the = existing

set of derived metrics.

 

 

>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, 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, 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 has produced a protocol to enable communication among = test equipment

>that implements the one- and two-way = metrics.

 

I think, because we use two different names and well-known = ports, it's more

accurate to say:

 

The WG has produced two similar protocols for communication = among test

equipment that enable one-way and two-way = measurements.

 

>  ... Further development of = these

>protocols will be done inside the = WG.

 

Suggest:

The WG will advance these protocols along the standards = track

and continue their development.

 

 

>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.  The WG will work on documents describing such

>use.

> 

>The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards

>bodies and forums (such as T1A1.3, ITU-T SG 12 and SG 13) to promote

 

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.

 

_______________________________________________=

ippm mailing list

ippm@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9499D.3B614372-- --===============0819896773== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm --===============0819896773==-- From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 19 07:22:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3586E3A6836; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:22:48 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1F93A6805 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:22:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 iof5RyxO2oI7 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:22:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D3A3A67F9 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:22:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CE7B1C011E for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:17:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787641C0101 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:17:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75211A1D95A for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:17:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:17:44 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: IETF IPPM WG Message-ID: <20081119151744.GA26267@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux lenny/sid X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-1-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: [ippm] [store traceroutes] Value of maxOccurs too big in the schema? X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org I tried to use libxml's xmllint checker with the schema of store-traceroutes-12 and it fails: traceroute.xsd:658: element element: Schemas parser error : Element '{http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}element', attribute 'maxOccurs': The value '4294967295' is not valid. Expected is '(xs:nonNegativeInteger | unbounded)'. [This is in: ] Searching if the schema or xmllint was wrong, I discovered that the standard does not put limits to maxOccurs: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/structures.html#p-max_occurs http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/datatypes.html#nonNegativeInteger The standard says "The value space of nonNegativeInteger is the infinite set {0,1,2,...}." Nevertheless, I do not think that many W3C XML Schema implementors used unsigned 32bits or 64bits integers (or bigints) for the value of maxOccurs and I wonder if this value is reasonable (specially since there is little perspective of 4294967295 ...). Would'nt it be better to use maxOccurs="2147483647" or "unbounded"? [I know, the draft is in the RFC editor queue...] _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Nov 20 14:48:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0D43A6876; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:48:30 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEE63A6876 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:48:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.380, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24] 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 0rnmYpp069Ve for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:48:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F5B3A677D for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L3IJy-0006CZ-Ux for ippm@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:48:25 +0100 Received: from RIPE-NCC-101045.local (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF1E2F583 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:48:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4925E930.50405@ripe.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:48:16 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ippm >> IETF IPPM WG" X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5e3e57d0becda0edb777090a67abe8e6a Subject: [ippm] Draft minutes X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, Please find the draft minutes below. I fully admit that I'm pretty bad at taking minutes so comments and additions are more than welcome. Thanks to Chris and Al for their notes. Henk - - - - Minutes of the IPPM meeting. ============================ Date: 18/Nov/2008 Chair: Henk Uijterwaal Minutes: Notes were taken by Christopher J. White and Al Morton, then turned into minutes by Henk Uijterwaal. 1. Administrativia. Henk opened the meeting. Matt Zekauskas sent his apologies as he had to be at another meeting. 2. Current work. 2.a. Status of Draft and Milestones. The TWAMP draft has been published as RFC 5357. The traceroute draft has been cleared for publication and is in the RFC editor queue. Three drafts passed WGLC (Duplicate, MultiMetrics and Packet DV AS). These are waiting for a write-up by the chairs. Unfortunately, the chairs didn't have as much time for IPPM work as they had hoped, so this hasn't happened even though it should. They promised to do this in the coming weeks. 2.b.1. TWAMP extensions. (Al Morton). Draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-00. OWAMP - errata - include "MUST" for matching modes. This is a simple fix supported by the WG. It can be taken to the list for WGLC. 2.b.2. TWAMP Reflect OCTETS Feature (Al Morton) Al presented the draft. Open question: consider change the structure of the TWAMP structure to TLV type structure to make it more extensible. Questions from the floor: Roman Kraznowski said he had some things he'd like to add. He'd post to the list. Kaynam Hedayat asked if the extensions backward are compatible? Al answered, Yes, no problem on either the server or client 2.b.3. TWAMP Features - Individual Session Control Al Morton presented the draft and will take the proposal to the list to see if there is interest. 2.b.4. TWAMP TLS (Al) Al presented the draft. The open question is if TLS will provide better security than the present mechanism. Walt Stevenson commented that he does not see this. The security community has a preference for TLS but so-far, they haven't pointed out why. The chair will take this question to the list, if there isn't sufficient feedback, it will be dropped. 2.c. Reporting Draft None of the authors were in the room to present the draft. The chair will ask the list if there is interest to continue to this effort. Comment by Al Morton - scope renamed to implications for long term reporting, scope was initially very short term, and should remain short. 2.d. Composition Al Morton gave a brief overview of the draft. Roman Kraznowski and Yakov Stein voluntered to read the draft. After that, Al thinks it is finished. Questions from the flow. * Roman K: Forum 2 years back of how to provide metrics for intercontinental, he would provide a reference to work by Kevin Mason. * Roman K: Asked about other temporal / spatial aggregation drafts as they are important for SLAs. Al answered that this is a framework draft, with the details in other drafts. * Yakov Stein said that spatial aggregation is difficult problem mathematically 3. Future work. Henk gave a brief overview of the new charter. He had received some comments by mail and will send out a new version shortly after the meeting. Comments from the floor: * Lars Eggert: Recharter incrementally, add small number of things at a time, rather than large recharting adding multiple things. * Lars: Passive measurements are the most complex, with only a few people interested. Perhaps this should be dropped. * Henk said that there was interested in versions of the IPPM metrics for passive measurements from IPFIX in the past. Brian Tremmel commented that there was currently no active interest. Possible new drafts: * New Network Layer Metrics for Packet Loss, Delay, Delay Variation. Nick Duffield briefly gave a reminder of work shown earlier. * Comments: Al Morton: Delay quantiles are a good thing to estimate, but RFC3550 is a good relative measure but not worth pursuing a detailed statistical pursuit of relative jitter Henk if the goal is standardization then we should get authors from other groups active in this field. Reference to their work was in the slides. Nick agreed. Henk said that this can be picked up as part of the new charter. This requires the new charter to be approved first. 4. AOB Al Morton: consider liasons to other groups to help with problem areas. Take more active role to make sure IPPM is understood properly elsewhere. The chair agreed and asked everybody to report if they see areas where our metrics are being used and support with the interpretation can be useful. 5. The chair then closed the meeting and hoped to see everybody at the next meeting or on the mailing list. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 21 13:30:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B37B3A6A0C; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:30:30 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FC03A6A0C for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:30:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.731, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 RhtRvK+TugEi for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:30:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7491D3A6840 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:30:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L3da0-0004vi-6R for ippm@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:30:22 +0100 Received: from 240.2.241.10.in-addr.arpa (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB04A2F598 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:30:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4926DCEC.2060506@ripe.net> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:08:12 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d56abccc4b45d6139f65c07bc68c2624eb Subject: [ippm] Draft new charter X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org 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". 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, 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 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 21 13:51:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492403A6A01; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:51:43 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0714E3A6A01 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:51:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 0ZhEcz86AUXx for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:51:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718673A6977 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:51:40 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,647,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="28671351" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2008 21:51:38 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mALLpcTa008403; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:51:38 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mALLpcMO021426; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:51:38 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-204.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.25]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:51:38 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:51:37 -0500 Message-ID: <485DAE7D6CDFDB4F918EC902DA90A5950319079B@xmb-rtp-204.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4926DCEC.2060506@ripe.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] Draft new charter Thread-Index: AclMIGSUPXkcIoIbQJu6uCWeof/MtgAAiEeQ References: <4926DCEC.2060506@ripe.net> From: "Jay Karthik (jakarthi)" To: "Henk Uijterwaal" , "IETF IPPM WG" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2008 21:51:38.0500 (UTC) FILETIME=[54AD9C40:01C94C23] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5018; t=1227304298; x=1228168298; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jakarthi@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Jay=20Karthik=20(jakarthi)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20Draft=20new=20charter |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Henk=20Uijterwaal=22=20,=20=22IETF =20IPPM=20WG=22=20; bh=iLbKabxhwRPjfcTu1pTcbSeaM0fNCk8RfGN9TK3rIuU=; b=X8FYP6OnGvUhgZoasWvoTB9vHksPsfISkRJwaLsWAocntS4qJV5uOileBF juG0N05VI6WA4uyW4RjuRHO+FTx7WzEQq8qOcFEzQ+86wGQN6g8x9XNFqc7N U0aSlv02KS; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jakarthi@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft new charter X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi Henk, Was wondering if "Packet Replication" would be considered in scope of this WG. Packet Replication, is the ability of a branch node in a point-to-multipoint environment (Label Switched Multicast) to replicate incoming packets and then routing/switching them to their destinations. Other than this, "yes, I've read this and it looks fine". Thanks, Jay -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 11:08 AM To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] Draft new charter 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". 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, 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 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Sun Nov 23 23:38:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934223A679F; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:38:50 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C293A679F for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:38:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 fnAZl0-lzqB8 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:38:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail12.telekom.de (tcmail12.telekom.de [217.5.214.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D26483A6405 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:38:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de (S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de [10.151.180.166]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:38:41 +0100 Received: from S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.10]) by S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:38:41 +0100 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:38:38 +0100 Message-Id: <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1C020B5D67@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: <4926DCEC.2060506@ripe.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: thread-topic: [ippm] Draft new charter thread-index: AclMIGpedd4AKRr3QVqlpELp8MxgFQB5yDBw References: <4926DCEC.2060506@ripe.net> From: "Geib, Ruediger" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2008 07:38:41.0395 (UTC) FILETIME=[ABFC5C30:01C94E07] Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft new charter X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi Henk, yes, your proposed text looks fine. Regards, Ruediger -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:08 PM To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] Draft new charter 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". 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, 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 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Sun Nov 23 23:47:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5511D3A68B3; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:47:08 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFCA3A68B3 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:47:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 dwvAbeAtIEu0 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:47:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978083A6405 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:47:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L4W9q-0004jA-UL; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:47:01 +0100 Received: from RIPE-NCC-101045.local (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D372F592; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:46:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <492A5BF1.3040102@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:46:57 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jay Karthik (jakarthi)" References: <4926DCEC.2060506@ripe.net> <485DAE7D6CDFDB4F918EC902DA90A5950319079B@xmb-rtp-204.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <485DAE7D6CDFDB4F918EC902DA90A5950319079B@xmb-rtp-204.amer.cisco.com> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d594fcefacc82c435feb20b1312a8beaa8 Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft new charter X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi Jay, > Was wondering if "Packet Replication" would be considered in scope of > this WG. > > Packet Replication, is the ability of a branch node in a > point-to-multipoint environment (Label Switched Multicast) to replicate > incoming packets and then routing/switching them to their destinations. I'm a little bit puzzled how this would fit into the IPPM WG. It looks like a property of a device, not something related to IP performance. Please explain. 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 24 03:38:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A27F3A67D0; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:38:11 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CA93A67D0 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:38:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 Mj72fSkRskWc for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:38:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail115.messagelabs.com (mail115.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E70073A67B4 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:38:08 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: L.Liang@surrey.ac.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-115.messagelabs.com!1227526680!37168533!7 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [131.227.102.140] Received: (qmail 26412 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2008 11:38:03 -0000 Received: from ads40.surrey.ac.uk (HELO ads40.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.102.140) by server-6.tower-115.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 24 Nov 2008 11:38:03 -0000 Received: from EVS-EC1-NODE1.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.102.136]) by ads40.surrey.ac.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:38:01 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:38:04 -0000 Message-ID: <9AAD79EF034F824CA410417194F5F987097BB3@EVS-EC1-NODE1.surrey.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <4926DCEC.2060506@ripe.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] Draft new charter Thread-Index: AclMIJIFKA8UnLxCRQmFHhAJmtHssQCB10PA From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2008 11:38:01.0031 (UTC) FILETIME=[1AFEED70:01C94E29] Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft new charter X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Henk, I went through the new charter and it looks fine. Thanks a lot for your effort. However, I didn't find explicit interest in multiple points of measurement as addressed in the multimetrics, neither for de/composition metrics. Is it because the relevant work is considered done? Cheers, Lei -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: 21 November 2008 16:08 To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] Draft new charter 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". 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, 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 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 24 06:00:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0EB3A696F; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:00:10 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC453A696F for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:00:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 bs5GffQNYN0v for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:00:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543483A690B for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:00:08 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1227535204!20383259!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 7630 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2008 14:00:05 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-2.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Nov 2008 14:00:05 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAOE04Gr007491 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:00:04 -0500 Received: from alph001.aldc.att.com (alph001.aldc.att.com [135.53.7.26]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAOE00AN007443 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:00:00 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mAOE0015001068 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:00:00 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mAODxtYJ001023 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:59:56 -0500 Message-Id: <200811241359.mAODxtYJ001023@alph001.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (dyp004244dys.mt.att.com[135.16.251.219](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20081124135955gw1000u69ce>; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:59:55 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:59:55 -0500 To: Henk Uijterwaal , "Jay Karthik (jakarthi)" From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <492A5BF1.3040102@ripe.net> References: <4926DCEC.2060506@ripe.net> <485DAE7D6CDFDB4F918EC902DA90A5950319079B@xmb-rtp-204.amer.cisco.com> <492A5BF1.3040102@ripe.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft new charter X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org An answer might be that the multiparty metrics draft covers intentional replication, because we intend to observe the same source packet at multiple destinations. Al At 02:46 AM 11/24/2008, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >Hi Jay, > >>Was wondering if "Packet Replication" would be considered in scope of >>this WG. >>Packet Replication, is the ability of a branch node in a >>point-to-multipoint environment (Label Switched Multicast) to replicate >>incoming packets and then routing/switching them to their destinations. > >I'm a little bit puzzled how this would fit into the IPPM WG. It looks >like a property of a device, not something related to IP performance. >Please explain. > >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 >ippm@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From kelly@amacom.nu Mon Nov 24 06:10:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42BF73A69C4 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:10:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -44.689 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-44.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE=2.809, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, 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 oXKtJCymQRR3 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:10:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from agitatorless-back.volia.net (agitatorless-back.volia.net [77.122.189.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 190793A698E for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:09:55 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: You see, they like large ones From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081124141001.190793A698E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:09:55 -0800 (PST)
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.

2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
From ippm-interest@cisco.com Mon Nov 24 08:24:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AAB3A6A26 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:24:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -39.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-39.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.097, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, TVD_RCVD_SINGLE=1.351, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, 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 36QbssKKZLOY for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:24:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from GTBUCH (unknown [213.79.100.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C24F3A69F9 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:24:27 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [00.9.6.01] X-Originating-Email: [ippm-archive@ietf.org] X-Sender: ippm-archive@ietf.org Received: (qmail 11054 by uid 882); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:24:26 +0300 Message-Id: <20081124102426.11056.qmail@GTBUCH> To: Subject: RE: MedHelp id 8103982 From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:24:27 -0800 (PST)
From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 24 10:24:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8CA3A695A; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:24:54 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF863A695A for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:24:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 8HtGLa+rq7eM for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from irvmail2.verizon.com (irvmail2.verizon.com [192.76.80.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BA63A68A9 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtptpa3.verizon.com (smtptpa3.verizon.com [138.83.71.176]) by irvmail2.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mAOIOmGi017647; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:24:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from ftwccout01.verizon.com (ftwccout01.verizon.com [138.83.131.134]) by smtptpa3.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mAOIOln7015691; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ftwccout01.verizon.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ftwccout01.verizon.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id B59BF528004; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:24:47 -0500 (EST) X-AuditID: 8a538386-ab4febb0000063b1-3b-492af16f710f Received: from smtpftw3.verizon.com (unknown [138.83.140.92]) by ftwccout01.verizon.com (EMF) with ESMTP id 969FC4E4003; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from FHDP1CCMXCG02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.240.34]) by smtpftw3.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mAOIOkOn006941; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from FHDP1CCMXCV02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.240.12]) by FHDP1CCMXCG02.us.one.verizon.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:24:47 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:24:46 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1C020B5D67@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] Draft new charter Thread-Index: AclMIGpedd4AKRr3QVqlpELp8MxgFQB5yDBwABZvG3A= References: <4926DCEC.2060506@ripe.net> <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1C020B5D67@S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de> From: "Krzanowski, Roman" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2008 18:24:47.0304 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE44A480:01C94E61] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft new charter X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Things that maybe included ( or already implicitely are ) Best practicies - recommendations burst measurement Contribution to avalability metric even a statement from the IPPM WG on WG position on it - We need to list composition/decomposition metrics Cetrification of metric/methods Support for work related in PWE or other WGs on related topics With or without my comments the charter as is - is a fine work rmk I would review the existing drafts and to cleanup on some of them -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Geib, Ruediger Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:39 AM To: henk@ripe.net Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft new charter Hi Henk, yes, your proposed text looks fine. Regards, Ruediger -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:08 PM To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] Draft new charter 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". 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, 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 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ 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 ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From juanakellycitrus@advantageoffice.net Wed Nov 26 04:40:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B131828C12E for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:40:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -85.786 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-85.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, 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 uPKq5Zk5q8DK for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:40:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from alrov.co.il (unknown [189.105.138.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E0DB3A694A for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:40:22 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081126124024.1E0DB3A694A@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:40:22 -0800 (PST) Click here to view as a webpage From mario.spedale@alice.it Wed Nov 26 09:01:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572BA3A6C60 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:01:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.071 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.071 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P=2.144, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL=1.495, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, 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 uhVYN8EdgZtc for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-96-238-50-10.prvdri.fios.verizon.net (pool-96-238-50-10.prvdri.fios.verizon.net [96.238.50.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3DD703A6BCB for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:01:28 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081126170129.3DD703A6BCB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:01:28 -0800 (PST) Click here to view as a webpage From karies-dreizackj@ampel.mailnet.dyndns.biz Wed Nov 26 14:34:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD2628C24C for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:34:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -33.639 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-33.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE=2.809, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, 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 ItfR7oTLi6ZT for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:34:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from athedsl-18833.home.otenet.gr (athedsl-220796.home.otenet.gr [85.74.182.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 054B93A6914 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:34:00 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Bank safety rating From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081126223401.054B93A6914@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:34:00 -0800 (PST)
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.

2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
From nickbulld@amicusattorney.com Wed Nov 26 18:25:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0D028C129 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:25:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -25.96 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-25.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, 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 rwVvI77hLtfd for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:25:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from adsl-69-210-57-226.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net (adsl-69-210-57-226.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net [69.210.57.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 057CC3A67AF for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:25:06 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081127022507.057CC3A67AF@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:25:06 -0800 (PST) Click here to view as a webpage From kaqv@aldebaran.co.uk Wed Nov 26 22:01:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31663A6A35 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:01:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.044 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE=2.809, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, 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 XEqNCnjcDrul for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:01:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from d192-24-130-13.try.wideopenwest.com (d192-24-130-13.try.wideopenwest.com [24.192.13.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 50F4A3A6A8A for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:01:01 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: hard attack From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081127060102.50F4A3A6A8A@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:01:01 -0800 (PST)
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.

2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
From nfowler@acroprint.com Thu Nov 27 16:52:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBBB3A6826 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:52:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -22.005 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE=2.809, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, 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 wkR9-cshxBhL for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from 87-205-60-158.adsl.inetia.pl (87-205-60-158.adsl.inetia.pl [87.205.60.158]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 229893A680C for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:51:54 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: take every cutie easily From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081128005156.229893A680C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:51:54 -0800 (PST)
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.

2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
From nldelgado@acobo.com Sat Nov 29 14:47:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DA93A689D for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:47:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -40.628 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-40.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE=2.809, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, 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 ZjOqya9n2kQW for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:47:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from d56-200.icpnet.pl (d56-200.icpnet.pl [77.65.56.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E3AE3A6C23 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:46:50 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: "I wanted them to take care of kid" From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081129224652.3E3AE3A6C23@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:46:50 -0800 (PST)
About this mailing:
You are receiving this e-mail because you subscribed to MSN Featured Offers. Microsoft respects your privacy. If you do not wish to receive this MSN Featured Offers e-mail, please click the "Unsubscribe" link below. This will not unsubscribe you from e-mail communications from third-party advertisers that may appear in MSN Feature Offers. This shall not constitute an offer by MSN. MSN shall not be responsible or liable for the advertisers' content nor any of the goods or service advertised. Prices and item availability subject to change without notice.

2008 Microsoft | Unsubscribe | More Newsletters | Privacy

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
From lisa_n_brown@adp.com Sat Nov 29 21:08:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C54E3A69A7 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:08:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.506 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, 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 EB7iAATAdooQ for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:07:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from 189-11-88-98.ctame700.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br (189-11-88-98.ctame700.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br [189.11.88.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3077B3A68F1 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:07:16 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081130050730.3077B3A68F1@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:07:16 -0800 (PST) Click here to view as a webpage.