From henk@ripe.net Mon May 3 02:06:10 2010 Return-Path: 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 64A333A676A for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 02:06:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.058, BAYES_05=-1.11] 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 3Xcim+cPukTB for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 02:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:610:240:11::c100:1341]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0338A3A698B for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 02:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dodo.ripe.net ([193.0.1.102]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1O8raw-0006ym-P9 for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2010 11:05:53 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=dhcp-26-110.ripemtg.ripe.net) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1O8raw-0006rk-KO for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2010 11:05:42 +0200 Message-ID: <4BDE91E6.3040303@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 11:05:42 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <20100428001059.87143bf9.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> <4BD94BEF.9050801@ripe.net> <20100429215423.fe1f2ac4.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> In-Reply-To: <20100429215423.fe1f2ac4.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5fa43cf4ba4a271ff8454754ec8adee6e X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5fa43cf4ba4a271ff8454754ec8adee6e Subject: Re: [ippm] RFC 2679 : comment on time handling 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 09:06:10 -0000 Jeroma, > There's a lot of details I've skipped but I wanted to expose the > general idea. So, if I get this right: 1. S1 asks A1 to send a packet D1 from now. 2. A1 waits for D1 seconds 3. S1 knows that the packet must have left at T1=T(a1)+D1 4. A1 sends packet at T(a1)+d1 5. Packet arrives at T2. 6. S1 assumes T(a1) == T(s1). 7. Wire-time = T2 - T1 = T2 - T(a1) - D1 This is correct if all clocks run at exactly the same speed, that is, T(s1)=T(a1). If the clock at A1 runs slow (or fast), this won't be correct anymore. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From root@core3.amsl.com Mon May 3 05:45:01 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 788CA3A6A79; Mon, 3 May 2010 05:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100503124501.788CA3A6A79@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 05:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-01.txt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 12:45:01 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. Title : TCP Throughput Testing Methodology Author(s) : B. Constantine, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-01.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2010-05-03 This memo describes a methodology for measuring sustained TCP throughput performance in an end-to-end managed network environment. This memo is intended to provide a practical approach to help users validate the TCP layer performance of a managed network, which should provide a better indication of end-user application level experience. In the methodology, various TCP and network parameters are identified that should be tested as part of the network verification at the TCP layer. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-05-03054354.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From gilles.forget@sympatico.ca Mon May 3 07:19:30 2010 Return-Path: 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 C31D23A67E5 for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 07:19:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.304 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] 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 3zCpKrJSQG5D for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 07:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blu0-omc4-s7.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s7.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA53B3A6CE4 for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 07:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU0-SMTP83 ([65.55.111.137]) by blu0-omc4-s7.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 May 2010 07:19:13 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.228.82.211] X-Originating-Email: [gilles.forget@sympatico.ca] Message-ID: Received: from gforgetT400 ([64.228.82.211]) by BLU0-SMTP83.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 May 2010 07:19:13 -0700 From: "Gilles Forget" To: Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 10:19:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01CAEAAA.14E71970" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acrqy5q5kzZe2UBGTwuAAM9TcD0hiw== Content-Language: en-ca X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2010 14:19:13.0451 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B13D7B0:01CAEACB] Subject: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-01.txt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 14:19:30 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01CAEAAA.14E71970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HI everybody, I just want to confirm my strong support to this latest draft. During the last 10 years of my career working for a network service provider as well as during the last 2 years working as an independent consultant I have seen so many occasions where business customers would complain about not getting the subscribed TCP/IP throughput from their network service providers. Most of the time, these situations are leading to completely unproductive finger pointing behaviours. I am convinced that the guidelines included in this draft will favour the creation of very useful testing tools. In turn these new tools will permit very important productivity gains to all of the Information Technology sectors. Thanks. Gilles Forget, CCNP. T : 450-473-5718 C : 514-895-8212 @ : gilles.forget@sympatico.ca ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01CAEAAA.14E71970 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HI = everybody,

 

I just want to confirm my strong = support to this latest draft.

 

During the last 10 years of my = career working for a network service provider as well as during the last 2 = years working as an independent consultant  I have seen so many occasions = where business customers would complain about not getting the subscribed = TCP/IP throughput from their network service providers.

Most of the time, these = situations are leading to completely unproductive finger pointing = behaviours.

 

I am convinced that the = guidelines included in this draft will favour the creation of very useful testing tools. =

In turn these new tools will = permit very important productivity gains to all of the Information Technology = sectors.

 

Thanks.

 

Gilles Forget, = CCNP.

T : = 450-473-5718

C : = 514-895-8212

@ : gilles.forget@sympatico.ca=

 

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01CAEAAA.14E71970-- From Barry.Constantine@jdsu.com Mon May 3 08:38:29 2010 Return-Path: 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 836C13A69F8 for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 08:38:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Zq5jlj86xn9N for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 08:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og104.obsmtp.com (exprod7og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 79DB83A6D23 for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 08:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([209.36.247.245]) by exprod7ob104.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS97t5D1Qa/sC95qdGvW0Y8h30B5w6iKo@postini.com; Mon, 03 May 2010 08:38:12 PDT Received: from milexhtca1.ds.jdsu.net ([10.75.2.121]) by Outbound2.jdsu.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 3 May 2010 08:29:05 -0700 Received: from MILEXCH1.ds.jdsu.net ([fe80::6444:f010:6d40:bdb]) by milexhtca1.ds.jdsu.net ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 3 May 2010 08:29:05 -0700 From: Barry Constantine To: IETF IPPM WG Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 08:29:03 -0700 Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-01.txt Thread-Index: Acrq1VzPDvsbDkopT365IRuomQ0jwQ== Message-ID: <94DEE80C63F7D34F9DC9FE69E39436BE3858682D3E@MILEXCH1.ds.jdsu.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94DEE80C63F7D34F9DC9FE69E39436BE3858682D3EMILEXCH1dsjds_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2010 15:29:05.0317 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D9FD550:01CAEAD5] Subject: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-01.txt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 15:38:29 -0000 --_000_94DEE80C63F7D34F9DC9FE69E39436BE3858682D3EMILEXCH1dsjds_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello All, Thank you all for very good comments and suggestions during the Anaheim ses= sion. The new version of draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-01.txt has been upload= ed and the comments from Anaheim have been incorporated. A quick summary of the changes include: - Defined TCP testing in the context of operational networks - Added other "pre-TCP testing" Layer 2 / 3 testing techniques (othe= r than RFC2544) - Clarified the use of the term SLA in the context of network instal= lation and turn-up of services - Specified general requirements for the test element performance (g= eneral purpose computers versus dedicated communication testers) - Added some examples (and placeholders) for results interpretation Next steps: a test lab is in place and will be used to further refine the d= raft methodology. The lab consists of a representative 10Gig operator netw= ork, including a network impairment simulator. Hope to publish -02 in the next couple of weeks. Thanks, Barry Principal Member of Technical Staff JDSU Communication Test (formerly Acterna) Emerging Markets and Technology Research One Milestone Center Court Germantown, MD 20876 (W) 240-404-2227 (C) 301-325-7069 --_000_94DEE80C63F7D34F9DC9FE69E39436BE3858682D3EMILEXCH1dsjds_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello All,

 

Thank you all for very good comments and suggestions dur= ing the Anaheim session.

 

The new version of draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-01.= txt has been uploaded and the comments from Anaheim have been incorporated.

 

A quick summary of the changes include:

 

-      =   Defined TCP testing in the con= text of operational networks

-      =   Added other “pre-TCP testing” Layer 2 / 3 testing techniques (other than RFC2544)

-      =   Clarified the use of the term = SLA in the context of network installation and turn= -up of services

-      =   Specified general requirements= for the test element performance (general purpose computers versus dedicated communication testers)

-      =   Added some examples (and placeholders) for results interpretation

 

Next steps: a test lab is in place and will be used to further refine the draft methodology.  The lab consists of a representative 10Gig operator network, including a network impairment simulator. 

 

Hope to publish -02 in the next couple of weeks.

 

Thanks,

Barry

 

Principal Member of Technical Staff

 

JDSU Communication Test (formerly Acterna)

Emerging Markets and Technology Research         =

One Milestone Center Court    &n= bsp;            = ;             <= o:p>

Germantown<= /ns0:City>, = MD <= /span>20876    &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;           <= o:p>

(W) 240-404-2227          &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;           

(C) 301-325-7069

 

--_000_94DEE80C63F7D34F9DC9FE69E39436BE3858682D3EMILEXCH1dsjds_-- From jerome.benoit@grenouille.com Tue May 4 07:25:56 2010 Return-Path: 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 04F833A6C45 for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 07:25:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.365 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 fvPddm62DvBX for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 07:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laposte.grenouille.com (ns37873.ovh.net [91.121.8.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C611128C18C for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 07:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by laposte.grenouille.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD287F1EA for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 16:22:14 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: spam & virus filtering at laposte.grenouille.com Received: from laposte.grenouille.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ns37873.ovh.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCaLUhiP2RlH for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 16:22:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nemesis.grenouille.com (bea13-2-82-239-143-199.fbx.proxad.net [82.239.143.199]) by laposte.grenouille.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED2A7F158 for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 16:22:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by nemesis.grenouille.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 292B8606EF for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 16:22:12 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 16:22:11 +0200 From: Jerome Benoit To: ippm@ietf.org Message-Id: <20100504162211.ca2bed95.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> In-Reply-To: <4BDE91E6.3040303@ripe.net> References: <20100428001059.87143bf9.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> <4BD94BEF.9050801@ripe.net> <20100429215423.fe1f2ac4.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> <4BDE91E6.3040303@ripe.net> Organization: grenouille.com X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__4_May_2010_16_22_11_+0200_ClpdESFYcCtVdiFS" Subject: Re: [ippm] RFC 2679 : comment on time handling 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 14:25:56 -0000 --Signature=_Tue__4_May_2010_16_22_11_+0200_ClpdESFYcCtVdiFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le Mon, 03 May 2010 11:05:42 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal a =E9crit : > Jeroma, >=20 > > There's a lot of details I've skipped but I wanted to expose the > > general idea. >=20 > So, if I get this right: >=20 > 1. S1 asks A1 to send a packet D1 from now. > 2. A1 waits for D1 seconds ^ + Error > 3. S1 knows that the packet must have left at T1=3DT(a1)+D1 + E1 where E1 represent the deviation computed via the time inaccuracy calibration mechanism (which might be not easy to compute from a statistical analysis, I do not know yet).=20 > 4. A1 sends packet at T(a1)+d1 > 5. Packet arrives at T2. > 6. S1 assumes T(a1) =3D=3D T(s1). ^ + Error > 7. Wire-time =3D T2 - T1 =3D T2 - T(a1) - D1 >=20 > This is correct if all clocks run at exactly the same speed, that is,=20 > T(s1)=3DT(a1). If the clock at A1 runs slow (or fast), this won't be > correct anymore. Well, having the same clock speed on S1 and agents will probably minimize the deviation.=20 The deviation will be the hard part is this scheme : - inaccuracy with packet travel time will be part of it; - server clock inaccuracy will also be part of it; - agent clock inaccuracy will also be part of it.=20 - runtime ...=20 Yes, that's a lot to aggregate, it should probably be easier to implement a simple NTP client in agents et standard mechanisms to compute on agent the clock inaccuracy :) Regards, --=20 J=E9r=F4me Benoit aka fraggle La M=E9t=E9o du Net - http://grenouille.com OpenPGP Key ID : 9FE9161D Key fingerprint : 9CA4 0249 AF57 A35B 34B3 AC15 FAA0 CB50 9FE9 161D --Signature=_Tue__4_May_2010_16_22_11_+0200_ClpdESFYcCtVdiFS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkvgLZQACgkQ+qDLUJ/pFh2TzACgvxWWaswkaa8mZ7jBaz40GW2c RFcAoJwirmy50KrKCJuUpCg9gecGFdG/ =FZJZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__4_May_2010_16_22_11_+0200_ClpdESFYcCtVdiFS-- From henk@ripe.net Tue May 4 11:10:00 2010 Return-Path: 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 05E213A67AF for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 11:10:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.913 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.686, 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 kXpFMHaPbc-U for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 11:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:610:240:11::c100:1342]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73903A6882 for ; Tue, 4 May 2010 11:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dodo.ripe.net ([193.0.1.102]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1O9MYX-0008G0-Cz; Tue, 04 May 2010 20:09:22 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=dhcp-26-110.ripemtg.ripe.net) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1O9MYK-0003Mt-N9; Tue, 04 May 2010 20:09:17 +0200 Message-ID: <4BE05690.4010406@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 19:17:04 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jerome Benoit References: <20100428001059.87143bf9.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> <4BD94BEF.9050801@ripe.net> <20100429215423.fe1f2ac4.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> <4BDE91E6.3040303@ripe.net> <20100504162211.ca2bed95.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> In-Reply-To: <20100504162211.ca2bed95.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5bc8181c9392e7cab9b201f6c6da32cda X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5bc8181c9392e7cab9b201f6c6da32cda Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] RFC 2679 : comment on time handling 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 18:10:00 -0000 On 04/05/2010 16:22, Jerome Benoit wrote: > Yes, that's a lot to aggregate, it should probably be easier to > implement a simple NTP client in agents et standard mechanisms to > compute on agent the clock inaccuracy :) This is exactly my point. By the time you start putting a simple NTP client on the agents, you start synchronizing the clock to external source(s) and might as well go the whole way to do the synchronization properly. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From root@core3.amsl.com Tue May 18 06:30:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id E8A353A6B41; Tue, 18 May 2010 06:30:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100518133001.E8A353A6B41@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 06:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-02.txt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 13:30:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. Title : TCP Throughput Testing Methodology Author(s) : B. Constantine, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-02.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2010-05-18 This memo describes a methodology for measuring sustained TCP throughput performance in an end-to-end managed network environment. This memo is intended to provide a practical approach to help users validate the TCP layer performance of a managed network, which should provide a better indication of end-user application level experience. In the methodology, various TCP and network parameters are identified that should be tested as part of the network verification at the TCP layer. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-05-18061826.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From gilles.forget@sympatico.ca Tue May 18 07:28:22 2010 Return-Path: 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 022953A681D; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:28:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.554 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.750, BAYES_50=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] 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 V3KfPCF9vqsu; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blu0-omc2-s2.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s2.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.77]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092DE3A6C4F; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU0-SMTP98 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s2.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 18 May 2010 07:22:45 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.228.82.71] X-Originating-Email: [gilles.forget@sympatico.ca] Message-ID: Received: from gforgetT400 ([64.228.82.71]) by BLU0-SMTP98.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 18 May 2010 07:22:45 -0700 From: "Gilles Forget" To: , References: <20100518133001.E8A353A6B41@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20100518133001.E8A353A6B41@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:22:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acr2jkLMHgrzQ3HfRBW9dg/LavleVQABzTkw Content-Language: en-ca X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2010 14:22:45.0161 (UTC) FILETIME=[95767990:01CAF695] Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-02.txt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:28:22 -0000 Bonjour Barry, I'm not sure about the first paragraph of the Path MTU section. To be more specific, I think that the words between parentheses should be replace by : (at what packet length will fragmentation start to occur) 3.1. Determine Network Path MTU TCP implementations should use Path MTU Discovery techniques (PMTUD), but this technique does not always prove reliable in real world situations. Since PMTUD relies on ICMP messages (to inform the host that unfragmented transmission cannot occur), it's not always reliable since many network managers completely disable ICMP. Thanks, Gilles Forget, CCNP. -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Sent: May-18-10 9:30 AM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-02.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. Title : TCP Throughput Testing Methodology Author(s) : B. Constantine, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-02.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2010-05-18 This memo describes a methodology for measuring sustained TCP throughput performance in an end-to-end managed network environment. This memo is intended to provide a practical approach to help users validate the TCP layer performance of a managed network, which should provide a better indication of end-user application level experience. In the methodology, various TCP and network parameters are identified that should be tested as part of the network verification at the TCP layer. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Mon May 24 20:48:45 2010 Return-Path: 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 7E0FB3A6861 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 20:48:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.137 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.337, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-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 FwXd236syQvQ for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 20:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827803A67EE for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 20:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E7EDCE0655; Mon, 24 May 2010 20:48:36 -0700 (PDT) To: khedayat@brixnet.com, roman.krzanowski@verizon.com, acmorton@att.com, kyum@juniper.net, babiarz@nortel.com, ietfdbh@comcast.net, lars.eggert@nokia.com, henk@ripe.net, matt@internet2.edu From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20100525034836.E7EDCE0655@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 20:48:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 May 2010 02:20:38 -0700 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, credoo@seznam.cz, ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5357 (2288) 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 03:48:45 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5357, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5357&eid=2288 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Martin Section: SSL Original Text ------------- Support CC }()); Corrected Text --------------
Notes ----- Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5357 (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09) -------------------------------------- Title : A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Publication Date : October 2008 Author(s) : K. Hedayat, R. Krzanowski, A. Morton, K. Yum, J. Babiarz Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Performance Metrics Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Mon May 24 20:49:56 2010 Return-Path: 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 22C363A6990 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 20:49:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.727 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.727, BAYES_50=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 EIZu6fmhWMq8 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 20:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3723A6978 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 20:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id BFE8CE0674; Mon, 24 May 2010 20:49:47 -0700 (PDT) To: khedayat@brixnet.com, roman.krzanowski@verizon.com, acmorton@att.com, kyum@juniper.net, babiarz@nortel.com, ietfdbh@comcast.net, lars.eggert@nokia.com, henk@ripe.net, matt@internet2.edu From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20100525034947.BFE8CE0674@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 20:49:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 May 2010 02:20:40 -0700 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, credoo@seznam.cz, ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5357 (2289) 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 03:49:56 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5357, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5357&eid=2289 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Martin Section: SSL Original Text ------------- Support CC Corrected Text -------------- Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Uveďte autora-Neužívejte dílo komerčně-Nezasahujte do díla 3.0 Unported License Notes ----- Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5357 (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09) -------------------------------------- Title : A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Publication Date : October 2008 Author(s) : K. Hedayat, R. Krzanowski, A. Morton, K. Yum, J. Babiarz Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Performance Metrics Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From henk@ripe.net Tue May 25 02:03:39 2010 Return-Path: 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 65FC93A699E for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 02:03:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.179, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6] 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 4hhZYfklkjHQ for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 02:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:610:240:11::c100:1341]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25613A6AA9 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 02:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.1.103]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OGq2f-0004JZ-Mb; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:03:24 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=geir.local) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OGq2f-0000TP-FR; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:03:17 +0200 Message-ID: <4BFB9255.4040309@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:03:17 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RFC Errata System References: <20100525034836.E7EDCE0655@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20100525034836.E7EDCE0655@rfc-editor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5f1001b2c12d54489c104082d9234dd50 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5f1001b2c12d54489c104082d9234dd50 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 May 2010 02:20:32 -0700 Cc: acmorton@att.com, ippm@ietf.org, babiarz@nortel.com, credoo@seznam.cz, roman.krzanowski@verizon.com, kyum@juniper.net, matt@internet2.edu, ietfdbh@comcast.net Subject: Re: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5357 (2288) 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 09:03:39 -0000 Martin, Can you please explain this and the next errata? I cannot find the original text in the document. Henk On 25/05/2010 05:48, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5357, > "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5357&eid=2288 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Martin > > Section: SSL > > Original Text > ------------- > Support CC > > }()); > > > > > > Corrected Text > -------------- >
> > > > > > Notes > ----- > > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5357 (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09) > -------------------------------------- > Title : A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) > Publication Date : October 2008 > Author(s) : K. Hedayat, R. Krzanowski, A. Morton, K. Yum, J. Babiarz > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : IP Performance Metrics > Area : Transport > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From bortzmeyer@nic.fr Tue May 25 02:42:52 2010 Return-Path: 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 B1F773A6AF2 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 02:42:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 8dYbGWBtzDcF for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 02:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83DA23A6D64 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 02:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 783CF1C009D; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:37:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722F01C0026; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:37:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652086C0001; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:37:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:37:41 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Henk Uijterwaal Message-ID: <20100525093741.GA29499@nic.fr> References: <20100525034836.E7EDCE0655@rfc-editor.org> <4BFB9255.4040309@ripe.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BFB9255.4040309@ripe.net> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.4 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-2-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 27 May 2010 03:04:59 -0700 Cc: acmorton@att.com, ippm@ietf.org, babiarz@nortel.com, credoo@seznam.cz, roman.krzanowski@verizon.com, kyum@juniper.net, matt@internet2.edu, ietfdbh@comcast.net, RFC Errata System Subject: Re: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5357 (2288) 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 09:42:52 -0000 On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:03:17AM +0200, Henk Uijterwaal wrote a message of 101 lines which said: > Can you please explain this and the next errata? It really looks like spam in the errata reporting system. From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Tue May 25 04:42:11 2010 Return-Path: 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 23B163A6FA8 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 04:42:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.416 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-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 07eSRvbgHZYa for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 04:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3492B3A6B8B for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 04:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 482DDE0682; Tue, 25 May 2010 04:42:02 -0700 (PDT) To: khedayat@brixnet.com, roman.krzanowski@verizon.com, Al Morton , kyum@juniper.net, Jozef Babiarz , David Harrington , Lars Eggert , henk@ripe.net, matt@internet2.edu From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20100525114202.482DDE0682@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 04:42:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 27 May 2010 03:04:59 -0700 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, credoo@seznam.cz, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5357 (2288) 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:42:11 -0000 FYI, the report below has been deleted because junk was submitted. RFC Editor/ah On May 24, 2010, at 11:48 PM, RFC Errata System wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5357, > "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5357&eid=2288 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Martin > > Section: SSL > > Original Text > ------------- > Support CC > }()); > > > > Corrected Text > -------------- >
> > > > Notes > ----- > > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5357 (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09) > -------------------------------------- > Title : A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) > Publication Date : October 2008 > Author(s) : K. Hedayat, R. Krzanowski, A. Morton, K. Yum, J. Babiarz > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : IP Performance Metrics > Area : Transport > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Tue May 25 04:42:21 2010 Return-Path: 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 3FC0C3A6B6B for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 04:42:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.809 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.623, BAYES_40=-0.185, NO_RELAYS=-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 QgDFlt1ULEJi for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 04:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C313A6B8B for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 04:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id BAD3FE0689; Tue, 25 May 2010 04:42:11 -0700 (PDT) To: khedayat@brixnet.com, roman.krzanowski@verizon.com, Al Morton , kyum@juniper.net, Jozef Babiarz , David Harrington , Lars Eggert , henk@ripe.net, matt@internet2.edu From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20100525114211.BAD3FE0689@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 04:42:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 27 May 2010 03:04:59 -0700 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, credoo@seznam.cz, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5357 (2289) 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:42:21 -0000 FYI, the report below has been deleted because junk was submitted. RFC Editor/ah On May 24, 2010, at 11:49 PM, RFC Errata System wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5357, > "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5357&eid=2289 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Martin > > Section: SSL > > Original Text > ------------- > Support CC > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Uveďte autora-Neuıívejte dĂ­lo komerčně-Nezasahujte do dĂ­la 3.0 Unported License > > Notes > ----- > > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5357 (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09) > -------------------------------------- > Title : A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) > Publication Date : October 2008 > Author(s) : K. Hedayat, R. Krzanowski, A. Morton, K. Yum, J. Babiarz > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : IP Performance Metrics > Area : Transport > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG From henk@ripe.net Tue May 25 06:35:32 2010 Return-Path: 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 C6CDF3A6E65 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 06:35:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.225 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6] 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 dU-DWbMUu0qn for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 06:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:610:240:11::c100:1342]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE67C3A70E8 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 06:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.1.103]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OGuHo-0003yl-HJ; Tue, 25 May 2010 15:35:18 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=geir.local) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OGuHo-0005gR-BX; Tue, 25 May 2010 15:35:12 +0200 Message-ID: <4BFBD20F.4020803@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 15:35:11 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org References: <20100525114202.482DDE0682@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20100525114202.482DDE0682@rfc-editor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d59089c4edb98efab44d16573cf79db94f X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d59089c4edb98efab44d16573cf79db94f X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 27 May 2010 03:04:59 -0700 Cc: Al Morton , ippm@ietf.org, Jozef Babiarz , credoo@seznam.cz, roman.krzanowski@verizon.com, kyum@juniper.net, matt@internet2.edu, David Harrington Subject: Re: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5357 (2288) 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:35:32 -0000 On 25/05/2010 13:42, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > FYI, the report below has been deleted because junk was submitted. Agree and I also think 2289 should be deleted for the same reason. Henk > > RFC Editor/ah > > On May 24, 2010, at 11:48 PM, RFC Errata System wrote: > >> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5357, >> "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5357&eid=2288 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Editorial >> Reported by: Martin >> >> Section: SSL >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> Support CC >> }()); >> >> >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >>
>> >> >> >> Notes >> ----- >> >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC5357 (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) >> Publication Date : October 2008 >> Author(s) : K. Hedayat, R. Krzanowski, A. Morton, K. Yum, J. Babiarz >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : IP Performance Metrics >> Area : Transport >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From root@core3.amsl.com Sun May 30 05:45:03 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id BE0163A68A0; Sun, 30 May 2010 05:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100530124502.BE0163A68A0@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 05:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-02.txt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 12:45:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. Title : Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View Author(s) : A. Morton, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-02.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2010-05-30 Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses in mind. This memo categorizes the different audience points of view. It describes how the categories affect the selection of metric parameters and options when seeking info that serves their needs. The memo then proceeds to discuss "long-term" reporting considerations (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-05-30053936.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From acmorton@att.com Mon May 31 04:12:46 2010 Return-Path: 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 4758E3A67D1 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 04:12:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.196 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, 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 quQ3O4tRHQEH for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 04:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DD43A6A1F for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 04:12:39 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1275304346!7499042!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 1912 invoked from network); 31 May 2010 11:12:27 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-11.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 May 2010 11:12:27 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VBC5HJ016568 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 07:12:05 -0400 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VBBxjR016542 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 07:11:59 -0400 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VBCIaE020293 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:12:18 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VBCCTp020225 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:12:12 -0500 Message-Id: <201005311112.o4VBCCTp020225@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-195-6.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.195.6](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20100531111211gw100b8ilme>; Mon, 31 May 2010 11:12:12 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.195.6] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 07:09:37 -0400 To: ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <20100530124502.BE0163A68A0@core3.amsl.com> References: <20100530124502.BE0163A68A0@core3.amsl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-02.txt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:12:46 -0000 This version addresses comments from Dave Mcdysan, Don MacLachlan, and Matt McZekauskas. Matt's main comment was to move the summary forward, so it changes the section numbers where some of the other changes will be found. Many of Dave and Don's comments are addressed in the new section 3, the summary on reporting. Al http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Morton At 08:45 AM 5/30/2010, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working >Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View > Author(s) : A. Morton, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-02.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 2010-05-30 > >Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses >in mind. This memo categorizes the different audience points of >view. It describes how the categories affect the selection of metric >parameters and options when seeking info that serves their needs. >The memo then proceeds to discuss "long-term" reporting >considerations (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 >seconds). > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-02.txt > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. > > > >_______________________________________________ >ippm mailing list >ippm@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From acmorton@att.com Mon May 31 05:53:39 2010 Return-Path: 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 8DC813A6989 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 05:53:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.196 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 HJ6fsi6cXDMk for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 05:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED863A6A1F for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 05:53:38 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1275310405!57268270!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 302 invoked from network); 31 May 2010 12:53:26 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-12.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 May 2010 12:53:26 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VCr50k025511 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 08:53:05 -0400 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VCr0kP025484 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 08:53:00 -0400 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VCrJdY015314 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 07:53:19 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VCrDrt015255 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 07:53:14 -0500 Message-Id: <201005311253.o4VCrDrt015255@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-195-6.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.195.6](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20100531125312gw100b8iloe>; Mon, 31 May 2010 12:53:13 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.195.6] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 08:32:13 -0400 To: Donald McLachlan , ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4BC5F215.1050009@crc.ca> References: <4BC59297.5080807@ripe.net> <4BC5F215.1050009@crc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: WGLC for Spatial Composition of Metrics 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 12:53:39 -0000 Don, I've answered a few questions below, otherwise the diff between 11 and 12 should allow you to easily find text to address your comments. thanks again, Al At 12:49 PM 4/14/2010, Donald McLachlan wrote: >Henk et al, > >Below are the comments I provided to Al Morton (slightly edited and >minus 1 comment) on version 10 of the draft. > >Don >... >Section 4.1.8.1, Section 5.2.6 (and possibly others.) Question. Is it >possible that (e.g. policy based routing or MPLS) could put pkts from A >to C into different priority queues, than it would put pkts from A to B >and from B to C, thus invalidating the composite metric results? > >Section 4.1.9. I don't like the example given. In the example given I >expect any change in one-way delay is more likely due to the time taken >for the (possibly heavily loaded) CPU to encrypt/decrypt the packets >than just due to the change in the length of the packet. Not only that, >but IMO, encrypting changes the definition of packets of type-P. While >it would be mundane, I think saying ping (or OWAMP) packets of length L1 >versus ping (or OWAMP) packets of L2 is a better example of packets of >different length. I clarified this example, and addressed the A-B-C policy routing issue in section 4.1.9 >Section 4.1.10. Should "similar" be quantified. E.g. same DCSP, proto, >similar length, encryption, etc? Otherwise might DPI or policy affect >routing or queuing, etc? > >Section 5.2 (or all of "chapter" 5) Poisson vs. Periodic streams. >Question. While I understand the theoretical differences with using >Poisson versus Periodic streams. In practice, has anyone ever measured >one-way delay across an Internet path with both stream types and >obtained statistically similar/different results? Is this chapter >proposing that one can perform Poisson OWD measurements on one sub-path >and periodic OWD measurements on a second sub-path and combine them to >form a sane composite full-path metric? If so, that should be more >clearly stated. If not, that should be stated. Both the above addressed in section 4.1.10 >Section 5.2.6. Maybe replace bi-modal with multi-modal? > >Section 5.2.9. Even if the sub-path distribution is (multi) modal, if >the sub-path is part of the real path, wouldn't the sample delays on the >full path be subject to the same (multi-)modal delays of the sub-path? >In which case is this really an issue? Yes the multi-modal dist result is one symptom of path instability. >Section 6.1.4. Question. Would it also be possible to use a similar >method to measure sub-path burst lost length, and combine them to obtain >an empirical loss-length probability? It seems like this might work for certain sub/complete path burst statistics, but haven't really investigated this possibility. >Section 7.1.1, third bullet. Not only length in bits, but Type-P, the >definition of which should maybe include DCSP, proto, src port, dst >port, encryption, etc. IMO, anything which might change how the packet >might be handled by routers along the path should be specified. Maybe >this comment should be applied to Section 4.1.1 instead, and would thus >covered by the first sentence of this Section, "In addtion to the >parameters of section 4.1.1:". Type-P is now an explicit parameter in 4.1.1 >Section 7.1.1, fourth bullet. Section 7.1 says >Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Poisson/Periodic-Stream. This bullet refers >to packet pairs - which is IPDV. If what is intended is IPDV, then the >idea of min delay does not apply. If what is intended is PDV, then >packet pairs does not apply. PDV still uses packet pairs, but one of the packets in the pair is always the same (the packet with the minimum delay) >Assuming what is wanted is PDV, might I suggest: > >F, a selection function unambiguously defining the packets from > the stream that are selected for the computation of > this metric. F(packet), MUST > have a valid Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay less than Tmax (in other > words, excluding packets which have undefined one-way delay) and > MUST have been transmitted during the interval T, > Tf. F(min_packet) MUST be the packet with the > minimum valid value of Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay for the stream, > in addition to the criteria for F(packet). If multiple > packets have equal minimum Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay values, > then the value for the earliest arriving packet SHOULD be used. I used (current packet) and (min_delay packet) >Section 7.1.4, last sentence. Doesn't the PDV applicability statement >speak of %-iles, or P.99? Was it a conscious decision to change the >nomenclature to Quantile? (That said I prefer Quantile over %-ile and P.99). Both terms have been used in different venues. There was a stray "IPDV" in there, though. From root@core3.amsl.com Mon May 31 06:00:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 3669B3A686D; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:00:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100531130002.3669B3A686D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 06:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-12.txt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:00:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. Title : Spatial Composition of Metrics Author(s) : A. Morton, E. Stephan Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-12.txt Pages : 27 Date : 2010-05-31 This memo utilizes IP Performance Metrics that are applicable to both complete paths and sub-paths, and defines relationships to compose a complete path metric from the sub-path metrics with some accuracy w.r.t. the actual metrics. This is called Spatial Composition in RFC 2330. The memo refers to the Framework for Metric Composition, and provides background and motivation for combining metrics to derive others. The descriptions of several composed metrics and statistics follow. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-12.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-12.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-05-31054639.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From acmorton@att.com Mon May 31 06:54:12 2010 Return-Path: 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 A041028C0E5 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 3QNTs+lFVQ8q for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail167.messagelabs.com (mail167.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9719528C0E0 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:54:11 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1275314038!24636621!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 22427 invoked from network); 31 May 2010 13:53:59 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-15.tower-167.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 May 2010 13:53:59 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VDrcEh022086 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 09:53:39 -0400 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VDrXpQ022051 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 09:53:33 -0400 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VDrqMG017240 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 08:53:52 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4VDroPn017169 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 08:53:50 -0500 Message-Id: <201005311353.o4VDroPn017169@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-195-6.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.195.6](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20100531135349gw100b8ilqe>; Mon, 31 May 2010 13:53:50 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.195.6] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:51:07 -0400 To: steve.baillargeon@videotron.ca, ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <201004261625.o3QGP8dr005088@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> References: <201004261625.o3QGP8dr005088@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [ippm] Comments for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-05 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:54:12 -0000 ...and I just did. I got rid of the "Client octets" and simply mentioned a possibility for other Packet Padding. Al At 12:23 PM 4/26/2010, Al Morton wrote: >Thanks Steve, these are good comments, and >we'll resolve them as you suggest in the next draft. >Al > > >At 12:21 PM 4/26/2010, steve.baillargeon@videotron.ca wrote: >>Content-type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="Boundary_(ID_NEJL3a72RdguL2k8r4BKBg)" >>Content-language: en >> >>Hi Al >>Here are some comments on the latest draft. >> >>- It will be best to explicitly indicate that both the control and >>test protocols can reflect octets in an independent manner even if >>it is indirectly stated in the introduction. >> >>- The definition for the "Server octets" field shall indicate where >>those bits should appear in the Packet Padding (to be reflected) field. >> >>- The spec should state that a zero value in the "Server octets" >>field means the Server does not desire these octets to be reflected. >> >>- The spec should state that a non-zero value in the "Server >>octets" field means the Server desires these octets to be >>reflected. The actual position of these octets in the padding >>octets of the test packets shall be clarified. >> >>- A defintion for Client octets field should be provided and >>indicates that is the equal to Octets to be reflected field (from >>Request-TW-Session). >> >>- The spec should indicate when the Client octets field shall >>appear in the Packet Padding (to be reflected) field. Based on the >>example provided, it looks like the usage of this field is optional >>and/or implementation-specific when reflecting octets in test >>packets. If so, please indicate it. >> >>Thank you >> >>Regards >>Steve Baillargeon >>_______________________________________________ >>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 root@core3.amsl.com Mon May 31 07:00:03 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 9CE1428C0F6; Mon, 31 May 2010 07:00:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100531140003.9CE1428C0F6@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 07:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-06.txt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 14:00:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF. Title : TWAMP Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Features Author(s) : A. Morton, L. Ciavattone Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-06.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2010-05-31 The IETF has completed its work on the core specification of TWAMP - the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol. This memo describes two closely-related features for TWAMP: an optional capability where the responder host returns some of the command octets or padding octets to the controller, and an optional sender packet format that ensures equal test packet sizes are used in both directions. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-06.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-05-31064927.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart--