From root@core3.amsl.com Thu Jul 1 12:00:02 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 D821728C15A; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:00:01 -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: <20100701190001.D821728C15A@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-14.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: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:00:02 -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-14.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2010-07-01 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-14.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-14.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-07-01114515.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From root@core3.amsl.com Fri Jul 2 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 0BAE83A6864; Fri, 2 Jul 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: <20100702130002.0BAE83A6864@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 06:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-15.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: Fri, 02 Jul 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-15.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2010-07-02 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-15.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-15.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-07-02055955.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From root@core3.amsl.com Mon Jul 5 00:45:03 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 DF8063A6967; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 00:45:02 -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: <20100705074502.DF8063A6967@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 00:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00.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, 05 Jul 2010 07:45:03 -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 : IPPM standard advancement testing Author(s) : R. Geib, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00.txt Pages : 36 Date : 2010-07-02 This document specifies tests to determine if multiple independent instantiations of a performance metric RFC have implemented the specifications in the same way. This is the performance metric equivalent of interoperability, required to advance RFCs along the standards track. Results from different implementations of metric RFCs will be collected under the same underlying network conditions and compared using state of the art statistical methods. The goal is an evaluation of the metric RFC itself, whether its definitions are clear and unambiguous to implementors and therefore a candidate for advancement on the IETF standards track. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-07-05003241.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From henk@ripe.net Mon Jul 5 01:34:26 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 8210E3A6784 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:34:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.312, 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 RMEbZ4-pMKeZ for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:34:25 -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 506EE3A672E for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:34:25 -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 1OVh88-0007U5-0A; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:34:25 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=guest-109.ripe.net) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OVh87-0002Bu-S6; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:34:19 +0200 Message-ID: <4C31990B.6030104@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:34:19 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG , Matthew J Zekauskas X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5b226c1a34ba7ed6e6e29085a443ca6b1 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5b226c1a34ba7ed6e6e29085a443ca6b1 Subject: [ippm] First draft agenda for IPPM group 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, 05 Jul 2010 08:34:26 -0000 IPPM group, We'll meet in Maastricht, right now the schedule says Monday afternoon at 15:20. The current agenda is at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/ippm.txt and will be updated as time goes on. If you have slides, please send them to the chairs beforehand, so we can put them online. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From henk@ripe.net Mon Jul 5 02:29:23 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 57DDA3A6812 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 02:29:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.615 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.984, 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 blx0KWsNge18 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 02:29:22 -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 EA2E73A67EA for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 02:29:21 -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 1OVhyr-0006y2-Rx for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:29:22 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=guest-109.ripe.net) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OVhyr-0005Lb-NG for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:28:49 +0200 Message-ID: <4C31A5D1.3000509@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:28:49 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5f2865364189a0c2fc940a801897da344 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5f2865364189a0c2fc940a801897da344 Subject: [ippm] On agenda point #7 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, 05 Jul 2010 09:29:23 -0000 IPPM Group, The Maastricht agenda has this entry: 7. Metrics registry (25) = Intro (Henk) = draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete (Al) = draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext (Emile) = Discussion The background of this is the following: in RFC 4148, a registry for the IPPM metrics has been introduced. This registry has seen very little use over the years, mainly because the registry does not allow to store the parameters used for every metric. That the registry isn't widely used, is best witnessed when RFC 5644 was published and a typo was introduced in the registry. Any parser would have detected this syntax error. Yet, it took more than 8 months before somebody noticed. Also, the author of the original document agrees that the registry needs to be improved. The question is how to proceed here. There are several options: a. Withdraw the current registry. This is proposed in draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete. b. Expand the current registry in order to make it more useful. This is proposed in draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext. c. Drop the current registry, start with a new one from scratch. The plan is to have 2 presentations of the draft (about 5 minutes each), followed by a discussion. Comments, both to the list and at the meeting, are welcome, 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From jerome.benoit@grenouille.com Tue Jul 6 05:19:36 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 DDB1E3A67A1 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.865 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 J-i3fVP8he4n for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laposte.grenouille.com (ns37873.ovh.net [91.121.8.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93873A684A for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 05:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by laposte.grenouille.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477217F198 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:19:36 +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 GP9RWZrfOmJF for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:19:34 +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 48D487F113 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:19:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by nemesis.grenouille.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C603B62027 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:19:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:19:33 +0200 From: Jerome Benoit To: ippm@ietf.org Message-Id: <20100706141933.c765da1b.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> In-Reply-To: <20100705074502.DF8063A6967@core3.amsl.com> References: <20100705074502.DF8063A6967@core3.amsl.com> Organization: grenouille.com X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__6_Jul_2010_14_19_33_+0200_HOF14ZRp955R3tJG" Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00.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, 06 Jul 2010 12:19:37 -0000 --Signature=_Tue__6_Jul_2010_14_19_33_+0200_HOF14ZRp955R3tJG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le Mon, 5 Jul 2010 00:45:02 -0700 (PDT), Internet-Drafts@ietf.org a =E9crit : > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00.txt Do you plan do add inaccuracy introduced by runtime on each implementation ?=20 Do you plan to you plan to test implementation that will not follow IETF OWAMP (or TWAMP) RFC but will largely inspired by them (NAT friendliness of theses RFC make them difficult to follow when you want to send probes from the network edge et behind a CPE) ? 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__6_Jul_2010_14_19_33_+0200_HOF14ZRp955R3tJG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwzH1UACgkQ+qDLUJ/pFh3mjgCfdVWx8xI1vN5R/8A1ss9dbFxJ f0kAnRUuqijm5po/9+yA00dHOx6nztj2 =NA4M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__6_Jul_2010_14_19_33_+0200_HOF14ZRp955R3tJG-- From acmorton@att.com Tue Jul 6 05:34:11 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 DCFEC3A68D7 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 05:34:11 -0700 (PDT) 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 VTO6xKZqnAJ7 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 05:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0963A6887 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 05:34:11 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1278419652!29300014!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 32144 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2010 12:34:12 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-10.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Jul 2010 12:34:12 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o66CXmsE007267 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:33:48 -0400 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o66CXiqw007210 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:33:44 -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 o66CY8rK017445 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 07:34:08 -0500 Received: from dns.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 o66CY3ok017261 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 07:34:03 -0500 Message-Id: <201007061234.o66CY3ok017261@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (dn135-16-251-71.dhcpn.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20100706123402gw100s4pe0e>; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:34:03 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:34:21 -0400 To: Jerome Benoit , ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <20100706141933.c765da1b.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> References: <20100705074502.DF8063A6967@core3.amsl.com> <20100706141933.c765da1b.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00.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, 06 Jul 2010 12:34:12 -0000 Jerome, Thanks for your comments, see below. Al At 08:19 AM 7/6/2010, Jerome Benoit wrote: > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00.txt > >Do you plan do add inaccuracy introduced by runtime on each >implementation ? Sorry, but it's not clear to me where your comment applies. Each of the metric RFCs cover error sources and error reporting, so (if I understand your question) this is one of the areas to check and see if implementing developers understood the requirements. >Do you plan to you plan to test implementation that >will not follow IETF OWAMP (or TWAMP) RFC but will largely inspired by >them (NAT friendliness of theses RFC make them difficult to follow >when you want to send probes from the network edge et behind a CPE) ? Yes, this draft starts from the premise that measurement results from different implementations will be compared. Neither OWAMP or TWAMP are required. From emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com Tue Jul 6 06:25:03 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 846E53A68CC for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 06:25:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.759 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Wa+tFnfWmDNO for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 06:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B5D3A6881 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 06:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 275158B8005 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:25:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4748B8006 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:25:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:24:53 +0200 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB1D0E.9DD893DA" Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:24:50 +0200 Message-ID: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462FD2BF9@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <4C31A5D1.3000509@ripe.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IPPM registry discussion Thread-Index: AcscJLaEQwM6hvmkQNSCOv+0OnzeugAtoBag References: <4C31A5D1.3000509@ripe.net> From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2010 13:24:53.0495 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E6E0870:01CB1D0E] Subject: [ippm] IPPM registry 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:25:03 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CB1D0E.9DD893DA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, =20 RFC 4148 initiated an IANA registry = (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaippmmetricsregistry-mib) for = identifying each metric the IPPM WG defines. Currently it contains 70 = metrics. =20 The WG started a process to reexamine the need to continue to feed this = registry. =20 I suggest the following for starting the discussion.=20 =20 The usage: Is the current Registry not used? How can we be sure than the current registry is not used?=20 =20 The need: Is it not used because there is not need for a registry at all? =20 The content: Is it not used because it only numbers the metrics? Is it not used because it does not describe metrics options and = parameters? =20 The language: Is it not used because it is written for MIB compiler (SMIv2)? =20 The future: Should we consult the WGs working on interfaces which exchange network = performance information? What are these WGs? =20 Current suggestions: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext-00.tx= t = =20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-01 = =20 =20 =20 Regards Emile =20 > -----Message d'origine----- > De : ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part = de > Henk Uijterwaal > Envoy=E9 : lundi 5 juillet 2010 11:29 > =C0 : IETF IPPM WG > Objet : [ippm] On agenda point #7 >=20 > IPPM Group, >=20 > The Maastricht agenda has this entry: >=20 > 7. Metrics registry (25) > =3D Intro (Henk) > =3D draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete (Al) > =3D draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext (Emile) > =3D Discussion >=20 > The background of this is the following: in RFC 4148, a registry for = the > IPPM > metrics has been introduced. This registry has seen very little use = over > the > years, mainly because the registry does not allow to store the = parameters > used > for every metric. That the registry isn't widely used, is best = witnessed > when > RFC 5644 was published and a typo was introduced in the registry. Any > parser > would have detected this syntax error. Yet, it took more than 8 months > before > somebody noticed. Also, the author of the original document agrees = that > the > registry needs to be improved. >=20 > The question is how to proceed here. There are several options: >=20 > a. Withdraw the current registry. This is proposed in > draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete. >=20 > b. Expand the current registry in order to make it more useful. > This is proposed in draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext. >=20 > c. Drop the current registry, start with a new one from scratch. >=20 > The plan is to have 2 presentations of the draft (about 5 minutes = each), > followed by a discussion. >=20 > Comments, both to the list and at the meeting, are welcome, >=20 > Henk >=20 >=20 > -- > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - > ---- > 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 > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - > ---- >=20 > I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous = Politician. > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm ------_=_NextPart_001_01CB1D0E.9DD893DA Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

RFC 4148 initiated an IANA registry (http= ://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaippmmetricsregistry-mib) for identifying each metric the IPPM WG defines. Currently it contains = 70 metrics.

 

The WG started a process to reexamine the = need to continue to feed this registry.

 

I suggest the following for starting the = discussion.

 

The usage:

Is the current Registry not = used?

How can we be sure than the current registry = is not used?

 

The need:

Is it not used because there is not need for = a registry at all?

 

The content:

Is it not used because it only numbers the = metrics?

Is it not used because it does not describe = metrics options and parameters?

 

The language:

Is it not used because it is written for MIB = compiler (SMIv2)?

 

The future:

Should we consult the WGs working on interfaces which exchange network performance = information?

What are these WGs?

 

Current = suggestions:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dra= ft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext-00.txt

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton= -ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-01

 

 

Regards

Emile

 

> -----Message d'origine-----

> De : ippm-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de

> Henk Uijterwaal

> Envoy=E9 : lundi 5 juillet 2010 = 11:29

> =C0 : IETF IPPM WG

> Objet : [ippm] On agenda point = #7

>

> IPPM Group,

>

> The Maastricht agenda has this entry:

>

> 7. Metrics registry = (25)

> =A0=A0=A0=3D Intro (Henk)

> =A0=A0=A0=3D draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete (Al)

> =A0=A0=A0=3D draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext (Emile)

> =A0=A0=A0=3D Discussion

>

> The background of this is the following: = in RFC 4148, a registry for the

> IPPM

> metrics has been introduced. This = registry has seen very little use over

> the

> years, mainly because the registry does = not allow to store the parameters

> used

> for every metric. That the registry = isn't widely used, is best witnessed

> when

> RFC 5644 was published and a typo was = introduced in the registry. Any

> parser

> would have detected this syntax error. = Yet, it took more than 8 months

> before

> somebody noticed. Also, the author of = the original document agrees that

> the

> registry needs to be = improved.

>

> The question is how to proceed = here.=A0 There are several = options:

>

> =A0a. Withdraw the current registry.=A0 = This is proposed in

> =A0=A0=A0=A0draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-o= bsolete.

>

> =A0b. Expand the current registry in order to make it more useful.

> =A0=A0=A0=A0This is proposed in draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext.

>

> =A0c. Drop the current registry, start with a new one from = scratch.

>

> The plan is to have 2 presentations of = the draft (about 5 minutes each),

> followed by a = discussion.

>

> Comments, both to the list and at the = meeting, are welcome,

>

> Henk

>

>

> --

> = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -

> ----

> Henk Uijterwaal=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Email:

> = henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net

> RIPE Network Coordination Centre=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku

> P.O.Box 10096=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Singel = 258=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Phone: = +31.20.5354414

> 1001 EB Amsterdam=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1016 AB Amsterdam=A0 Fax: +31.20.5354445

> The Netherlands=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The = Netherlands=A0=A0=A0 Mobile: +31.6.55861746

> = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -

> ----

>

> I confirm today what I denied = yesterday.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Anonymous Politician.

> = _______________________________________________

> ippm mailing list

> ippm@ietf.org

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01CB1D0E.9DD893DA-- From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Tue Jul 6 06:59:18 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id C194B3A691B; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 06:59:18 -0700 (PDT) X-idtracker: yes To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: <20100706135918.C194B3A691B@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 06:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition (Spatial Composition of Metrics) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:59:18 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'Spatial Composition of Metrics ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-07-20. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-15.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=14356&rfc_flag=0 From jerome.benoit@grenouille.com Tue Jul 6 10:51:05 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 867D43A679C for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:51:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 vHYw8TAM-zHN for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laposte.grenouille.com (ns37873.ovh.net [91.121.8.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07AAD3A683E for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by laposte.grenouille.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842397F22D; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:51:05 +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 EFsdV2USehBp; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:51:03 +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 75A167F208; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:51:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by nemesis.grenouille.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DEA062026; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:51:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:51:00 +0200 From: Jerome Benoit To: Al Morton Message-Id: <20100706195100.9b3f0f8e.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> In-Reply-To: <201007061234.o66CY3hU017260@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> References: <20100705074502.DF8063A6967@core3.amsl.com> <20100706141933.c765da1b.jerome.benoit@grenouille.com> <201007061234.o66CY3hU017260@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> Organization: grenouille.com X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__6_Jul_2010_19_51_00_+0200_8Q9IZqlnki=p99Da" Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00.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, 06 Jul 2010 17:51:05 -0000 --Signature=_Tue__6_Jul_2010_19_51_00_+0200_8Q9IZqlnki=p99Da Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:34:21 -0400, Al Morton a =E9crit : >=20 > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00.txt > > > >Do you plan do add inaccuracy introduced by runtime on each > >implementation ? >=20 > Sorry, but it's not clear to me where your comment applies. I'm not a math guru but I wanted to know if the proposed draft will take in account inaccuracy on timestamping that come only from the runtime. For example, we have some Proof of Concept code (probecraft : http://github.com/lucasdicioccio/probecraft ) that is able to send most of the known active probes, but we have chosen on the implementation side to rely only on lipcap and its timestamping capability on packets : the wire-time is what lipcap give us. It's a design choice. If the kernel has a lot of packets to treat, the desired time series for some sort of probe will not be followed as requested. If lipcap is able to use some kernel facilities to bypass buffering or routing table, we can minimize runtime inaccuracy. =20 There is other bias that can be introduced on the probing src host that can invalid the probe (ARP cache, etc.). The probing src host can be very noisy ...=20 > Each of the metric RFCs cover error sources and error reporting, > so (if I understand your question) this is one of the areas to > check and see if implementing developers understood the requirements. Oki.=20 =20 > >Do you plan to you plan to test implementation that > >will not follow IETF OWAMP (or TWAMP) RFC but will largely inspired by > >them (NAT friendliness of theses RFC make them difficult to follow > >when you want to send probes from the network edge et behind a CPE) ? > Yes, this draft starts from the premise that measurement results from > different implementations will be compared. Neither OWAMP or TWAMP > are required. Great.=20 Thks.=20 --=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__6_Jul_2010_19_51_00_+0200_8Q9IZqlnki=p99Da Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwzbQQACgkQ+qDLUJ/pFh28PACfTgTnIxmG4MqVPOelLMJua0Tt dBwAn3/CLCYukxWqluvWD+/1QFumQFgs =S4ZW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__6_Jul_2010_19_51_00_+0200_8Q9IZqlnki=p99Da-- From henk@ripe.net Wed Jul 7 02:44:30 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 329693A6800 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 02:44:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.037 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.562, 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 1VClIAZZFCTF for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 02:44:19 -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 6D3D43A6358 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 02:44:17 -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 1OWRAr-00041v-ED for ippm@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:44:18 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=guest-61.ripe.net) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OWRAr-0004A2-9m for ippm@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:44:13 +0200 Message-ID: <4C344C6E.9060104@ripe.net> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:44:14 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <4C31A5D1.3000509@ripe.net> <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462FD2BF9@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462FD2BF9@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5c184f9dadb23f87035edc81a50e3ec3f X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5c184f9dadb23f87035edc81a50e3ec3f Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM registry 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:44:30 -0000 On 06/07/2010 15:24, emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com wrote: > How can we be sure than the current registry is not used? Speaking as myself, not WG-chair: We can't, though I don't see this as the biggest issue. If one looks at the IANA site, there are more registries that have been obsoleted. If this happens, IANA marks the registry as such and adds a note that no new registrations are accepted. Whatever is there on the day it is obsoleted, remains there. In other words, if there is somebody who depends on this file, then the file will be there forever. > The need: > Is it not used because there is not need for a registry at all? As WG chair: I think this is the most important question. If/when we want to declare consensus on the new registry format, it should be clear that there is a need for a registry in the format we've specified by then. If not, then why bother to standardize it? And in order to find out what the need is, it would be good if people who are using the current registry, or who considered using it but decided against it, spoke up. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From root@core3.amsl.com Fri Jul 9 05:30:02 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 2CD653A6A2D; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 05:30:01 -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: <20100709123002.2CD653A6A2D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 05:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-04.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: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:30:02 -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-04.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2010-07-09 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-04.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-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-07-09051924.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Fri Jul 9 07:13:10 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 80DFA3A6818 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 07:13:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.393 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.207, 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 71UNHAAoMghE for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 07:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D723A67B1 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 07:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id CE822E0630; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT) To: emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com, L.Liang@surrey.ac.uk, acmorton@att.com, ietfdbh@comcast.net, lars.eggert@nokia.com, henk@ripe.net, matt@internet2.edu From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20100709141314.CE822E0630@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:26:30 -0700 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ippm@ietf.org, cklish@harris.com Subject: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5644 (2321) 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: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:13:10 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5644, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5644&eid=2321 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Cypryan T. Klish II Section: 2.7 Original Text ------------- Figure 2 is ambiguous for two reasons: Use "X" for both types of nodes: 1) the graphic only labels intermediate nodes with "X" and 2) both "nodes that are points of interest" and "nodes that are not points of interest" are label "X" in the note following the graphic. Thus there is no difference between nodes that are points of interest and those that are not, and the distinction between the two types is not apparent The destination node "Dst" has no representation in the "Hosts" identifier column. the "Dst" label is in the same vertical column as the Hosts Corrected Text -------------- Change a subset of intermediate nodes (all currently labeled X) to "Y". Change the second line of the note to read "'Y' are nodes thatare not points of interest. Shift the "Hosts column to the left to provide vertical separation for "Dst". Label "Dst" as "K" in the hosts column. Notes ----- It would be useful to clarify if the nodes that are points of interest must be contiguous or if the subset can truly be selected in an arbitrary fashion. For a contiguous subset of point of interest nodes it is suggested that it would be useful to associate this with a higher abstract architectural construct (container) since the group might well align with a physical or administrative segment, or provider specific segment of the network. This would aid in modeling the system for performance management applications since a one to one relationship can be created between the higher level container object and the segment object 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. -------------------------------------- RFC5644 (draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-12) -------------------------------------- Title : IP Performance Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast Publication Date : October 2009 Author(s) : E. Stephan, L. Liang, A. Morton Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Performance Metrics Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From henk@ripe.net Mon Jul 12 01:30:28 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 8437E3A6A85 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:30:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.365 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.234, 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 CS0R9QJ1ZpDN for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:30:26 -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 D67143A6A7C for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:30:19 -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 1OYEP0-00066Z-KT; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:30:19 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=guest-61.ripe.net) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OYEP0-0003k3-Ff; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:30:14 +0200 Message-ID: <4C3AD296.4060903@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:30:14 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RFC Errata System References: <20100709141314.CE822E0630@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20100709141314.CE822E0630@rfc-editor.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5b515dd54bdb52b7deb790cdf9b7325b6 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5b515dd54bdb52b7deb790cdf9b7325b6 Cc: acmorton@att.com, emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com, cklish@harris.com, ippm@ietf.org, matt@internet2.edu, ietfdbh@comcast.net, L.Liang@surrey.ac.uk Subject: Re: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5644 (2321) 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, 12 Jul 2010 08:30:28 -0000 On 09/07/2010 16:13, RFC Errata System wrote: > Use "X" for both types of nodes: 1) the graphic only labels intermediate > nodes with "X" and 2) both "nodes that are points of interest" and "nodes > that are not points of interest" are label "X" in the note following the > graphic. Thus there is no difference between nodes that are points of > interest and those that are not, and the distinction between the two types is > not apparent The figure uses "X" and "x". These are different, even though I agree that the difference can be hard to see if you don't look carefully. X and Y would have been clearer. > The destination node "Dst" has no representation in the "Hosts" identifier > column. the "Dst" label is in the same vertical column as the Hosts The way I read the diagram, is that there is a path "src 1 2 3 ... J dst". 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From root@core3.amsl.com Mon Jul 12 17:00:06 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 23E123A68CD; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:00:04 -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: <20100713000005.23E123A68CD@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-05.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, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:06 -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 IP Performance Metrics to Users Author(s) : S. Shalunov, M. Swany Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-05.txt Pages : 42 Date : 2010-07-12 The aim of this document is to define a small set of metrics that are robust, easy to understand, orthogonal, relevant, and easy to compute. The IPPM WG has defined a large number of richly parameterized metrics because network measurement has many purposes. Often, the ultimate purpose is to report a concise set of metrics describing a network's current state to an end user. It is for this purpose that the present set of metrics is defined, and the document is principally concerned with "short-term" reporting considerations (a few seconds or minutes as opposed to days, months or years.) A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-05.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-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-07-12165628.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From henk@ripe.net Wed Jul 14 00:08:24 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 AC5D93A6909 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:08:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.39 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.209, 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 0NR3vdoYEEuR for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:08:23 -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 4C2DA3A68A9 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:08:23 -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 1OYw4w-0000hz-Ci for ippm@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:08:31 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=geir.local) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OYw4w-0001MQ-7T for ippm@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:08:26 +0200 Message-ID: <4C3D6269.3070101@ripe.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:08:25 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5d031c475cf0a630d542a9d8f797b3f32 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5d031c475cf0a630d542a9d8f797b3f32 Subject: [ippm] Agenda for Maastricht 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: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:08:24 -0000 IPPM group, The agenda for Maastricht has been posted at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/ippm.txt Please note: 1. If you are presenting, then send us your slides in advance. This will be greatly appreciated by folks attending the session remotely. 2. The agenda is very full. This means that Matt and I will run a strict time schedule and stop speakers if they run over time. 3. We need volunteers to scribe and follow the jabber room. You can save the meeting a few minutes of embarrasing silence by voluntering for these jobs beforehand, just drop us a note. Matt & 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From alberto.tempiabonda@telecomitalia.it Tue Jul 20 03:58:11 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 E512B3A6C56 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 03:58:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.881 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] 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 Iw-b8XQCX98t for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 03:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFEDG702BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg702ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16E83A688C for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 03:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFHUB701BA020.griffon.local (10.188.101.111) by GRFEDG702BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:58:19 +0200 Received: from GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.11]) by grfhub701ba020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.111]) with mapi; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:58:19 +0200 From: Tempia Bonda Alberto To: "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:58:18 +0200 Thread-Topic: Multicast performance monitoring drafts Thread-Index: Acsn+nYu2SZBBLtNQyGyuSTsgv6rlQ== Message-ID: <9FCB2ACF14591E4DAF4180D4010E3618A777ECCD07@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: it-IT, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "henk@ripe.net" , "matt@internet2.edu" Subject: [ippm] Multicast performance monitoring drafts 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, 20 Jul 2010 10:58:12 -0000 Dear WG, at the upcoming IPPM meeting in Maastricht we will present a draft about mu= lticast performance monitoring (draft-bipi-mboned-ip-multicast-pm-requireme= nt-01). The draft was presented for the first time in Stockolm (IETF 75) in MBONED = and describes the requirements for monitoring IP Multicast traffic on ISP n= etworks in terms of packet loss, one-way delay and jitter. There are also 2= separate solution drafts describing how the monitoring can be performed on= real multicast streams. At the last IETF in Anaheim, during the presentation in MBONED, it was rais= ed the point that the requirements described in the draft are not only spec= ific to multicast traffic but are more general and therefore there could be= WGs other than MBONED where the draft could be discussed as well. For this= reason it was suggested to present it also elsewhere. We are aware that currently the IPPM charter includes only metrics develope= d inside an active measurement context while our drafts refer to passive me= asurements (monitoring of real traffic). However we know that there was in = the past a proposal about including in the charter also passive measurement= s. By presenting the draft in IPPM we would like to ask the working group a fe= edback on the draft itself and a help understanding whether this work could= be of interest for IPPM. If not, we would appreciate comments/suggestion a= bout which WG would be the most suitable for this work. Below you can find the pointer to the drafts. Requirement draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bipi-mboned-ip-multicast-pm-requirement-01 Solution drafts http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-mboned-multicast-realstream-monitor-02 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm-00 Thanks! Vero and Alberto Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Thu Jul 22 08:02:19 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id D700C3A6B83; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:02:19 -0700 (PDT) To: duffield@research.att.com,acmorton@att.com,jsommers@colgate.edu From: IETF Secretariat Message-Id: <20100722150219.D700C3A6B83@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:02:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:52:35 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org, henk@ripe.net, matt@internet2.edu, ietfdbh@comcast.net, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] IPR Disclosure: AT&T Intellectual Property I, LP's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-00 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: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:02:20 -0000 Dear Nick Duffield, Al Morton, Joel Sommers: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Loss Episode Metrics for IPPM" (draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2010-07-14 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1354/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "AT&T Intellectual Property I, LP's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-00." The IETF Secretariat From henk@ripe.net Mon Jul 26 03:12:19 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 65E423A6833 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:12:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.504, 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 XhZ7vw+LRaav for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:12:18 -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 0771B3A6A25 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:12:06 -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 1OdKfU-0002Q5-0j; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:12:25 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=dhcp-73fa.meeting.ietf.org) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OdKfT-0002oZ-Rw; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:12:19 +0200 Message-ID: <4C4D5F82.4040300@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:12:18 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG , Matthew J Zekauskas X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d538ba973aaf6a8bf41f98ded36a0b8254 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d538ba973aaf6a8bf41f98ded36a0b8254 Subject: [ippm] Scribe for this afternoon 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, 26 Jul 2010 10:12:19 -0000 Hi all, We lost one of our scribes for today and are looking for volunteer to replace him. If you are interested, drop us a note Matt & 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From henk@ripe.net Thu Jul 29 04:52:49 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 3A99E28C186 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:52:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.006 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.006 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.407, 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 ZJ5EUb8-aovQ for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:52:47 -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 9E39128C118 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:52:46 -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 1OeRfW-0006BT-Ds; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:53:03 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=dhcp-73fa.meeting.ietf.org) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OeRfW-0001gJ-9c; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:52:58 +0200 Message-ID: <4C516B9A.1080502@ripe.net> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:52:58 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tempia Bonda Alberto References: <9FCB2ACF14591E4DAF4180D4010E3618A777ECCD07@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> <9FCB2ACF14591E4DAF4180D4010E3618A7786D7685@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> <4C4FF248.1020109@ripe.net> In-Reply-To: <4C4FF248.1020109@ripe.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5fd2ee7ab92933b5557cb664a74b23dd3 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5fd2ee7ab92933b5557cb664a74b23dd3 Cc: "matt@internet2.edu" , IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] WG interest in Multicast performance monitoring drafts 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: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:52:49 -0000 IPPM Group, Last Monday, Alberto and others presented this set of drafts: > > at the upcoming IPPM meeting in Maastricht we will present a draft about > > multicast performance monitoring > > (draft-bipi-mboned-ip-multicast-pm-requirement-01). > > Requirement draft: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bipi-mboned-ip-multicast-pm-requirement-01 > > Solution drafts: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-mboned-multicast-realstream-monitor-02 > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm-00 We would like to know if people consider this topic appropriate for the IPPM WG, and if so, if there is interest to work on this topic. The drafts discuss passive measurements of actual traffic streams, using the metrics developed in IPPM. In the current charter, this work is out of scope, so picking it up would require a charter change. Obviously, we only want to do this if there is sufficient interest in the work. Please respond to the list or the chairs in private by September 13. Matt & 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician.