Subject: [ippm] draft-morton-ippm-rt-loss as a WG document

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:03:45 +0100

IPPM group,

In Beijing, Al asked if draft-morton-ippm-rt-loss should become a WG
document.  I promised to raise this question on the list, forgot and
Al reminded me.  Anyway,

Should draft-morton-ippm-rt-loss become a WG document or not.  If you
have any thoughts about this, please comment by Feb 14.

An url for the document is:
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morton-ippm-rt-loss/

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: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:20:21 +0100

Henk,

while I'm not having a requirement to create such metric, I think AL's rational
makes some sense. So I support draft-morton-ippm-rt-loss to become a WG
document.

Regards,

Ruediger

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:04 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG
Subject: [ippm] draft-morton-ippm-rt-loss as a WG document

IPPM group,

Henk

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:13:09 +0530

I think such a metric would be useful due to asymmetry of paths.
Another reason is the fact that even there is (bulk) data transfer in
one direction, there is a transfer of control packets in the other
direction (eg FTP,HTTP).

It makes sense to adopt this as a WG document.

Regards
Vinayak

---

From: Barry Constantine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 04:05:22 -0800

Hello,

I expressed support for this when it was first proposed by Al and continue to see value in this work as a WG document.

Thanks,

Barry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 5:04 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG
Subject: [ippm] draft-morton-ippm-rt-loss as a WG document

IPPM group,

Henk

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:18:43 +0000

I think that it is much more informative to measure packet loss
independently in each direction, something we can do with existing tools.

I never understood what RT packet loss means 
(a packet can be lost on the way back after reflection,
 but if one was lost on the way out there was nothing to be echoed).

However, the concept seems to have been covered in other contexts
and it makes sense to cover it here for completeness.

So, my stance is "no objection".

Y(J)S

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:04
To: IETF IPPM WG
Subject: [ippm] draft-morton-ippm-rt-loss as a WG document

IPPM group,

Henk