Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:26:25 +0200

IPPM group,

As discussed in Prague, this starts a WGLC for the draft:

      Reporting IP Performance Metrics to Users
      draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt

Please review the draft and raise any issues by Wednesday, April 20, 8:00 UTC.
An URL for the draft is:

    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting/?include_text=1

Matt & Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
RIPE NCC                                  http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
                                          Phone: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
                                 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)

---

From: Steve Baillargeon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:07:39 -0400

Hi Stanislav, Hi Martin
Here are my comments.

- Section 2. The TWAMP protocol can also be used for obtaining the measurement data to compute any metrics including one-way metrics.
- Section 4. In the list, can you explicitly indicate that the "small set" of metrics can be one-way metrics, two-way metrics or both? Sections 4.1 to 4.5 almost imply there are one-way metrics. Reading section 5 and 5.2, I think you indicate that one-way metrics are preferred but two-way metrics may also be reported. Right?
- Section 4. How will a vendor state compliancy to this RFC? Does one need to support the reporting of all of the metrics in the "small set"?
- Section 4. Should we consider adding a "temporal connectivity" metric to the list as defined in RFC2678? It seems like a very basic and essential metric. During the measurement test, if a successful packet or reply is received, the value of the measurement is "true". I know it may seems to overlap with delay and loss metrics but operators treat it separately.
- Section 5.1. I understand that there are different measurement protocols with different minimum packet sizes. But what is the actual default packet size? If you don't explicitly indicate it, the implementation will always have to report the packet size since the user cannot easily derive it. The other option is to remove the statement.
- General comment. Have you considered defining a MIB as well your draft? As far as I know, the IETF has always favored the reporting of stats in well-defined MIB. I think it will help to compare performance reports from different implementations.

Regards
Steve B

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: April-06-11 4:26 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG
Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt

IPPM group,

Matt & Henk

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
                                 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) _______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:38:45 +0200

Steve, others,

> - General comment. Have you considered
> defining a MIB as well your draft? As far as I know, the IETF has always
> favored the reporting of stats in well-defined MIB. I think it will help to
> compare performance reports from different implementations.

There have been proposals for a MIB in the past.  However, there was very
little interest to actually work on this as well as a lack of expertise
in the group.  The topic was dropped.  Of course, it can be restarted
if there is enough critical mass to work it.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
RIPE NCC                                  http://www.uijterwaal.nl
                                          Phone: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:42:42 +0200

IPPM group,

>     http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting/?include_text=1

The WGLC just ended.   There were a few issues raised by Steve Baillargeon.
Authors: please answer this mail in the next days and submit an -07 if
needed.

Henk

---

From: Steve Baillargeon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:51:04 -0400

Hello Henk
I am interested to work on MIB modules for IPPM.
I think it will help bring some alignment to metric reporting and measurement protocol operation.
If we take such route, I suggest we start with two MIB modules as follows and determine if more are actually needed in the future:
- MIB module for the basic metrics defined in draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt
- MIB module for the TWAMP protocol and entities

I am specifically interested to directly contribute to the TWAMP MIB module.

-Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: April-20-11 3:39 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06.txt

Steve, others,

> - General comment. Have you considered defining a MIB as well your 
> draft? As far as I know, the IETF has always favored the reporting of 
> stats in well-defined MIB. I think it will help to compare performance 
> reports from different implementations.

There have been proposals for a MIB in the past.  However, there was very little interest to actually work on this as well as a lack of expertise in the group.  The topic was dropped.  Of course, it can be restarted if there is enough critical mass to work it.

Henk

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:41:29 +0200

Stas and Martin,

Please take a look at this.

Henk