Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:37:52 +0100

IPPM group,

Happy new year.

Authors: Please update this draft.
All others: please read and comment on this document so we can finish it.

Henk

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Expiration impending: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 04:42:04 -0800
From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
CC: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>,        Matthew Zekauskas
<[email-masked]>

The following draft will expire soon:

Filename: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics
Title:    Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View
State:    I-D Exists
Expires:  2012-01-08 (in 5 days, 19 hours)

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:26:45 -0500

>All others: please read and comment on this document so we can finish it.

As promised, here's the update of reporting metrics where we've
finished section 6 based on recent measurement and reporting
experience. Also checked nits and the list (discussion of this
draft has been rather long-term, dating back many years).

regards,
Al

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)       : Al Morton
                           Gomathi Ramachandran
                           Ganga Maguluri
         Filename        : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt
         Pages           : 26
         Date            : 2012-01-07

    Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses
    in mind.  The memo provides "long-term" reporting considerations
    (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds), based on
    analysis of the two key audience points-of-view.  It describes how
    the audience categories affect the selection of metric parameters and
    options when seeking info that serves their needs.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-06.txt

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:17:41 +0100

IPMM Group,

Al: thanks for updating the draft.

> draft has been rather long-term, dating back many years).

Group:

If I read the draft correctly, the only section with open issues is
6.6.1.  The current text is a summary of possibilities.  If you feel
that this is not enough, please comment.  If not, we go to WGLC with
the document.

Al:

If I missed anything still to be discussed, please speak up.

Henk

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

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

---

From: Daniel Genin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:03:06 -0500

A very lucid and well written exposition on the relevance of metric's 
consumer to the way that it should be defined. It is surprising this 
important point has not been addressed earlier.

Just a couple of comments:

I. In Section 5.1.2 the bulleted list item 2 appears to suggest that 
orthogonality of metrics is a desirable property, however, no 
explanation for this is given. Moreover, metrics appearing in Section 6 
do not appear to be orthogonal suggesting that orthogonality is not a 
necessary property. If orthogonality is a desirable property in the case 
of delay and loss metrics but not in the case of raw capacity metrics 
this probably needs to be clarified.

II. Minor grammatical corrections:
     1. Section 5.2, Paragraph 1, line 5 "...is based a conditional 
distribution..." should probably be "...is based on a conditional        
distribution...".
     2. Section 6.2, the first letter of the title needs to be capitalized.
     3. Section 6.6, Paragraph 1, line 2 "...gives a the user..." should 
probably be "...gives the user..."
     4. Section 6.6, Paragraph 2, line 1 "What ways can Utilization  be 
measured..." should probably be "In what ways can Utilization be 
measured..." or "How can Utilization be measured..."
     5. Section 7.5, Paragraph 1, line 2 "...gives a the user..." should 
probably be "...gives the user..."

Hope this is useful.
Best regards,
Daniel

On 1/7/2012 10:26 AM, Al Morton wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:52:54 -0500

Thanks for your comments, Daniel.

At 06:03 PM 1/17/2012, Daniel Genin wrote:
>explanation for this is given. Moreover, metrics appearing in 
>Section 6 do not appear to be orthogonal suggesting that 
>orthogonality is not a necessary property. If orthogonality is a 
>desirable property in the case of delay and loss metrics but not in 
>the case of raw capacity metrics this probably needs to be clarified.

This is an interesting point, and certainly deserves clarification
as you suggest.

regards,
Al