From nobody Mon Mar 2 05:08:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004351A8757 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:08:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TiPjSMR-QrxA for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:08:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B431A874D for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:08:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2:a97d:ca78:64c2:a643] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2:a97d:ca78:64c2:a643]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ABCA1A07AD for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:07:55 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4551D9C0-5EE7-4577-BFB0-54C2ED462BB6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5 From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: <6034239A-91DD-4C46-B3AB-916E1BECD66E@trammell.ch> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:07:54 +0100 Message-Id: <40241F8E-64F5-4783-B387-B1DE0A5D9515@trammell.ch> References: <6034239A-91DD-4C46-B3AB-916E1BECD66E@trammell.ch> To: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 02 Mar 2015 13:08:29 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4551D9C0-5EE7-4577-BFB0-54C2ED462BB6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, Those of you who pledged to review this draft and have not yet = commented: last call ends in two days! :) Thanks, cheers, Brian (chair hat) > On 18 Feb 2015, at 11:38, Brian Trammell wrote: >=20 > Greetings, all, >=20 > As noted in our status message, Working Group Last Call on = draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00, "UDP Checksum Trailer in OWAMP and = TWAMP" begins today, until EOB Wednesday 4 March 2015. Please review the = draft if you have not already, and direct any final comments on this = draft to the list. >=20 > Many thanks, best regards, >=20 > Brian --Apple-Mail=_4551D9C0-5EE7-4577-BFB0-54C2ED462BB6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU9GCqAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcL1gIAIqgPck55gWFEwus0sHlhOsR R8tj16ACwKod+Pozl1NwVSA2CGt/RJ4GFZICsq9/HKq4E5zDLUaHmJqFxNeQ0/0Y De2HedrCvM98NFyZqffMGa7m0kDfODjq4zutMfE2r8PIRBVl2X2ZIZXufO3r3l9H iT6bm+iUhHrsGIFGSvw4fNdBXnP72zFDOxJ2+dq+2dF3k1GMDKRAHB/YRRmXveR0 sYRVZvGtnxANAWUNb4ER+v6e20nF957MnIbPt/I08/9LaewpyIxxnTllfZiti2Iq w00O/M1LNminYh6POxFpWy5Ce1fQJ1fuNXslya6hcZa/V4Gz+uSrgXElwa+GGpA= =wYVD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4551D9C0-5EE7-4577-BFB0-54C2ED462BB6-- From nobody Mon Mar 2 05:21:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E507A1A875E for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:21:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5I_iIJm1ESxk for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:21:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E2F11A8755 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:21:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2:a97d:ca78:64c2:a643] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2:a97d:ca78:64c2:a643]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33CA71A07AD for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:21:55 +0100 (CET) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6F0D7BB7-7484-484E-A27E-D0C3F6FD3916"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:21:54 +0100 Message-Id: To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Draft IPPM agenda for Dallas posted X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 02 Mar 2015 13:21:59 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6F0D7BB7-7484-484E-A27E-D0C3F6FD3916 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, The draft agenda for our Friday morning meeting in Dallas are now posted = at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/agenda/agenda-92-ippm Please let me know if I've missed anyone's request, have assumed the = wrong presenter, etc. Thanks, cheers, Brian --Apple-Mail=_6F0D7BB7-7484-484E-A27E-D0C3F6FD3916 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU9GPyAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcgiwIANYMq4/C/CL9WyVR6oZnYZKR 6qMILeJUbYgvzJ6EmNgxlPV2aa5i3ouGiOOnAvI5y32dPYpMd2ab5vm1xaw8c8zl QGE6qZgW0SoOeUr+R3dxSE4yJTkxSRTm66FLjsTtxbQ1G8bN43+A2Ljf5SCAVQpc bptaR0ZyM+iQ6jgAkr7ohjj4innqo8DDQWRFjNJqyA8gq+1GSYLqTxfPPMvS/y6/ maEo4BJ1ArKHOoBZQh8u7G3UPWwNTLWMxqEE75fPKZ3eaXKBib4qqD7xvCJFGpIw aVGE4BkjSAiyrpqn9jzlfSny2g0icndK9Yq/RmHR7TjMqyghXGP9nGjKE+WWRbg= =kP57 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_6F0D7BB7-7484-484E-A27E-D0C3F6FD3916-- From nobody Mon Mar 2 09:42:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5EA1A8825 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:42:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vGVtyqujxL2J for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:42:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.z120.zixworks.com (mx.z120.zixworks.com [199.30.235.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE3D61A8855 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:42:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (ZixVPM [127.0.0.1]) by Outbound.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id CBDCC1029B2 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:42:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from imsva1.bcbsm.com (unknown [12.107.172.80]) by mx.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id 3CDFD1315A9; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:42:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from imsva1.bcbsm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA80 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC9F4FE1E4; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from pwn401ea105.ent.corp.bcbsm.com (unknown [10.64.102.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by imsva1.bcbsm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6B04FDE8F; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([fe80::fdcb:603d:469e:b1db]) by PWN401EA105.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([fe80::f13e:83e4:1dae:5345%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:42:13 -0500 From: "Ackermann, Michael" To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" Thread-Topic: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" Thread-Index: AdAVa4qDXZxvF1FqRhagpVc9BsRX0AugXDWwACVIh1YAH0nqAAM5YEUQAMfhM3AAArWxQA== Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 17:42:12 +0000 Message-ID: <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CD6E6EE@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> References: , <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D876E6509@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8754F934@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <0AD5F8BADDD1FF4097676479A6D8F7B33F48EDDE@TELMBB001BA020.telecomitalia.local> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8985789C@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857B87@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857B87@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.64.10.35] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.3262-7.500.1018-21366.007 x-tm-as-result: No--32.242900-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-VPM-HOST: vmvpm01.z120.zixworks.com X-VPM-GROUP-ID: 2659cea9-943f-4d99-84fd-bce47447c1bd X-VPM-MSG-ID: 2f61e23c-331a-42f4-b99a-b7a5bd52c2cb X-VPM-ENC-REGIME: Plaintext X-VPM-CERT-FLAG: 0 X-VPM-IS-HYBRID: 0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem.all@tools.ietf.org" , "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 02 Mar 2015 17:42:17 -0000 > Al =20 Good work on this draft. Thanks for taking the initiative and compiling = such great information and conclusions. In particular defining Hybrid (which everyone has expressly avoided=20 doing to date) and then providing examples of where solutions like PDM=20 and Coloring should be categorized. =20 I like what you have come up with and the rationale provided is very = convincing and to me, hard to dispute. Will it be possible to get this discussion on = the=20 Agenda in Dallas, so that we may actively discuss these concepts and = perhaps solidify these=20 definitions and categorizations? Great Progress and thanks again for your efforts=21 Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm =5Bmailto:ippm-bounces=40ietf.org=5D On Behalf Of MORTON, = ALFRED=20 > C > (AL) > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:56 AM > To: ippm=40ietf.org > Subject: =5Bippm=5D FW: Suggestions about draft =22ippm-active-passive=22 > Importance: High >=20 > *** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***. > Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information. >=20 > The latest draft is here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01.txt >=20 > This version benefits from Tizano's comments (see exchange below), and=20 > very recent comments from Nalini and her colleague Bill. >=20 > regards, > Al >=20 The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and = is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this = communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are = hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of = this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic = mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original = message without making any copies. =20 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are = nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and = Blue Shield Association. From nobody Mon Mar 2 09:55:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DCA01A8855; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:55:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2fHcRu9kWkn; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:55:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F0D1A1B5B; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:55:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760A612044A; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 13:11:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0B3E031F; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:54:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea%17]) with mapi; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:14 -0500 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: "Ackermann, Michael" Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:13 -0500 Thread-Topic: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" Thread-Index: AdAVa4qDXZxvF1FqRhagpVc9BsRX0AugXDWwACVIh1YAH0nqAAM5YEUQAMfhM3AAArWxQAAAsc1g Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857BC8@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: , <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D876E6509@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8754F934@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <0AD5F8BADDD1FF4097676479A6D8F7B33F48EDDE@TELMBB001BA020.telecomitalia.local> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8985789C@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857B87@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CD6E6EE@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> In-Reply-To: <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CD6E6EE@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 02 Mar 2015 17:55:20 -0000 Thanks Mike, the draft is on the agenda, and we'll have the discussion. Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Ackermann, Michael [mailto:MAckermann@bcbsm.com] > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 12:42 PM > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-rate- > problem.all@tools.ietf.org > Subject: RE: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" >=20 > > Al >=20 > Good work on this draft. Thanks for taking the initiative and compiling > such > great information and conclusions. >=20 > In particular defining Hybrid (which everyone has expressly avoided > doing to date) and then providing examples of where solutions like PDM > and Coloring should be categorized. >=20 > I like what you have come up with and the rationale provided is very > convincing and > to me, hard to dispute. Will it be possible to get this discussion o= n > the > Agenda in Dallas, so that we may actively discuss these concepts and > perhaps solidify these > definitions and categorizations? >=20 > Great Progress and thanks again for your efforts! >=20 > Mike >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED > > C > > (AL) > > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:56 AM > > To: ippm@ietf.org > > Subject: [ippm] FW: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" > > Importance: High > > > > *** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***. > > Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more > information. > > > > The latest draft is here: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01.txt > > > > This version benefits from Tizano's comments (see exchange below), and > > very recent comments from Nalini and her colleague Bill. > > > > regards, > > Al > > >=20 >=20 > The information contained in this communication is highly confidential an= d > is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this > communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of > this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic > mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original > message without making any copies. >=20 > Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are > nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and > Blue Shield Association. From nobody Mon Mar 2 10:20:28 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem.all@virtual.ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E91761A88A5; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 10:20:26 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98C01A88A4 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 10:20:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MT0wU6pKdznD for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 10:20:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2607:f170:8000:1500::de]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1B401A8863 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 10:20:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.z120.zixworks.com ([199.30.235.120]:36323) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YSUx0-0005xd-Iq for draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem.all@tools.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:20:19 -0500 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (ZixVPM [127.0.0.1]) by Outbound.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id D186A102A35 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:42:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from imsva1.bcbsm.com (unknown [12.107.172.80]) by mx.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id 3CDFD1315A9; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:42:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from imsva1.bcbsm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA80 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC9F4FE1E4; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from pwn401ea105.ent.corp.bcbsm.com (unknown [10.64.102.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by imsva1.bcbsm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6B04FDE8F; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([fe80::fdcb:603d:469e:b1db]) by PWN401EA105.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([fe80::f13e:83e4:1dae:5345%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:42:13 -0500 From: "Ackermann, Michael" To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" Thread-Topic: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" Thread-Index: AdAVa4qDXZxvF1FqRhagpVc9BsRX0AugXDWwACVIh1YAH0nqAAM5YEUQAMfhM3AAArWxQA== Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 17:42:12 +0000 Message-ID: <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CD6E6EE@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> References: , <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D876E6509@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8754F934@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <0AD5F8BADDD1FF4097676479A6D8F7B33F48EDDE@TELMBB001BA020.telecomitalia.local> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8985789C@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857B87@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857B87@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.64.10.35] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.3262-7.500.1018-21366.007 x-tm-as-result: No--32.242900-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-VPM-HOST: vmvpm01.z120.zixworks.com X-VPM-GROUP-ID: 2659cea9-943f-4d99-84fd-bce47447c1bd X-VPM-MSG-ID: 268983f2-6d6b-4d43-b312-99c54abe8bcc X-VPM-ENC-REGIME: Plaintext X-VPM-CERT-FLAG: 0 X-VPM-IS-HYBRID: 0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 199.30.235.120 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem.all@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mackermann@bcbsm.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on gamay.tools.ietf.org) Resent-To: draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem.all@ietf.org Resent-Message-Id: <20150302182020.F1B401A8863@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 10:20:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: mackermann@bcbsm.com Archived-At: Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem.all@tools.ietf.org" , "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 02 Mar 2015 18:20:27 -0000 > Al =20 Good work on this draft. Thanks for taking the initiative and compiling = such great information and conclusions. In particular defining Hybrid (which everyone has expressly avoided=20 doing to date) and then providing examples of where solutions like PDM=20 and Coloring should be categorized. =20 I like what you have come up with and the rationale provided is very = convincing and to me, hard to dispute. Will it be possible to get this discussion on = the=20 Agenda in Dallas, so that we may actively discuss these concepts and = perhaps solidify these=20 definitions and categorizations? Great Progress and thanks again for your efforts=21 Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm =5Bmailto:ippm-bounces=40ietf.org=5D On Behalf Of MORTON, = ALFRED=20 > C > (AL) > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:56 AM > To: ippm=40ietf.org > Subject: =5Bippm=5D FW: Suggestions about draft =22ippm-active-passive=22 > Importance: High >=20 > *** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***. > Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information. >=20 > The latest draft is here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01.txt >=20 > This version benefits from Tizano's comments (see exchange below), and=20 > very recent comments from Nalini and her colleague Bill. >=20 > regards, > Al >=20 The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and = is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this = communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are = hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of = this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic = mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original = message without making any copies. =20 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are = nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and = Blue Shield Association. From nobody Tue Mar 3 03:05:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95371A0195 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:05:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2f06RN0N7zJI for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3EA1A017D for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:05:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-10243.ethz.ch (pb-10243.ethz.ch [82.130.102.152]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 152701A00FD for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:05:36 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8183B3E9-40EF-4FE0-972A-52B15592C11A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5 From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:05:34 +0100 Message-Id: References: To: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft IPPM agenda for Dallas posted X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 03 Mar 2015 11:05:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8183B3E9-40EF-4FE0-972A-52B15592C11A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, The draft agenda: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/agenda/agenda-92-ippm has been updated, adding draft-zheng-ippm-framework-passive. Cheers, Brian > On 02 Mar 2015, at 14:21, Brian Trammell wrote: >=20 > Greetings, all, >=20 > The draft agenda for our Friday morning meeting in Dallas are now = posted at >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/agenda/agenda-92-ippm >=20 > Please let me know if I've missed anyone's request, have assumed the = wrong presenter, etc. >=20 > Thanks, cheers, >=20 > Brian > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm --Apple-Mail=_8183B3E9-40EF-4FE0-972A-52B15592C11A Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU9ZV/AAoJENt3nsOmbNJc9rAIAJ++4ZvXiQrQBvxjXfU5dvqd 9/ImWXmHjvU0zoZZYWZU83ZH4MHWu9/QEBz5z3P8j3IbfspIXOqVEGfzXY908xlo 9acTa6cHkmf8rGZpKbFyhuSC8jQqq6OkvwBtCY3BnNezjDLoJY7yw8hQsI723viA vtiG7F/kVBkzpIO1C7VJ+4o0wG6avKiVBoEPrmIKEVYxGhRpPX9kC28GlEg745HJ 9mo639cRTtKkS0lwF5k2HDE5sTTxVqEJX9LAvdCHQqGbfZ8aGqWpOuaXlTINXCQ3 FPgZu7rmN2wj5F0guPzx5Xao/53owK0JpLlTM7Y9BSLA/zDNgR19PanCPk6cYYo= =3osu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_8183B3E9-40EF-4FE0-972A-52B15592C11A-- From nobody Tue Mar 3 16:09:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884291A875D for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:09:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-GcgOt7ZU8H for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:09:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A8E1A8755 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:09:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017091205E9; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 19:25:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7335AE02EC; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 19:08:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea%17]) with mapi; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 19:09:23 -0500 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" , "Tal Mizrahi (talmi@marvell.com)" Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 19:09:21 -0500 Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00 Thread-Index: AdBLZyIWAHbqt7i7SA+u5AF56KwvZAKo27WA Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857DE1@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <6034239A-91DD-4C46-B3AB-916E1BECD66E@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <6034239A-91DD-4C46-B3AB-916E1BECD66E@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 04 Mar 2015 00:09:25 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:39 AM > To: ippm@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00 >=20 > Greetings, all, >=20 > As noted in our status message, Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf- > ippm-checksum-trailer-00, "UDP Checksum Trailer in OWAMP and TWAMP" begin= s > today, until EOB Wednesday 4 March 2015. Please review the draft if you > have not already, and direct any final comments on this draft to the list= . >=20 > Many thanks, best regards, >=20 > Brian I read the draft, and have some general comments: It's a good idea, and a good draft. The main issue I saw involves the restricted applicability to unauthenticated mode in Section 3.4: ... On the other hand, when message authentication is used, an intermediate entity that alters test packets must also re-compute the Message Authentication Code (MAC) accordingly. The MAC update typically requires the intermediate entity to store the packet, re- compute its MAC, and then forward it. Thus, the benefit of the checksum trailer is effectively irrelevant when a MAC is used. However, section 4.2.1 of RFC5357 TWAMP says: Packet Padding in TWAMP-Test SHOULD be pseudo-random (it MUST be generated independently of any other pseudo-random numbers mentioned in this document). However, implementations MUST provide a configuration parameter, an option, or a different means of making Packet Padding consist of all zeros. Packet Padding MUST NOT be covered by the HMAC and MUST NOT be encrypted. So, if the HMAC and encryption operations are supposed to ignore the Paddin= g octets, I don't understand how the Padding modifications made by an intermediate en= tity will require HMAC re-calculation. What am I missing, Tal? Other points: The Checksum Trailer is neither a Checksum itself, nor is it a trailer because it is embedded in the existing Padding octets. They are=20 Checksum alignment octets. I don't want to spend too many cycles on the name but something more accurate could be helpful. In TWAMP, there are two instances where the out-going packet can benefit from this feature - on egress from the Session-Sender - on egress from the Session-Reflector This should be noted in the Intro section. regards, Al From nobody Tue Mar 3 23:11:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78DC1A01FA for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 23:11:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CcMKMYuanqTn for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 23:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.156.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD5241A00ED for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 23:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0045851.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id t2479YJr005485; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 23:11:08 -0800 Received: from sc-owa.marvell.com ([199.233.58.135]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1sw4qwunsy-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 03 Mar 2015 23:11:08 -0800 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by SC-OWA.marvell.com (10.93.76.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 23:11:07 -0800 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:11:04 +0200 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::41:1c9f:8611:3a4a]) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::41:1c9f:8611:3a4a%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:11:04 +0200 From: Tal Mizrahi To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" , Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00 Thread-Index: AdBLZyIWAHbqt7i7SA+u5AF56KwvZAKo27WAAA7SNOA= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:11:03 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6034239A-91DD-4C46-B3AB-916E1BECD66E@trammell.ch> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857DE1@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857DE1@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.4.102.232] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-03-04_02:2015-03-03,2015-03-04,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1503040078 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 04 Mar 2015 07:11:12 -0000 Hi Al, Thanks for the comments. > So, if the HMAC and encryption operations are supposed to ignore the Padd= ing octets, I don't understand how the Padding modifications made by an int= ermediate entity will require HMAC re-calculation. > What am I missing, Tal? Encrypted mode: The 'intermediate entity' timestamps the OWAMP/TWAMP packet. Since the time= stamp field is modified: (i) The checksum or checksum trailer need to be up= dated, and (ii) The packet needs to be re-encrypted since the timestamp fie= ld was modified. As you pointed out, the padding is not protected by the encryption, but the= timestamp *is*, and therefore re-encryption is required. Authenticated mode: You make a good point. In *authenticated* mode, the timestamp is *not* prot= ected by the HMAC. Therefore, when the intermediate node updates the timest= amp and checksum/checksum trailer, there is no need to update the HMAC. I will update the draft. > The Checksum Trailer is neither a Checksum itself, nor is it a trailer be= cause it is embedded in the existing Padding octets. They are Checksum alig= nment octets. I don't want to spend too many cycles on the name but somethi= ng more accurate could be helpful. I considered a few options, such as or . My personal opinion is that is still the most suitabl= e one, but I am open to other opinions / suggestions.=20 Thanks, Tal. -----Original Message----- From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:09 AM To: Brian Trammell; ippm@ietf.org; Tal Mizrahi Subject: RE: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00 > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:39 AM > To: ippm@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00 >=20 > Greetings, all, >=20 > As noted in our status message, Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-=20 > ippm-checksum-trailer-00, "UDP Checksum Trailer in OWAMP and TWAMP"=20 > begins today, until EOB Wednesday 4 March 2015. Please review the=20 > draft if you have not already, and direct any final comments on this draf= t to the list. >=20 > Many thanks, best regards, >=20 > Brian I read the draft, and have some general comments: It's a good idea, and a good draft. The main issue I saw involves the restricted applicability to unauthenticat= ed mode in Section 3.4: ... On the other hand, when message authentication is used, an intermediate entity that alters test packets must also re-compute the Message Authentication Code (MAC) accordingly. The MAC update typically requires the intermediate entity to store the packet, re- compute its MAC, and then forward it. Thus, the benefit of the checksum trailer is effectively irrelevant when a MAC is used. However, section 4.2.1 of RFC5357 TWAMP says: Packet Padding in TWAMP-Test SHOULD be pseudo-random (it MUST be generated independently of any other pseudo-random numbers mentioned in this document). However, implementations MUST provide a configuration parameter, an option, or a different means of making Packet Padding consist of all zeros. Packet Padding MUST NOT be covered by the HMAC and MUST NOT be encrypted. So, if the HMAC and encryption operations are supposed to ignore the Paddin= g octets, I don't understand how the Padding modifications made by an inter= mediate entity will require HMAC re-calculation. What am I missing, Tal? Other points: The Checksum Trailer is neither a Checksum itself, nor is it a trailer beca= use it is embedded in the existing Padding octets. They are Checksum alignm= ent octets. I don't want to spend too many cycles on the name but something= more accurate could be helpful. In TWAMP, there are two instances where the out-going packet can benefit fr= om this feature - on egress from the Session-Sender - on egress from the Session-Reflector This should be noted in the Intro section. regards, Al From nobody Wed Mar 4 08:46:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF631A87E8 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:46:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9gs6dG5ccF7t for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:46:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597691A878E for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:46:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.11]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3A5120776; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:02:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA33AEF4E3; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:46:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea%17]) with mapi; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:46:25 -0500 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Tal Mizrahi , Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:46:24 -0500 Thread-Topic: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00 Thread-Index: AdBLZyIWAHbqt7i7SA+u5AF56KwvZAKo27WAAA7SNOAAFPT3YA== Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857E6E@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <6034239A-91DD-4C46-B3AB-916E1BECD66E@trammell.ch> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857DE1@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-00 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 04 Mar 2015 16:46:27 -0000 Hi Tal, thanks for your analysis and feedback. ... > > The Checksum Trailer is neither a Checksum itself, nor is it a trailer > > because it is embedded in the existing Padding octets. They are Checksu= m > > alignment octets. I don't want to spend too many cycles on the name but > > something more accurate could be helpful. >=20 > I considered a few options, such as or Diff>. My personal opinion is that is still the most > suitable one, but I am open to other opinions / suggestions. I like Checksum Complement, it seems more accurate/descriptive to me.=20 The ASCII-art, field description, etc., tells us where it will reside. regards, Al From nobody Mon Mar 9 01:58:24 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877A11A874B; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 01:58:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G7iamMAoDXgb; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 01:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E7B1A8742; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 01:58:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150309085820.28546.77222.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 01:58:20 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 08:58:21 -0000 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 : UDP Checksum Complement in OWAMP and TWAMP Author : Tal Mizrahi Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2015-03-09 Abstract: The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) are used for performance monitoring in IP networks. Delay measurement is performed in these protocols by using timestamped test packets. Some implementations use hardware-based timestamping engines that integrate the accurate transmission timestamp into every outgoing OWAMP/TWAMP test packet during transmission. Since these packets are transported over UDP, the UDP checksum field is then updated to reflect this modification. This document proposes to use the last 2 octets of every test packet as a Checksum Complement, allowing timestamping engines to reflect the checksum modification in the last 2 octets rather than in the UDP checksum field. The behavior defined in this document is completely interoperable with existing OWAMP/TWAMP implementations. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 9 01:59:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5395D1A8749 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 01:59:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VNXeLRYnXTD8 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 01:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.148.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80FF1A872B for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 01:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0045849.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id t298x88d014592 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 01:59:54 -0700 Received: from sc-owa.marvell.com ([199.233.58.135]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1sy6d72hvy-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 01:59:54 -0700 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by SC-OWA.marvell.com (10.93.76.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 01:59:54 -0700 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:59:50 +0200 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36]) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:59:50 +0200 From: Tal Mizrahi To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Thread-Index: AdBaR0sXNxcca12AQZmDvy6kzK6+KQ== Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:59:50 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.4.102.232] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-03-09_01:2015-03-06,2015-03-08,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1503090097 Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 09 Mar 2015 08:59:56 -0000 SGksDQoNClRoZSBkcmFmdCB3YXMgdXBkYXRlZCBiYXNlZCBvbiB0aGUgY29tbWVudHMgcmVjZWl2 ZWQgaW4gV0dMQy4NClBsZWFzZSBsZXQgbWUga25vdyBpZiB0aGVyZSBhcmUgYW55IGNvbW1lbnRz Lg0KDQpDaGVlcnMsDQpUYWwuDQoNCg0KDQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIEktRCwgZHJhZnQtaWV0 Zi1pcHBtLWNoZWNrc3VtLXRyYWlsZXItMDEudHh0DQpoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgc3Vi bWl0dGVkIGJ5IFRhbCBNaXpyYWhpIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4N Cg0KTmFtZToJCWRyYWZ0LWlldGYtaXBwbS1jaGVja3N1bS10cmFpbGVyDQpSZXZpc2lvbjoJMDEN ClRpdGxlOgkJVURQIENoZWNrc3VtIENvbXBsZW1lbnQgaW4gT1dBTVAgYW5kIFRXQU1QDQpEb2N1 bWVudCBkYXRlOgkyMDE1LTAzLTA5DQpHcm91cDoJCWlwcG0NClBhZ2VzOgkJMTINClVSTDogICAg ICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlw cG0tY2hlY2tzdW0tdHJhaWxlci0wMS50eHQNClN0YXR1czogICAgICAgICBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0 cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0tY2hlY2tzdW0tdHJhaWxlci8NCkh0 bWxpemVkOiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlwcG0t Y2hlY2tzdW0tdHJhaWxlci0wMQ0KRGlmZjogICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcv cmZjZGlmZj91cmwyPWRyYWZ0LWlldGYtaXBwbS1jaGVja3N1bS10cmFpbGVyLTAxDQoNCkFic3Ry YWN0Og0KICAgVGhlIE9uZS1XYXkgQWN0aXZlIE1lYXN1cmVtZW50IFByb3RvY29sIChPV0FNUCkg YW5kIHRoZSBUd28tV2F5DQogICBBY3RpdmUgTWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgUHJvdG9jb2wgKFRXQU1QKSBh cmUgdXNlZCBmb3IgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UNCiAgIG1vbml0b3JpbmcgaW4gSVAgbmV0d29ya3MuIERl bGF5IG1lYXN1cmVtZW50IGlzIHBlcmZvcm1lZCBpbiB0aGVzZQ0KICAgcHJvdG9jb2xzIGJ5IHVz aW5nIHRpbWVzdGFtcGVkIHRlc3QgcGFja2V0cy4gU29tZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMgdXNlDQog ICBoYXJkd2FyZS1iYXNlZCB0aW1lc3RhbXBpbmcgZW5naW5lcyB0aGF0IGludGVncmF0ZSB0aGUg YWNjdXJhdGUNCiAgIHRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbiB0aW1lc3RhbXAgaW50byBldmVyeSBvdXRnb2luZyBP V0FNUC9UV0FNUCB0ZXN0IHBhY2tldA0KICAgZHVyaW5nIHRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbi4gIFNpbmNlIHRo ZXNlIHBhY2tldHMgYXJlIHRyYW5zcG9ydGVkIG92ZXIgVURQLA0KICAgdGhlIFVEUCBjaGVja3N1 bSBmaWVsZCBpcyB0aGVuIHVwZGF0ZWQgdG8gcmVmbGVjdCB0aGlzIG1vZGlmaWNhdGlvbi4NCiAg IFRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgcHJvcG9zZXMgdG8gdXNlIHRoZSBsYXN0IDIgb2N0ZXRzIG9mIGV2ZXJ5 IHRlc3QgcGFja2V0DQogICBhcyBhIENoZWNrc3VtIENvbXBsZW1lbnQsIGFsbG93aW5nIHRpbWVz dGFtcGluZyBlbmdpbmVzIHRvIHJlZmxlY3QNCiAgIHRoZSBjaGVja3N1bSBtb2RpZmljYXRpb24g aW4gdGhlIGxhc3QgMiBvY3RldHMgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gaW4gdGhlIFVEUA0KICAgY2hlY2tzdW0g ZmllbGQuIFRoZSBiZWhhdmlvciBkZWZpbmVkIGluIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgY29tcGxldGVs eQ0KICAgaW50ZXJvcGVyYWJsZSB3aXRoIGV4aXN0aW5nIE9XQU1QL1RXQU1QIGltcGxlbWVudGF0 aW9ucy4NCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KDQoNClBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoYXQg aXQgbWF5IHRha2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgbWludXRlcyBmcm9tIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIHN1Ym1pc3Np b24gdW50aWwgdGhlIGh0bWxpemVkIHZlcnNpb24gYW5kIGRpZmYgYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCB0 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy4NCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K From nobody Mon Mar 9 03:05:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4DCC1A877B for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 03:05:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0qBr4Ce0gafm for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 03:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0D91A8767 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 03:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.27.105] (cust-integra-122-165.antanet.ch [80.75.122.165]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34AA41A0953; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:05:25 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:05:24 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Tal Mizrahi X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 09 Mar 2015 10:05:28 -0000 hi Tal, all, Thanks. The changes do not appear to me to require another WGLC, though = if anyone would like more time, please let the list and/or the chairs = know today. Otherwise, I'll start the writeup and send this up to the = IESG. Cheers, Brian (as chair and document shepherd) > On 09 Mar 2015, at 09:59, Tal Mizrahi wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > The draft was updated based on the comments received in WGLC. > Please let me know if there are any comments. >=20 > Cheers, > Tal. >=20 >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Tal Mizrahi and posted to the IETF = repository. >=20 > Name: draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer > Revision: 01 > Title: UDP Checksum Complement in OWAMP and TWAMP > Document date: 2015-03-09 > Group: ippm > Pages: 12 > URL: = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01.tx= t > Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer/ > Htmlized: = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 > Diff: = http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 >=20 > Abstract: > The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and the Two-Way > Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) are used for performance > monitoring in IP networks. Delay measurement is performed in these > protocols by using timestamped test packets. Some implementations = use > hardware-based timestamping engines that integrate the accurate > transmission timestamp into every outgoing OWAMP/TWAMP test packet > during transmission. Since these packets are transported over UDP, > the UDP checksum field is then updated to reflect this modification. > This document proposes to use the last 2 octets of every test packet > as a Checksum Complement, allowing timestamping engines to reflect > the checksum modification in the last 2 octets rather than in the = UDP > checksum field. The behavior defined in this document is completely > interoperable with existing OWAMP/TWAMP implementations. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at = tools.ietf.org. >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Mon Mar 9 05:35:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86D61A8772 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 05:35:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JsjWw720GuQD for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 05:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392FC1A7034 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 05:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.11]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA001205B4; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6659F0409; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea%17]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:35:05 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Tal Mizrahi , "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:31:46 -0400 Thread-Topic: Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Thread-Index: AdBaR0sXNxcca12AQZmDvy6kzK6+KQAHbco8 Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89616044@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 09 Mar 2015 12:35:11 -0000 Hi Tal, Over the weekend, it occurred to me that there is potential for interaction between your draft and the=20 Reflect Octets/Symmetrical Size features in: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6038 This is probably worth noting, if you agree. regards, Al ________________________________________ From: ippm [ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tal Mizrahi [talmi@marvell.= com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 4:59 AM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Hi, The draft was updated based on the comments received in WGLC. Please let me know if there are any comments. Cheers, Tal. From nobody Mon Mar 9 14:03:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6191F1ACCEC for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:03:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.26 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y6_vAcDKEXH3 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.eict.de (mx2.eict.de [212.91.241.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28F31A92F8 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mx2.eict.de (Postfix, from userid 481) id F12321FF5A; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 22:02:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.eict.de (mx1 [172.16.6.1]) by mx2.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5957A1FF54 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 22:02:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from sbs2008.eict.local (sbs2008.intern.eict.de [192.168.2.11]) by mail.eict.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FDA378057 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 22:02:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298]) by SBS2008.eict.local ([fe80::2051:ef24:c7c9:f298%13]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 22:02:26 +0100 From: Kostas Pentikousis To: "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 22:02:25 +0100 Thread-Topic: TWAMP Data Model: draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang Thread-Index: AdBarFf30xCatupDQ1msjJ+AjTpUBQ== Message-ID: <0C7EDCF89AB9E2478B5D010026CFF4AEB5AB7E8FA3@SBS2008.eict.local> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] TWAMP Data Model: draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 09 Mar 2015 21:03:05 -0000 Dear all, As you may recall there was a call in early November to work on a YANG modu= le for TWAMP (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg03518.ht= ml). A team of volunteers did step forward and after a bit over two months of we= ekly telcos and continuous collaboration between the authors, we're happy t= o announce the first version of the TWAMP data model: http://datatracker.ie= tf.org/doc/draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang/. It has been really enjoyable work= ing together on this specification and we do hope that the WG finds that th= is work should be pursued further.=20 We're looking forward to your comments, suggestions and contributions towar= ds making this a better document. Best regards, Kostas (on behalf of the authors) From nobody Mon Mar 9 14:03:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADC41A9138 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:03:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4CsgKa4MknO4 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.156.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46D131ACD7C for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:03:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0045851.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id t29L07RV029543; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:03:24 -0700 Received: from sc-owa03.marvell.com ([199.233.58.149]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1t04x3f4py-2 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:03:24 -0700 Received: from IL-EXCH02.marvell.com (10.4.102.221) by SC-OWA03.marvell.com (10.93.76.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:03:24 -0700 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by IL-EXCH02.marvell.com (10.4.102.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 23:03:21 +0200 Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36]) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 23:03:21 +0200 From: Tal Mizrahi To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Thread-Index: AdBaR0sXNxcca12AQZmDvy6kzK6+KQAHbco8ABHNOWA= Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 21:03:20 +0000 Message-ID: <40de431147174e4f9206d4340e8a42b6@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89616044@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89616044@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [199.203.130.14] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-03-09_04:2015-03-09,2015-03-09,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1503090210 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 09 Mar 2015 21:03:45 -0000 Hi Al, The current draft already includes some discussion about the possible inter= action with RFC 6038 (see Section 3.2, page 8). Please let me know if this is satisfactory. Thanks, Tal. -----Original Message----- From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com]=20 Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 2:32 PM To: Tal Mizrahi; ippm@ietf.org Subject: RE: Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Hi Tal, Over the weekend, it occurred to me that there is potential for interaction= between your draft and the Reflect Octets/Symmetrical Size features in: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6038 This is probably worth noting, if you agree. regards, Al ________________________________________ From: ippm [ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tal Mizrahi [talmi@marvell.= com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 4:59 AM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Hi, The draft was updated based on the comments received in WGLC. Please let me know if there are any comments. Cheers, Tal. From nobody Mon Mar 9 14:39:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165D51ACC81; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:39:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E-YX51EMwApx; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C301ABD3D; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:39:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150309213936.6241.83233.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:39:36 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-04.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:39:38 -0000 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 : Model Based Bulk Performance Metrics Authors : Matt Mathis Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-04.txt Pages : 43 Date : 2015-03-09 Abstract: We introduce a new class of model based metrics designed to determine if an end-to-end Internet path can meet predefined bulk transport performance targets by applying a suite of IP diagnostic tests to successive subpaths. The subpath-at-a-time tests can be robustly applied to key infrastructure, such as interconnects, to accurately detect if any part of the infrastructure will prevent the full end- to-end paths traversing them from meeting the specified target performance. The diagnostic tests consist of precomputed traffic patterns and statistical criteria for evaluating packet delivery. The traffic patterns are precomputed to mimic TCP or other transport protocol over a long path but are constructed in such a way that they are independent of the actual details of the subpath under test, end systems or applications. Likewise the success criteria depends on the packet delivery statistics of the subpath, as evaluated against a protocol model applied to the target performance. The success criteria also does not depend on the details of the subpath, endsystems or application. This makes the measurements open loop, eliminating most of the difficulties encountered by traditional bulk transport metrics. Model based metrics exhibit several important new properties not present in other Bulk Capacity Metrics, including the ability to reason about concatenated or overlapping subpaths. The results are vantage independent which is critical for supporting independent validation of tests results from multiple Measurement Points. This document does not define diagnostic tests directly, but provides a framework for designing suites of diagnostics tests that are tailored to confirming that infrastructure can meet the target performance. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 9 15:40:10 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DB01A88CF for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:40:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r3s3H1bIHtjz for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:40:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A041A0174 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:40:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.255.18]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D716120764; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9034E24F3; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea%17]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:39:57 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: Tal Mizrahi , "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:37:55 -0400 Thread-Topic: Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Thread-Index: AdBaR0sXNxcca12AQZmDvy6kzK6+KQAHbco8ABHNOWAAA14dxQ== Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89616053@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89616044@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>, <40de431147174e4f9206d4340e8a42b6@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> In-Reply-To: <40de431147174e4f9206d4340e8a42b6@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 09 Mar 2015 22:40:08 -0000 You're right, I didn't remember that section from the review, but after 6038 came to my attention this weekend, it was worth checking! Thanks, Al ________________________________________ From: Tal Mizrahi [talmi@marvell.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 5:03 PM To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); ippm@ietf.org Subject: RE: Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Hi Al, The current draft already includes some discussion about the possible inter= action with RFC 6038 (see Section 3.2, page 8). Please let me know if this is satisfactory. Thanks, Tal. -----Original Message----- From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 2:32 PM To: Tal Mizrahi; ippm@ietf.org Subject: RE: Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Hi Tal, Over the weekend, it occurred to me that there is potential for interaction= between your draft and the Reflect Octets/Symmetrical Size features in: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6038 This is probably worth noting, if you agree. regards, Al ________________________________________ From: ippm [ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tal Mizrahi [talmi@marvell.= com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 4:59 AM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Updated draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-01 Hi, The draft was updated based on the comments received in WGLC. Please let me know if there are any comments. Cheers, Tal.= From nobody Tue Mar 10 02:38:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631511A8730 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 02:38:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZuAu-9yLiJyW for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 02:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C502B1A8727 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 02:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BTL91523; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:38:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.70) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:38:28 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.24]) by szxema411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:38:19 +0800 From: Vero Zheng To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-03.txt Thread-Index: AQHQSl5m2brD/sGJFEivHTXLda3rVJ0Vc8Nw Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:38:18 +0000 Message-ID: <2EEA459CD95CCB4988BFAFC0F2287B5C5C96911D@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.239] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-03.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 10 Mar 2015 09:38:37 -0000 SGksDQoNCldlIGhhdmUgdXBkYXRlZCB0aGUgZHJhZnQgYW5kIHdlIGhhdmUgY28tYXV0aG9yIGZy b20gVGVsZWNvbSBJdGFsaWEgb24gYm9hcmQuDQpXZSB3aWxsIHByZXNlbnQgdGhpcyBpbiBEYWxs YXMsIGNvbW1lbnRzIGFuZCBzdWdnZXN0aW9ucyBhcmUgd2VsY29tZS4NCg0KQlIsIFZlcm8NCihP biBiZWhhbGYgb2YgdGhlIGNvLWF1dGhvcnMpDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0t DQpGcm9tOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNA aWV0Zi5vcmddIA0KU2VudDogVHVlc2RheSwgRmVicnVhcnkgMTcsIDIwMTUgMTE6MDQgQU0NClRv OiBNYWNoIENoZW47IEdyZWcgTWlyc2t5OyBHaXVzZXBwZSBGaW9jY29sYTsgVmVybyBaaGVuZzsg TWFjaCBDaGVuOyBHcmVnIE1pcnNreTsgR2l1c2VwcGUgRmlvY2NvbGE7IFZlcm8gWmhlbmcNClN1 YmplY3Q6IE5ldyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgZHJhZnQtY2hlbi1pcHBtLWNvbG9y aW5nLWJhc2VkLWlwZnBtLWZyYW1ld29yay0wMy50eHQNCg0KDQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIEkt RCwgZHJhZnQtY2hlbi1pcHBtLWNvbG9yaW5nLWJhc2VkLWlwZnBtLWZyYW1ld29yay0wMy50eHQN CmhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgTGlhbnNodSBaaGVuZyBhbmQgcG9z dGVkIHRvIHRoZSBJRVRGIHJlcG9zaXRvcnkuDQoNCk5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC1jaGVuLWlwcG0tY29s b3JpbmctYmFzZWQtaXBmcG0tZnJhbWV3b3JrDQpSZXZpc2lvbjoJMDMNClRpdGxlOgkJSVAgRmxv dyBQZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBNZWFzdXJlbWVudCBGcmFtZXdvcmsNCkRvY3VtZW50IGRhdGU6CTIwMTUt MDItMTcNCkdyb3VwOgkJSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJtaXNzaW9uDQpQYWdlczoJCTE1DQpVUkw6ICAg ICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJhZnQtY2hlbi1p cHBtLWNvbG9yaW5nLWJhc2VkLWlwZnBtLWZyYW1ld29yay0wMy50eHQNClN0YXR1czogICAgICAg ICBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1jaGVuLWlwcG0tY29sb3Jp bmctYmFzZWQtaXBmcG0tZnJhbWV3b3JrLw0KSHRtbGl6ZWQ6ICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5p ZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWNoZW4taXBwbS1jb2xvcmluZy1iYXNlZC1pcGZwbS1mcmFtZXdv cmstMDMNCkRpZmY6ICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJsMj1k cmFmdC1jaGVuLWlwcG0tY29sb3JpbmctYmFzZWQtaXBmcG0tZnJhbWV3b3JrLTAzDQoNCkFic3Ry YWN0Og0KICAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBzcGVjaWZpZXMgYSBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCBtZXRob2QsIHRo ZSBJUCBmbG93IHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlDQogICBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCAoSVBGUE0pLiAgV2l0aCBJUEZQ TSwgZGF0YSBwYWNrZXRzIGFyZSBtYXJrZWQgaW50bw0KICAgZGlmZmVyZW50IGJsb2NrcyBvZiBt YXJrZXJzIGJ5IGNoYW5naW5nIG9uZSBvciBtb3JlIGJpdHMgb2YgcGFja2V0cy4NCiAgIE5vIGFk ZGl0aW9uYWwgZGVsaW1pdGluZyBwYWNrZXQgaXMgbmVlZGVkIGFuZCB0aGUgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2Ug YmUNCiAgIG1lYXN1cmVkIGluLXNlcnZpY2UgYW5kIGluLWJhbmQgd2l0aG91dCB0aGUgaW5zZXJ0 aW9uIG9mIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwNCiAgIHRyYWZmaWMuDQoNCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIA0KDQoNClBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoYXQgaXQgbWF5IHRha2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgbWludXRl cyBmcm9tIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gdW50aWwgdGhlIGh0bWxpemVkIHZlcnNpb24g YW5kIGRpZmYgYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy4NCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgU2Vj cmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K From nobody Tue Mar 17 07:41:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D7A1A1ADC for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VuqpsZ0_dsIq for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19EE1A1AB8 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3247612141C; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:57:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9535BE0232; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea%17]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:40:59 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: "draft-elkins-ippm-pdm-option@tools.ietf.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:40:58 -0400 Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-elkins-ippm-pdm-option-03 Thread-Index: AQHQYMBhNJ2Ws+vaT02fvPMTcprGMg== Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8B86ADA9@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Comments on draft-elkins-ippm-pdm-option-03 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 17 Mar 2015 14:41:08 -0000 Hi Nalini, Robert, and Mike, I've read your draft again while waiting for a plane. There are some great improvements again this time, and I offer the comments below along with my support. regards, Al Notes on PDM-03 End of 1.2: ...The critical nature of such activities to our daily lives and financial = well-being demand a solution. suggest: The critical nature of such activities to our daily lives and financial wel= l-being demand a simple solution to support measurements. In 1.3: Then, the diagnostic data corresponding to each packet at different observa= tion points must be matched for proper measurements. suggest: Then (in post-collection processing), the diagnostic data corresponding to = each packet at different observation points must be matched for proper m= easurements. End of 1.3: The packet sequence number needs to be unique in the context of the session= (5-tuple). suggest (define 5-tuple): The packet sequence number needs to be unique in the context of the session= (5-tuple of Src/Dst addresses, ports, and protocol number). (I see you did this later in section 2, you could reference that section.) In Sec 2: The PDM contains the following metrics: suggest: *some* of these are "labels" or "fields", but not metrics. (and, some are metrics, calculated after the fields have been determined) in Sec 2.1: Round-trip delay is the end-to-end delay for a packet from a source host to= a destination host. suggest (you've only described a one-way path, that's not enough) Round-trip *Network* delay is the delay for packet transfer from a source h= ost to a destination host and then back to the source host. in section 3.2, 1st par says: That is, for a value of 00 in the Time Base field, a value of 1 in the DELT= A fields indicates 1 picosecond. But then the list below says: The possible values of Time Base are as follows:=20 00 - milliseconds 01 - microseconds 10 - nanoseconds 11 - picoseconds >>> the values in the example and the list don't seem to match 00 /=3D 11 more in 3.2 Delta Last Received (DELTALR) This is delta in time - seems appropriate to mention that in the name, DELT= ATLR ? and: DELTALR =3D Send time packet 2 - Receive time packet 1 Suggest to write this more generally, since loss affects the calculation DELTALR =3D Send time packet N - Receive time packet (most recent seq num, = >> Since Packet 2 has arrived, why isn't PSNLR=3D2? Section 7 The calculations assume some minimum rate for links? Or, What is BPM? (something is missing) Section 8 Can probably reference the security section of [ELK-PDM] (assuming there is one there). From nobody Tue Mar 17 11:14:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE261A8846 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:14:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xVykoZ5DXZu4 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm12.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm12.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.90.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F27C1A8830 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:14:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1426616047; bh=X6+jR88r470Z/PM3uvWLeDfnITft0J4O5uZ+TOs3oEc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=gJxJ3zN82rDzphYp1gA6znl14VSW9CV5kYU/DiBHTDjF/G9aHbuh4gbCgOH8ip6jk0AYCHAVn8OicEUL1trbWPAAt/52bO9d0Wu45typ6QVOYwac25/KGsE/eu+BCyTuDaGFIipO1YJFJuZxg1N44ydqnTAxZgvhBeQ+Zsa8ey7WIIwD5pSYTYpmdiR2cNqOMgaUouxCi6pYJtw6Hpi97gLPCPI7UrO/BYXmH7Kjxxfz46vool/JxuO5+DXr3YoomQyAS1t8FABanewTWjrn4v6xHp/hS97jmZShKfWxfFFQBAxBGclPb92sMzs+bK8XVTbM25D6vW2hhPsZdbQC1g== Received: from [98.138.226.178] by nm12.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Mar 2015 18:14:07 -0000 Received: from [98.138.88.234] by tm13.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Mar 2015 18:14:07 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1034.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Mar 2015 18:14:07 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 605308.46117.bm@omp1034.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: FVGkF9QVM1k.tlyHaVviCEqDIHmkcnZ5oFqU4D2LO6rERlymd1j5Paest05.jiS xty3Nzj1QQod6eNPPqJDr_OLWpG4zdTt53zCikVhpTr3f6cYK5zE_gMq4OBxJskxQIg5jVxiYWmW Jp1dzQBcZ5HdqJRFG1t5dwvf7_B06Ipw38eCuSkity5ubePAXjP638t2HrP4c1C8FxRNRDKuyAAm BJMnjqVK8_vS1XfenCJezwX6A8BginCfpOxviwtLf.pMeJtAF1SyZdVFHbXE3hXV7BJf2frv24bW YHezp0tt5sCNfZ7e0H9QmsTxiTzIIxWABUpTN8NMpPkyMoqsesMlyzzU4iQmC6WFSN6o.Ig0g88s Dsm8xktMIBcByRy95qRuaFpFPj7fR88gmck.cumWPo5tAyIiqal7kWEPtpOYnaz4D5l0tSlawyRU kBQj3oJoYHs7KngsJcIocXvzrU4ADSz0M7Nujjf71BcAl1PcNvL18rT0Fi7xnC8tLuMlcJIR_McM F2fQsG98O41ecHB2PDdgcMqPaBFZhsa21z5j5YZ0l_2o6R6CPGXXNr1tQqNAM6ov0nsXePHizTFI VcE2LDgZL8ViN Received: by 98.138.101.160; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:14:07 +0000 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:14:06 +0000 (UTC) From: Nalini Elkins To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" , "draft-elkins-ippm-pdm-option@tools.ietf.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" Message-ID: <1629965484.575646.1426616046681.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8B86ADA9@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8B86ADA9@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_575645_1467537892.1426616046677" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] Comments on draft-elkins-ippm-pdm-option-03 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Nalini Elkins List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:14:11 -0000 ------=_Part_575645_1467537892.1426616046677 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks so much, Al. We will review your comments and revise the draft. Let's talk about these in the IPPM meeting. =C2=A0 We are on the agenda as = the final slot. Nalini Elkins Inside Products, Inc. (831) 659-8360 www.insidethestack.com From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: "draft-elkins-ippm-pdm-option@tools.ietf.org" ; "ippm@ietf.org" =20 Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 7:40 AM Subject: Comments on draft-elkins-ippm-pdm-option-03 =20 Hi Nalini, Robert, and Mike, I've read your draft again while waiting for a plane. There are some great improvements again this time, and I offer the comments below along with my support. regards, Al Notes on PDM-03 End of 1.2: ...The critical nature of such activities to our daily lives and financial = well-being demand=C2=A0 =C2=A0 a solution. suggest: The critical nature of such activities to our daily lives and financial wel= l-being demand a simple solution to support measurements. In 1.3: Then, the diagnostic data corresponding to each packet at different observa= tion points must be matched for proper measurements. suggest: Then (in post-collection processing), the diagnostic data corresponding to = each packet=C2=A0 =C2=A0 at different observation points must be matched fo= r proper measurements. End of 1.3: The packet sequence number needs to be unique in the context of the session= (5-tuple). suggest (define 5-tuple): The packet sequence number needs to be unique in the context of the session= (5-tuple of Src/Dst addresses, ports, and protocol number). (I see you did this later in section 2, you could reference that section.) In Sec 2: The PDM contains the following metrics: suggest: *some* of these are "labels" or "fields", but not metrics. (and, some are metrics, calculated after the fields have been determined) in Sec 2.1: Round-trip delay is the end-to-end delay for a packet from a source host to= a destination host. suggest (you've only described a one-way path, that's not enough) Round-trip *Network* delay is the delay for packet transfer from a source h= ost to a destination host and then back to the source host. in section 3.2, 1st par says: That is, for a value of 00 in the Time Base field, a value of 1 in the DELT= A fields indicates 1 picosecond. But then the list below says: The possible values of Time Base are as follows:=20 00 - milliseconds 01 - microseconds 10 - nanoseconds 11 - picoseconds >>> the values in the example and the list don't seem to match 00 /=3D 11 more in 3.2 Delta Last Received (DELTALR) This is delta in time - seems appropriate to mention that in the name, DELT= ATLR ? and: DELTALR =3D Send time packet 2 - Receive time packet 1 Suggest to write this more generally, since loss affects the calculation DELTALR =3D Send time packet N - Receive time packet (most recent seq num, = >> Since Packet 2 has arrived, why isn't PSNLR=3D2? Section 7 The calculations assume some minimum rate for links? Or, What is BPM? (something is missing) Section 8 Can probably reference the security section of [ELK-PDM] (assuming there is one there). ------=_Part_575645_1467537892.1426616046677 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks so much, Al.

We will review you= r comments and revise the draft.

Let's talk about these in the IPPM meeting. &nbs= p; We are on the agenda as the final slot.


Nalini El= kins
Inside Products, Inc.
(831) 659-8360
www.insidethestack.com

From: "MORTON, = ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: "draft-elkins-ippm-pdm-option@tools.ietf.org" &l= t;draft-elkins-ippm-pdm-option@tools.ietf.org>; "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm= @ietf.org>
Sent: T= uesday, March 17, 2015 7:40 AM
Su= bject: Comments on draft-elkins-ippm-pdm-option-03
 <= /div>

Hi Nalini, Robert, and Mike,

I've read your draft again while = waiting for a plane.
There are some great improvements again this time,<= br>and I offer the comments below along with my support.

regards,Al

Notes on PDM-03

End of 1.2:
...The critical nature of = such activities to our daily lives and financial well-being demand  &n= bsp; a solution.
suggest:
The critical nature of such activities to o= ur daily lives and financial well-being demand a simple solution to support= measurements.

In 1.3:
Then, the diagnostic data corresponding to= each packet at different observation points must be matched for proper mea= surements.
suggest:
Then (in post-collection processing), the diagnos= tic data corresponding to each packet    at different observation= points must be matched for proper measurements.

End of 1.3:
The = packet sequence number needs to be unique in the context of the session (5-= tuple).
suggest (define 5-tuple):
The packet sequence number needs to= be unique in the context of the session (5-tuple of Src/Dst addresses, por= ts, and protocol number).
(I see you did this later in section 2, you co= uld reference that section.)

In Sec 2:
The PDM contains the follo= wing metrics:
suggest: *some* of these are "labels" or "fields", but not= metrics.
(and, some are metrics, calculated after the fields have been = determined)

in Sec 2.1:
Round-trip delay is the end-to-end delay = for a packet from a source host to a destination host.
suggest (you've o= nly described a one-way path, that's not enough)
Round-trip *Network* de= lay is the delay for packet transfer from a source host to a destination ho= st and then back to the source host.

in section 3.2, 1st par says:That is, for a value of 00 in the Time Base field, a value of 1 in the DE= LTA fields indicates 1 picosecond.
But then the list below says:
The = possible values of Time Base are as follows:
00 - milliseconds 01 - mi= croseconds 10 - nanoseconds 11 - picoseconds
>>> the values in = the example and the list don't seem to match 00 /=3D 11

more in 3.2<= br>Delta Last Received (DELTALR)
This is delta in time - seems appropria= te to mention that in the name, DELTATLR
?

and:
DELTALR =3D Se= nd time packet 2 - Receive time packet 1
Suggest to write this more gene= rally, since loss affects the calculation

DELTALR =3D Send time pack= et N - Receive time packet (most recent seq num, <N)


Section = 5, step 4:
... So, now, Host A can calculate total end-to-end time. That= is:

suggest (Isn't this the Overall RT Time?

So, now, Host A= can calculate total Overall Round-trip time (which includes Network RTT an= d Host Response Time). That is:

More in Step 4:
Round trip delay = =3D DELTALS - DELTALR

(There seems to be an assumption here - one-pa= cket request and response?
Need to look at the pictures describing the e= xchange, and see what happens
when host B generates multiple packets...)=

Section 6.2
Assume that two packets are sent with each send from= the server.
Suggest:
Assume that two packets are sent for each ACK f= rom the server.

more in 6.2: Packet 3 in the table has
3 Client 1= 1 20 0
or "1" for PSN Last Received
>>> Since Packet 2 has = arrived, why isn't PSNLR=3D2?

Section 7
The calculations assume s= ome minimum rate for links?
Or, What is BPM? (something is missing)
<= br>Section 8
Can probably reference the security section of [ELK-PDM](assuming there is one there).


------=_Part_575645_1467537892.1426616046677-- From nobody Mon Mar 23 08:54:03 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E832D1A92E2 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:54:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iw07I2jLnBOg for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 984181A8A0D for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E5A20A6A for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:54:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:from:content-type:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version; s=smtpout; bh=LMlNHYWVC+xmjnHg e6/u/nFlpXk=; b=SKkPfj7GaZfWPbiWzczdRwNb9PZlOqYesIQcoLX/VgWWcGEk 9GOB+YHwuxCVN0wVqEJBiAib5+r0QzonEYga6laS1T8V6c6RHLwLpVpDob1DoM+f C5mEllgGTk7LNp6iYfy3KvITEbSfOBXPHErKgk+QPNKisyYeo9JF1IJM9T0= X-Sasl-enc: +6MytKGlBMfJFYJEiMeL2ZYSxXBVuiv8Octp/2WyQ0N7 1427126040 Received: from dhcp-b063.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [31.133.176.99]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4ABBCC00011 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:54:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Cerveny Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FB9CCEA7-8BC6-47F8-9468-B8AD26C2FAE5" Message-Id: <3A93860C-BA87-416E-96A8-ADCF4FFF0C28@wjcerveny.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:54:00 -0500 To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Presentation slides, jabber, note scribes needed for IPPM@IETF92 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 23 Mar 2015 15:54:03 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_FB9CCEA7-8BC6-47F8-9468-B8AD26C2FAE5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear IPPM Presenters and Participants, At this point, I have received and uploaded two presentations for Friday = morning=E2=80=99s IPPM WG meeting at IETF92. I need a lot more before = Friday. Please send your presentation slides to ippm-chairs@ietf.org = As always, we will need note takers and jabber scribes. Please feel = free to volunteer before Friday. For reference, the meeting is Friday, March 27, 2015, at 9-11am CDT = (1400-2630UTC) in the Continental room. Thanks, Bill Cerveny IPPM WG co-chair= --Apple-Mail=_FB9CCEA7-8BC6-47F8-9468-B8AD26C2FAE5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Dear IPPM Presenters and Participants,

At this point, I have received and = uploaded two presentations for Friday morning=E2=80=99s IPPM WG meeting = at IETF92. I need a lot more before Friday. Please send your = presentation slides to ippm-chairs@ietf.org

As always, we will need note takers and = jabber scribes.  Please feel free to volunteer before = Friday.

For = reference, the meeting is Friday, March 27, 2015, at 9-11am CDT = (1400-2630UTC) in the Continental room.

Thanks,

Bill Cerveny
IPPM = WG co-chair
= --Apple-Mail=_FB9CCEA7-8BC6-47F8-9468-B8AD26C2FAE5-- From nobody Mon Mar 23 16:49:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F671A6F30 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:49:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hRcXMLUsxJq6 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E11291A6F32 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:49:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.229.23] (EHLO alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.4-5) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id f86a0155.0.3047538.00-2099.8560442.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:49:35 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 5510a68f6c91b522-025db486837de504bc86b3e36bae1ccaced396a5 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2NNnYef021805 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:49:34 -0400 Received: from alpi131.aldc.att.com (alpi131.aldc.att.com [130.8.218.69]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2NNnTO0021765 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:49:30 -0400 Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.218.155]) by alpi131.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:49:12 GMT Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.129]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:49:11 -0400 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 Thread-Index: AdBlv2oUWkyxeF0qTYWKafK6p56TKg== Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:49:11 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F7C2DF@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.110.71] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=VY5AyiV9 c=1 sm=1 a=VXHOiMMwGAwA+y4G3/O+aw==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=58SuacU2GWwA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP] X-AnalysisOut: [7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=emO1SXQWCLwA:10 a=tyh27QT1y] X-AnalysisOut: [OwhAjiYEfwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10] X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.23] Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 23 Mar 2015 23:49:37 -0000 I just did a fairly quick read-through of the draft, and had the following = comments: 1. Non-IANA registries: The document is very specific about only applying to IETF-defined performan= ce metrics, and the defined format is said to be only for the IANA registry= . It was my hope that the registry format ippm defined could be used by ITU= -T, BBF, and others to create registries of the performance metrics they de= fine. The lmap information-model is supposed to be useful for performance m= etrics existing in any registry; so if this is an IETF-metric-only format, = that would mean we would need information-model changes to support other re= gistry formats, and work would need to be done (somewhere) to define other = performance metric registry formats. I see nothing in the registry format d= efined in this draft that would not be applicable to any and all performanc= e metrics, and see no reason why it needs to be restricted to "IETF-only pe= rformance metrics" and "IANA-registry-only". If ippm agrees that one purpos= e of this draft is to define a registry format, usable by any and all regis= tries, I would be happy to provide a complete set of proposed edits to the = draft to express this. 2. Lists:=20 A number of the registry format elements seem to be lists. I suggest that s= pecific delimiters be identified for all such lists (e.g., comma delimited)= . This includes the following: Reference Definition, Fixed Parameters, Stre= am Parameters 3. Reference Definition: A more explicit format for the Reference Definition would be good. For IETF= performance metrics, there is no reason this can't be a url. Which would b= e great. 4. Fixed/Stream Parameters: The syntax for expressing a fixed or stream parameter name and its value (a= nd value units) needs to be specified.=20 5. Examples: There need to be a few examples provided of performance metric registry ent= ries. Sort of like a requirement for running code for a protocol. We need w= orkable registry entries to prove that the format defined in this draft is = complete and sufficiently specific. 6. Active/Passive: I don't see that these terms are needed by the registry format or are usefu= l. This includes the requirements that metric names have an indicative pref= ix. Again, I'm happy to provide specific text recommendations for any or all of= my comments, if the WG agrees that these changes should be made. Barbara From nobody Tue Mar 24 04:01:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAA31B2E7C for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 04:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oNI6t5V6EF33 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 04:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpb1.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30C611B2E7D for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 04:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHT03-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.56) by EVMED04-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:01:09 +0000 Received: from rew09926dag03a.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.18) by EVMHT03-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:01:11 +0000 Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by rew09926dag03a.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:01:10 +0000 Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e]) by rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e%12]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:01:11 +0000 From: To: , Thread-Topic: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" Thread-Index: AdAVa4qDXZxvF1FqRhagpVc9BsRX0AugXDWwACVIh1YAH0nqAAM5YEUQAMfhM3AAArWxQAAAsc1gBEKvQ4A= Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:01:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: , <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D876E6509@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8754F934@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <0AD5F8BADDD1FF4097676479A6D8F7B33F48EDDE@TELMBB001BA020.telecomitalia.local> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8985789C@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857B87@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CD6E6EE@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857BC8@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857BC8@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.202.232] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 24 Mar 2015 11:01:24 -0000 Al,=20 Thanks for the draft. It reads well. I think it can be useful for the regis= try work (& lmap) - to clarify terms. I'm not sure if it's on the agenda to= make it a wg draft - I'd support this if it is. Some comments: The 2 dimensional nature of the picture is not easy to understand. The 3 * = with Active... are fine, it's the other 2 * (PDM & Passive) that I found di= fficult. I don't have any great suggestions how to improve it, sorry. A couple of methods, not sure where they should be placed on passive /activ= e /hybrid:- 1. method where a mobile device observes its location and then triggers sen= ding test traffic (say a speed test) in a particular location. (the 802.11 = liaison to lmap hints at something like this.) Think I'd say this was 2 sep= arate methods - passive followed by active. 2. a method where you observe an existing stream of (say) user traffic, whi= lst adding a separate loading stream. I'd say this was a hybrid method. It'= s almost addressed by the current text (bullet 1 in S3.4) but not quite (I = think). Suggest adding text something like "generating packet stream with t= he purpose of affecting the stream being measured"? ('with the purpose' - b= ecause don't want the definition to include reporting traffic, which can po= tentially affect the stream being measured) Best wishes phil =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED C > (AL) > Sent: 02 March 2015 17:55 > To: Ackermann, Michael > Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [ippm] Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" >=20 > Thanks Mike, the draft is on the agenda, and we'll have the discussion. >=20 > Al >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ackermann, Michael [mailto:MAckermann@bcbsm.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 12:42 PM > > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > > Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-rate- > > problem.all@tools.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" > > > > > Al > > > > Good work on this draft. Thanks for taking the initiative and > compiling > > such > > great information and conclusions. > > > > In particular defining Hybrid (which everyone has expressly avoided > > doing to date) and then providing examples of where solutions like > PDM > > and Coloring should be categorized. > > > > I like what you have come up with and the rationale provided is very > > convincing and > > to me, hard to dispute. Will it be possible to get this > discussion on > > the > > Agenda in Dallas, so that we may actively discuss these concepts and > > perhaps solidify these definitions and categorizations? > > > > Great Progress and thanks again for your efforts! > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of MORTON, > > > ALFRED C > > > (AL) > > > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:56 AM > > > To: ippm@ietf.org > > > Subject: [ippm] FW: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" > > > Importance: High > > > > > > *** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***. > > > Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more > > information. > > > > > > The latest draft is here: > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01.txt > > > > > > This version benefits from Tizano's comments (see exchange below), > > > and very recent comments from Nalini and her colleague Bill. > > > > > > regards, > > > Al > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this communication is highly > confidential > > and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this > > communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you > > are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or > > distribution of this information is prohibited. Please notify the > > sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt > and > > delete the original message without making any copies. > > > > Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan > > are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue > Cross > > and Blue Shield Association. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Tue Mar 24 09:58:06 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB9F1A900B for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:58:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lb_mzL8GqBNe for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpb1.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E02FF1A8A57 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from E07HT03-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.197.161) by EVMED01-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:57:54 +0000 Received: from rew09926dag03c.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.26) by E07HT03-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.197.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:57:57 +0000 Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by rew09926dag03c.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:57:57 +0000 Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e]) by rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e%12]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:57:56 +0000 From: To: , Thread-Topic: review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 Thread-Index: AdBlv2oUWkyxeF0qTYWKafK6p56TKgAkXFYQ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:57:56 +0000 Message-ID: <3a6945430def4f76b3b3c74bb8233750@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F7C2DF@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F7C2DF@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.202.232] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 24 Mar 2015 16:58:04 -0000 Barbara, Thanks! Just a follow up on point 1. As far as I can see from the IANA registry about URNs http://www.iana.org/a= ssignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1 there are s= ome organisations like 3gpp which have devolved responsibility for register= ing URNs (Namespace Specific String urn:3gpp:{3gpp-urn} But broadband forum and itu-t aren't such bodies at the moment. I may well = be reading this wrong - we should check with iana. On the substantive point, I think you're right that we need to allow other = bodies to have responsibility for a Namespace Specific String - appointing = their own expert review. I'm not sure how much re-writing this needs - may be better to have a short= , separate document? phil > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA H > Sent: 23 March 2015 23:49 > To: ippm@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 >=20 > I just did a fairly quick read-through of the draft, and had the > following comments: >=20 > 1. Non-IANA registries: > The document is very specific about only applying to IETF-defined > performance metrics, and the defined format is said to be only for the > IANA registry. It was my hope that the registry format ippm defined > could be used by ITU-T, BBF, and others to create registries of the > performance metrics they define. The lmap information-model is supposed > to be useful for performance metrics existing in any registry; so if > this is an IETF-metric-only format, that would mean we would need > information-model changes to support other registry formats, and work > would need to be done (somewhere) to define other performance metric > registry formats. I see nothing in the registry format defined in this > draft that would not be applicable to any and all performance metrics, > and see no reason why it needs to be restricted to "IETF-only > performance metrics" and "IANA-registry-only". If ippm agrees that one > purpose of this draft is to define a registry format, usable by any and > all registries, I would be happy > to provide a complete set of proposed edits to the draft to express > this. >=20 > 2. Lists: > A number of the registry format elements seem to be lists. I suggest > that specific delimiters be identified for all such lists (e.g., comma > delimited). This includes the following: Reference Definition, Fixed > Parameters, Stream Parameters >=20 > 3. Reference Definition: > A more explicit format for the Reference Definition would be good. For > IETF performance metrics, there is no reason this can't be a url. Which > would be great. >=20 > 4. Fixed/Stream Parameters: > The syntax for expressing a fixed or stream parameter name and its > value (and value units) needs to be specified. >=20 > 5. Examples: > There need to be a few examples provided of performance metric registry > entries. Sort of like a requirement for running code for a protocol. We > need workable registry entries to prove that the format defined in this > draft is complete and sufficiently specific. >=20 > 6. Active/Passive: > I don't see that these terms are needed by the registry format or are > useful. This includes the requirements that metric names have an > indicative prefix. >=20 > Again, I'm happy to provide specific text recommendations for any or > all of my comments, if the WG agrees that these changes should be made. > Barbara >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Tue Mar 24 12:26:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD30B1A8AE4 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:26:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FLgTiFtGiYwF for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E871A8ADC for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599E11213FC for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:43:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (sentinel.research.att.com [135.207.255.38]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855E3E031F for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea]) by sentinel.research.att.com ([fe80::7914:9c7e:6a73:a8d6%10]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:26:17 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: "STARK, BARBARA H" , "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:26:17 -0400 Thread-Topic: review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 Thread-Index: AdBlv2oUWkyxeF0qTYWKafK6p56TKgApfmzz Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8B86ADDF@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F7C2DF@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F7C2DF@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 24 Mar 2015 19:26:23 -0000 Hi Barbara, Thanks for your comments, a couple of replies in addition to Phil's below, Al/ACM ________________________________________ From: ippm [ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA H Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:49 PM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 ***=20 2. Lists: A number of the registry format elements seem to be lists. I suggest that s= pecific delimiters be identified for all such lists (e.g., comma delimited)= . This includes the following: Reference Definition, Fixed Parameters, Stre= am Parameters ACM: Interesting point, The current proposed entries in https://tools.ietf.= org/html/draft-mornuley-ippm-initial-registry-01 are clear I think, at least to human readers, but the form of entries *coul= d* be further specified -- if necessary=20 3. Reference Definition: A more explicit format for the Reference Definition would be good. For IETF= performance metrics, there is no reason this can't be a url. Which would b= e great. ACM: There are cases where a URL to an RFC and section number alone will su= ffice, but in other cases the entry will require more than one reference and descriptive text. see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mornuley-ippm-initial-registry-01 4. Fixed/Stream Parameters: The syntax for expressing a fixed or stream parameter name and its value (a= nd value units) needs to be specified. ACM: We've currently implemented this as a hierarchical list in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mornuley-ippm-initial-registry-01 and we could specify this form of syntax if it works for you. 5. Examples: There need to be a few examples provided of performance metric registry ent= ries. Sort of like a requirement for running code for a protocol. We need w= orkable registry entries to prove that the format defined in this draft is = complete and sufficiently specific. ACM: we have a set of examples, composed as the initial registry entries, = and one purpose of preparing these entries was to examine the practicality and suffciency of the registr= y design. see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mornuley-ippm-initial-registry-01 6. Active/Passive: I don't see that these terms are needed by the registry format or are usefu= l. This includes the requirements that metric names have an indicative pref= ix. ACM: it may be possible to remove the definitions here, if they can be agre= ed elsewhere. for example: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01 _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm= From nobody Tue Mar 24 12:36:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B151A8AE9 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:36:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id npw_CCmOxcLI for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597421A8AEE for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69AD120D97; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange.research.att.com (sentinel.research.att.com [135.207.255.38]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28E4E0271; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:36:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::c5dd:2310:7197:58ea]) by sentinel.research.att.com ([fe80::7914:9c7e:6a73:a8d6%10]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:36:21 -0400 From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" To: "philip.eardley@bt.com" , "MAckermann@bcbsm.com" Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:36:21 -0400 Thread-Topic: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" Thread-Index: AdAVa4qDXZxvF1FqRhagpVc9BsRX0AugXDWwACVIh1YAH0nqAAM5YEUQAMfhM3AAArWxQAAAsc1gBEKvQ4AAEvxiuA== Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8B86ADE0@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> References: , <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D876E6509@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8754F934@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <0AD5F8BADDD1FF4097676479A6D8F7B33F48EDDE@TELMBB001BA020.telecomitalia.local> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D8985789C@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857B87@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CD6E6EE@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857BC8@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 24 Mar 2015 19:36:27 -0000 Hi Phil, Thanks for your comments and support for this draft. I agree that "effect of stream on network conditions" is quite a braod cate= gory, and Tiziano made the comment previously that this could be further categori= zed. In short, I proposed three more narrow categories, but I don't think an N-d= imensional graph will help the visulaization. I planned to offer a different graphical= approach in the slides during the session, and we'll see where that goes. I'm interested in your new examples (below) and will examine their categori= zation and representation along with the other next steps. regards,=20 Al ________________________________________ From: philip.eardley@bt.com [philip.eardley@bt.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 7:01 AM To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); MAckermann@bcbsm.com Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: RE: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" Al, Thanks for the draft. It reads well. I think it can be useful for the regis= try work (& lmap) - to clarify terms. I'm not sure if it's on the agenda to= make it a wg draft - I'd support this if it is. Some comments: The 2 dimensional nature of the picture is not easy to understand. The 3 * = with Active... are fine, it's the other 2 * (PDM & Passive) that I found di= fficult. I don't have any great suggestions how to improve it, sorry. A couple of methods, not sure where they should be placed on passive /activ= e /hybrid:- 1. method where a mobile device observes its location and then triggers sen= ding test traffic (say a speed test) in a particular location. (the 802.11 = liaison to lmap hints at something like this.) Think I'd say this was 2 sep= arate methods - passive followed by active. 2. a method where you observe an existing stream of (say) user traffic, whi= lst adding a separate loading stream. I'd say this was a hybrid method. It'= s almost addressed by the current text (bullet 1 in S3.4) but not quite (I = think). Suggest adding text something like "generating packet stream with t= he purpose of affecting the stream being measured"? ('with the purpose' - b= ecause don't want the definition to include reporting traffic, which can po= tentially affect the stream being measured) Best wishes phil > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED C > (AL) > Sent: 02 March 2015 17:55 > To: Ackermann, Michael > Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [ippm] Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" > > Thanks Mike, the draft is on the agenda, and we'll have the discussion. > > Al > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ackermann, Michael [mailto:MAckermann@bcbsm.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 12:42 PM > > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > > Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-rate- > > problem.all@tools.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" > > > > > Al > > > > Good work on this draft. Thanks for taking the initiative and > compiling > > such > > great information and conclusions. > > > > In particular defining Hybrid (which everyone has expressly avoided > > doing to date) and then providing examples of where solutions like > PDM > > and Coloring should be categorized. > > > > I like what you have come up with and the rationale provided is very > > convincing and > > to me, hard to dispute. Will it be possible to get this > discussion on > > the > > Agenda in Dallas, so that we may actively discuss these concepts and > > perhaps solidify these definitions and categorizations? > > > > Great Progress and thanks again for your efforts! > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of MORTON, > > > ALFRED C > > > (AL) > > > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:56 AM > > > To: ippm@ietf.org > > > Subject: [ippm] FW: Suggestions about draft "ippm-active-passive" > > > Importance: High > > > > > > *** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***. > > > Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more > > information. > > > > > > The latest draft is here: > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01.txt > > > > > > This version benefits from Tizano's comments (see exchange below), > > > and very recent comments from Nalini and her colleague Bill. > > > > > > regards, > > > Al > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this communication is highly > confidential > > and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this > > communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you > > are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or > > distribution of this information is prohibited. Please notify the > > sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt > and > > delete the original message without making any copies. > > > > Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan > > are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue > Cross > > and Blue Shield Association. > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Tue Mar 24 12:40:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F41D1A9141 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:40:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.487 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v0nMG8O5OZBn for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4EE1A902C for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t2OJdwlH018204 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:39:58 -0600 Received: from exchange.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.19) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:39:58 -0600 (MDT) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com) Received: from EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com ([::1]) by EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:39:56 -0600 From: Michael Kloberdans To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: initial thoughts Thread-Index: AQHQZmpNHz/Hrntr7UmDWftBiFbrmQ== Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:39:54 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.5.0.27] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D13719AB153C3mkloberdanscablelabscom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] initial thoughts X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 24 Mar 2015 19:40:36 -0000 --_000_D13719AB153C3mkloberdanscablelabscom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I know my comments are late, but draft =93https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft= -zheng-ippm-framework-passive-02=93 is much, much better than version =960= 0. Good job on refining definitions, providing examples and links in the i= ntroduction on PDM and Coloring. Those links don=92t actually take one any= where, so more work needs to be done. Overall, still needs work, but good job on this draft. Michael Kloberdans Lead Architect / Home Networking CableLabs=AE 858 Coal Creek Circle. Louisville, CO. 80027 303-661-3813 (v) --_000_D13719AB153C3mkloberdanscablelabscom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <58FEEE649C457C4D80CA73862AC52F41@cablelabs.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I know m= y comments are late, but draft =93https://tools= .ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-ippm-framework-passive-02=93  is much, much better than version =9600.  Good job on refining = definitions, providing examples and links in the introduction on PDM and Co= loring.  Those links don=92t actually take one anywhere, so more work = needs to be done.

 

Overall,= still needs work, but good job on this draft.


Michael Kloberdans
Lead Architect / Home Networking     CableLabs=AE

858 Coal Creek Circle.  Louisville, CO. 80027
303-661-3813 (v)
--_000_D13719AB153C3mkloberdanscablelabscom_-- From nobody Wed Mar 25 05:58:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8AC1ACEA2 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 05:58:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A9iWgWhLbT0K for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 05:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com [209.65.160.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A655E1ACE9C for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 05:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.229.23] (EHLO alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.4-5) with ESMTP id ff0b2155.2ae326856940.735842.00-2402.1980146.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:58:39 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 5512b0ff5b236637-0b873f5e6f31b6c3f02e017a8541869840a766e7 Received: from unknown [144.160.229.23] (EHLO alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.4-5) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 3f0b2155.0.735761.00-2327.1979901.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:58:31 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 5512b0f77dbdebb6-a1620dcf0658a058e003d31b778d3e52407f99ba Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2PCwQCb021856; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:58:26 -0400 Received: from alpi131.aldc.att.com (alpi131.aldc.att.com [130.8.218.69]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2PCwLOG021835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:58:22 -0400 Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com (GAALPA1MSGHUBAB.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.218.151]) by alpi131.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:58:07 GMT Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.129]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.151]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:58:07 -0400 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "philip.eardley@bt.com" , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 Thread-Index: AdBlv2oUWkyxeF0qTYWKafK6p56TKgAkXFYQAAoQO8A= Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:58:07 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F817E9@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F7C2DF@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <3a6945430def4f76b3b3c74bb8233750@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> In-Reply-To: <3a6945430def4f76b3b3c74bb8233750@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.122.173] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=WNbIqAQR c=1 sm=1 a=VXHOiMMwGAwA+y4G3/O+aw==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=7TQTzxt_g1gA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP] X-AnalysisOut: [7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=emO1SXQWCLwA:10 a=I0CVDw5ZA] X-AnalysisOut: [AAA:8 a=DfPPPp6uIxiCmdeWtKkA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10] X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.23] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 25 Mar 2015 12:58:41 -0000 > As far as I can see from the IANA registry about URNs > http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn- > namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1 there are some organisations like > 3gpp which have devolved responsibility for registering URNs (Namespace > Specific String urn:3gpp:{3gpp-urn} But broadband forum and itu-t aren't > such bodies at the moment. I may well be reading this wrong - we should > check with iana. I'm not clear on why any non-IANA registry needs to use formal (or informal= ) IANA URN namespace. For its XML namespace, BBF uses "urn:broadband-forum-= org: ". BBF manages this namespace quite well. I would expect it to be abl= e to easily manage a registry within this namespace. The location of the BB= F resources on the Internet is very easy.=20 I don't really think IETF needs to concern itself with BBF and ITU-T (and o= ther org) namespace. Barbara From nobody Wed Mar 25 11:21:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC6F1ABD3E for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:20:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_39=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9afVH3YYfemY for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2055E1ABD35 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f790b6d000004359-e6-55129a922d58 Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 60.76.17241.29A92155; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:22:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 14:20:48 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments, notes and questions regarding draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang Thread-Index: AdBnCOsnRxKiL9RgQgCSaxS79emneg== Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:20:48 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B9397BD@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B9397BDeusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiO6kWUKhBlfOWFrsX3iVxaLnwTtm ByaPJUt+Mnl8ufyZLYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStj4vzXLAW/VzJWLN6yj6mBce1Uxi5GTg4J AROJTRf+s0LYYhIX7q1n62Lk4hASOMIocfzkRLAiIYHljBLr3sqB2GwCRhIvNvawg9giAokS OycvBrOZBZQl9r6aD1YvLBAgcannCRtETajE8ecXWCFsPYnlH3axgNgsAqoSbVt2gtXzCvhK XN0OUc8IdMT3U2uYIGaKS9x6Mp8J4jgBiSV7zjND2KISLx//gzpaSWLO62vMEPX5Ems617JD zBSUODnzCcsERuFZSEbNQlI2C0kZRFxHYsHuT2wQtrbEsoWvmWHsMwceMyGLL2BkX8XIUVqc WpabbmS4iREYKcck2Bx3MC74ZHmIUYCDUYmH12CLYKgQa2JZcWXuIUZpDhYlcd6yKwdDhATS E0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTCafLw945HGis/XH8/6HejvfoddxPLrqtp7c7I5lkad 65/2SlR+/9PSi1urz22P52+a0bv7h+IR9vd/tM0WPbFdkmUe4RhwzcnuS/w/PdbSAxPXnNrL +MMuiqEhVyVqObels5vim8vflrQyvbu82MZG6aFIIad2kGhfa4zGEj+VMCeeIp5Tdg+VWIoz Eg21mIuKEwExlgUcdQIAAA== Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: [ippm] Comments, notes and questions regarding draft-cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 25 Mar 2015 18:20:59 -0000 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B9397BDeusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Authors, et. al, many thanks for starting this important work. Please kindly consider my not= es, comments and questions to the document: * is the scope of the document exclusively RFC 5357 or data model i= ncludes other TWAMP related RFCs, WG documents? * section 3.1: does test session identification set includes DSCP s= et by Session-Sender? * section 3.4: 4-tuple (Source/Destination IP addresses and UDP Por= ts) would not be unique, DSCP value required to uniquely identify test sess= ion. * section 4.1: o 5357 does not provision control of packet padding. What the 'paddingLen= gth' corresponds to in RFC 5357? Reference suggests it is to support RFC 60= 38. Should RFC 6038 be is separate container as it is optional functionalit= y? o pmIndex - should reference to Performance Metric Registry be in separat= e container? * section 4.2: o dscp of Server is R/O as, per RFC 5357 "The Server SHOULD use the DSCP = of the Control-Client's TCP SYN in ALL subsequent packets on that connectio= n (avoiding any ambiguity in case of re-marking)." * section 4.3: o dot1dPriority - QoS mapping usually controlled on global scale, doesn't= appear in place in TWAMP data model; o packetDistribution - is it a container? o packetDistribution, fixedInterval and fixedIntervalUnits, lambda and la= mbdaUnits - are not part of RFC 5357 and may be more appropriate in separat= e container, e.g. with reference to Performance Metric Registry (pmIndex) a= nd paddingLength; o if lastRcvSeq included in the Session-Sender data model, adding RO for = number of duplicate and out-of-order may be useful. * leaf paddingLength { type uint32{ range "64..1500"; } I think that jumbo-frames must be allowed as well. Operator may use MTU Dis= covery protocol. leaf dscp { type inet:dscp; description "The DSCP value used in the header of the TCP control packets sent by the Server for this control connection. This will usually be the same value as is configured for twampServer:dscp under the twampServer. However, in the event that the user re-configures twampServer:dscp after this control connection is already in progress, this read-only value will show the actual dscp value in use by this control connection."; } As noted, RFC 5357 requires (SHOULD) that Server copies DSCP from Control C= lient's TCP SYN, not that DSCP is configured. * section 6 Although these are presented as only examples (in several places): 4000 UDP port, AFAIK, must be from the dynamic or private ports range, i.e. 4915= 2 to 65535. * general: TWAMP Light is broadly supported by number of implementa= tions. I believe it would beneficial to produce TWAMP Light YANG model or e= nsure that respective Session-Sender and Session-Reflector models support T= WAMP-Light as characterized in Appendix I and relevant accepted Errata. Regards, Greg --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B9397BDeusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Authors, et. al,

many thanks for starting this important work. Please= kindly consider my notes, comments and questions to the document:

·         is the scope of the document exclusively RFC= 5357 or data model includes other TWAMP related RFCs, WG documents?

·         section 3.1: does test session identificatio= n set includes DSCP set by Session-Sender?

·         section 3.4: 4-tuple (Source/Destination IP = addresses and UDP Ports) would not be unique, DSCP value required to unique= ly identify test session.

·         section 4.1:

o   5357 does not provision control of packet pa= dding. What the ‘paddingLength’ corresponds to in RFC 5357? Ref= erence suggests it is to support RFC 6038. Should RFC 6038 be is separate c= ontainer as it is optional functionality?

o   pmIndex – should reference to Performa= nce Metric Registry be in separate container?

·         section 4.2:

o   dscp of Server is R/O as, per RFC 5357 ̶= 0;The Server SHOULD use the DSCP of the Control-Client's TCP SYN in ALL sub= sequent packets on that connection (avoiding any ambiguity in case of re-ma= rking).”

·         section 4.3:

o   dot1dPriority – QoS mapping usually co= ntrolled on global scale, doesn’t appear in place in TWAMP data model= ;

o   packetDistribution – is it a container= ?

o   packetDistribution, fixedInterval and fixedI= ntervalUnits, lambda and lambdaUnits – are not part of RFC 5357 and m= ay be more appropriate in separate container, e.g. with reference to Perfor= mance Metric Registry (pmIndex) and paddingLength;

o   if lastRcvSeq included in the Session-Sender= data model, adding RO for number of duplicate and out-of-order may be usef= ul.

·       &nb= sp;       &n= bsp; leaf paddingLength {

  = ;           type uint32{<= o:p>

  = ;             r= ange "64..1500";

  = ;           }<= /span>

I think that jumbo-frames must be allowed as = well. Operator may use MTU Discovery protocol.

         leaf dscp {=

           type=
 inet:dscp;
           desc=
ription "The DSCP value used in the header of the TCP
           =
;  control packets sent by the Server for this control
           =
;  connection. This will usually be the same value as is
           =
;  configured for twampServer:dscp under the twampServer.
           =
;  However, in the event that the user re-configures=

           =
;  twampServer:dscp after this control connection is already
           =
;  in progress, this read-only value will show the actual
           &nbs=
p; dscp value in use by this control connection.";
         }

As noted, RFC 5357 requi= res (SHOULD) that Server copies DSCP from Control Client’s TCP SYN, n= ot that DSCP is configured.

·         section 6

Although these are presented as only examples (in se= veral places):

        &nbs= p;      <senderUdpPort>4000</senderUdpPor= t>

UDP port, AFAIK, must be from the dynamic or private= ports range, i.e. 49152 to 65535.

·         general: TWAMP Light is broadly supported by= number of implementations. I believe it would beneficial to produce TWAMP = Light YANG model or ensure that respective Session-Sender and Session-Refle= ctor models support TWAMP-Light as characterized in Appendix I and relevant accepted Errata.

 

Regards,

    =     Greg

--_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B9397BDeusaamb103erics_-- From nobody Fri Mar 27 07:25:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213641ACE99; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:25:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TLaitQjbpPMZ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9961E1ACE32; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:25:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.13.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150327142530.7741.65999.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:25:30 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:25:32 -0000 IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec/ From nobody Fri Mar 27 07:26:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431FA1ACEB4; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:26:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xaOXCK00-a0n; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7221ACE32; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.13.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150327142623.18542.98725.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:26:23 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Telechat update notice: X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:26:27 -0000 Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09 ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec/ From nobody Fri Mar 27 07:35:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EB11ACE32 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:34:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0dt3q13a1Zp9 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2585A1A0040 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:370:152:95b6:bd4e:9380:6181] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:152:95b6:bd4e:9380:6181]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C8321A05AF for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:34:20 +0100 (CET) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0624CCAB-399B-41EF-8E7F-75EEF30F7123"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:34:15 -0500 Message-Id: <73AF33FA-181E-4A28-AF1C-FAF7DC1035C9@trammell.ch> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 27 Mar 2015 14:35:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0624CCAB-399B-41EF-8E7F-75EEF30F7123 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, Working Group Last Call has started on draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor. = Please provide final comments on this document to the IPPM working group = list ippm@ietf.org by Friday, 10 April 2015. Many thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) --Apple-Mail=_0624CCAB-399B-41EF-8E7F-75EEF30F7123 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVFWpoAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcTVgIAMEaH7epKtiGc//dSUXFQGdl ruhAQ/qYOFXWbEwLWURfKX1Vvfo2hrg8/Pon6lZJMBzVR9rdfbKNxMr1kA6mU/5t XkU72UbnnWJ/tSLDLtE+CShssgm9geY9y6kDFfoj7pc1RtF+IZuQ66Q66ziXbRX/ IYbq3JUWJgkTqNsmuso01/9QaNN2CcQWI9jWIK1BmL7zPW45XbDYtWckLdiKN4dl pTCVuNiIThvfXx0z5olMCfP/Fhh4wn4Kpva3KpoT+arCnpsreECUuzqleV2lDWXt W/V75faVmZKGHXj0mg7rLrpOLs/vg67Db0iTmlYirvNzFMq33G8fQ6GDBeBcbBk= =cj0N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_0624CCAB-399B-41EF-8E7F-75EEF30F7123-- From nobody Fri Mar 27 09:06:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BC71A8789; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:06:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lFywrW-9jK9P; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5E41A1B5F; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:06:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.13.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150327160615.9722.35657.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:06:15 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:06:17 -0000 IANA review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec/ From nobody Fri Mar 27 09:09:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F0E1ACECD for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:09:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UZcX589d8whb for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3A61A873D for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:370:152:95b6:bd4e:9380:6181] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:152:95b6:bd4e:9380:6181]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3AD921A0523 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:09:01 +0100 (CET) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_81D8FFB1-C073-40D3-8EDE-8D7D4BD55943"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:08:58 -0500 Message-Id: <4456E087-4C40-48CD-B0BC-7CB53EAE4469@trammell.ch> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] WGLC on draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 27 Mar 2015 16:09:04 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_81D8FFB1-C073-40D3-8EDE-8D7D4BD55943 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, Working Group Last Call has started on = draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics. Please provide final comments on = this document to the IPPM working group list ippm@ietf.org by Friday, 17 = April 2015. (Note, given that many in the room who had read previous revisions of = this document indicated they had not reviewed the latest, this is a = three week WGLC to allow additional reading time.) Many thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) --Apple-Mail=_81D8FFB1-C073-40D3-8EDE-8D7D4BD55943 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVFYCbAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcqJYH/1pgNIxwC0nUUPKIKTlxJdYp 0/kry8oeAu0ujmudjNOSgB/b+yOhxIiOtxW8mMKm9kOxb1T4o9Xe3i+5i7DGWZOH 5KQt9vzSDvdwrLJ0SgvTpU0fIDpyLQ0TW+nsogFy1Yseo1/3g/AwWFVy/jsGQz1H hEBw21v3CNcf0Ay0ECRP438kzXL8Jq+IAjptKsXqK4xYip64dNDYOLZVBlLSazx/ b7RkFo0pR3YsnnlsrhH+zbH8O7V9J/eYLXr98WCdobHs0M7k7kJRLwWI/V/MBA0J ek1j4hxlfV62yl3iodl+92p7lO0cE2fmnNIGAgjJlWMm2zG4lGmp56rU1nAw6Ao= =SWyg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_81D8FFB1-C073-40D3-8EDE-8D7D4BD55943-- From nobody Fri Mar 27 12:18:03 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F90F1A8025 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:18:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gWxUPWvppuE for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A5D1A90C1 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:370:152:5820:f055:498:e560] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:152:5820:f055:498:e560]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 803401A0228 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 20:17:27 +0100 (CET) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_695BDA49-7493-49A7-A9B4-DE1E4C71AF67"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:17:26 -0500 Message-Id: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 27 Mar 2015 19:18:01 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_695BDA49-7493-49A7-A9B4-DE1E4C71AF67 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current IPPM = charter: Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and = active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. Under consideration for this milestone is = draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01. Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, = and (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting in = Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this draft as a = starting point. This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. Many thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) --Apple-Mail=_695BDA49-7493-49A7-A9B4-DE1E4C71AF67 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVFazGAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcDsoH/2B1ws4YkLxUaksLwP0TDQTx 0qouX8P88N/jJ7Kw2ZrFgWgAWCgIcbaHHuA3k2IUXeln3/iTwa7Y1PbhJkqp5Njb dfdsUN9gjovmJWGXz/keNr1jWtWw0k5gvefG2jEwMHY3t9Pa7XSdjhUVuuEWLD1/ 3f8/sJpeR8uv20D93dRJ/gWsG91diqtbvY6QbnPHesUi6QyrSUsU4jh7r8PXc1e8 1Voo3YAXnAv+S8JzT/iNN0acZEv9EvyaegcFmOboi8hW3+75wht8qSEc4KUOImm1 K1TFhL42Jw+RPl+jsK7savunlA1bu4Do6xInUUlPD3XKqoSiAQsKknfrCfu72Y0= =H7m7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_695BDA49-7493-49A7-A9B4-DE1E4C71AF67-- From nobody Fri Mar 27 13:50:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B52E1AC41D for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PHViIdS5yBEc for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1F501A92AB for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obvd1 with SMTP id d1so16643651obv.0 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:50:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=A+0iY4pQlS/Jd4uMOfQLZIlE4a8w0yuvVbsFE6tlW4I=; b=Bh85X5bAbSAR2C6ZiV/F4zW9tbyitbwwLa6tnw5n4IL0NsTLtwHZ7APRs6WOmV8L3s +P73zave+bpNDh3gswhynhitnqCj++Y7SlSqcBt6T29VK2PSJq8EVdgMEsl/YxwqnT4Q dP+hokK2XCdn0o9ZauLS8sX8c3o/+eeZscGzLUK0LY0VeFGoS3JMNKx48ckZsCPzVQqU 8vI3sYfkMvWWSvyC3dfXbEkJxT5U5pQf/ikncsYJP5QdYihZS+ScHmZota7qAw7Q2LK1 HytnNZJYJhp+RcKT8LXjA3aGkAylcQUTvzYeNVFDDyq1y7biZbp7wRcrA3pE7w6b1XYX GL/g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmWcEHktCOYu1UsmRBO9HtpwJTgjgYIAT5TYwl60Iq+p3POUGUJS3IIErQ8ddKnS6XUGVkp X-Received: by 10.60.63.39 with SMTP id d7mr17631317oes.72.1427489436314; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Macintosh-2.local (ip-64-134-147-64.public.wayport.net. [64.134.147.64]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id co9sm1633797obb.22.2015.03.27.13.50.34 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5515C299.6080405@it.uc3m.es> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:50:33 +0100 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <5515C278.9050201@neomailbox.ch> In-Reply-To: <5515C278.9050201@neomailbox.ch> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5515C278.9050201@neomailbox.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Re: WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 27 Mar 2015 20:50:41 -0000 I support the adoption and i am willing to review it. El 27/03/15 a las 20:17, Brian Trammell escribió: > Greetings, all, > > This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current IPPM charter: > > Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. > > Under consideration for this milestone is draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01. > > Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: > > (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone > and the adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and > > (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. > > We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting in Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this draft as a starting point. > > This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. > > Many thanks, best regards, > > Brian (chair hat) > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Sat Mar 28 06:09:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619D31A7012 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 06:09:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v76yshSWJHkz for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 06:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE1961A8777 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 06:09:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3438; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427548149; x=1428757749; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=H3Ax8ESzbwSXNHuFoDcWcpbSB0nsabfIrFckgqPeAMo=; b=R2u6I78tzXqliTcD4GlWG2QVtcjeHcqk5PabGtv+g8Fb1nUh2MWUIigw o/4xVKHsGChft+EtsG1/mCYvBjsiJ6rxy3nPuAGAlRRmMs68SxsZ8aW82 SoCPT5D2r09DVJ7BOFblp7yLQ7TGAncci0+/t9CE+WGxZiKvvWsqJk0+i E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D8CgCGpxZV/49dJa1cgwZSXMVMAQmFcwKBKUwBAQEBAQF9QQGDUwEBBAEBARpRChELBAoTFg8JAwIBAgEVMAYBDAYCAQGIKw3LfQEBAQEBAQEBAgEBAQEBAQEBFgSLKYR/hC0FixqDNIwCgRyDMoI5jS4ihAwgMYJDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,484,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="404275756" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2015 13:09:08 +0000 Received: from [10.82.238.40] (rtp-vpn5-1570.cisco.com [10.82.238.40]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2SD96bh001478; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 13:09:07 GMT Message-ID: <5516A7F3.7040705@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:09:07 -0500 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Trammell , ippm@ietf.org References: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090404030505000803010404" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 13:09:13 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090404030505000803010404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian, > Greetings, all, > > This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current IPPM charter: > > Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. > > Under consideration for this milestone is draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01. > > Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: > > (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone > and the adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and I do > > (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. I do. Regards, Benoit > > We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting in Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this draft as a starting point. > > This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. > > Many thanks, best regards, > > Brian (chair hat) > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm --------------090404030505000803010404 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Brian,
Greetings, all,

This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current IPPM charter:

Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft.

Under consideration for this milestone is draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01.

Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org:

(a) whether you support the addition of the milestone
and the adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and
I do

(b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process.
I do.

Regards, Benoit

We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting in Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this draft as a starting point.

This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014.

Many thanks, best regards,

Brian (chair hat)



_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

--------------090404030505000803010404-- From nobody Sat Mar 28 12:24:56 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B9681A8A66 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:24:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.041 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ZmN0cFSRJ90 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.zserv.tuwien.ac.at (mail1.zserv.tuwien.ac.at [128.130.35.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18AC11A8983 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.87] (91-115-72-211.adsl.highway.telekom.at [91.115.72.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.zserv.tuwien.ac.at (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t2SJOiDL026254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Mar 2015 20:24:44 +0100 Message-ID: <55170000.7070103@tuwien.ac.at> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 20:24:48 +0100 From: Joachim Fabini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Trammell , ippm@ietf.org References: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 19:24:55 -0000 I support the milestone and I will review. best regards Joachim On 27.03.2015 20:17, Brian Trammell wrote: > Greetings, all, > > This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current > IPPM charter: > > Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive > and active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. > > Under consideration for this milestone is > draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01. > > Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: > > (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the > adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and > > (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. > > We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting > in Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this > draft as a starting point. > > This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. > > Many thanks, best regards, > > Brian (chair hat) > > > > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > From nobody Sat Mar 28 13:32:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14FC31A6F13 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9IMgSRlOpNoU for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 13:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from teledg002ba020.telecomitalia.it (teledg002ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 737531A6F11 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 13:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_e79bda7d-0dad-4988-bb21-d62d2fed3742_" Received: from TELCAH006BA020.telecomitalia.local (10.188.101.224) by teledg002ba020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.101.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 21:32:23 +0100 Received: from TELMBB001BA020.telecomitalia.local ([169.254.2.165]) by telcah006ba020.telecomitalia.local ([10.188.101.224]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 21:32:23 +0100 From: Ionta Tiziano To: Joachim Fabini , Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive Thread-Index: AQHQaMLInAuU9QE/OEGxFJWF+xRpWp0yN2wAgAAjpuI= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 20:32:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch>, <55170000.7070103@tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <55170000.7070103@tuwien.ac.at> Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: it-IT X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] R: WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 20:32:33 -0000 --_e79bda7d-0dad-4988-bb21-d62d2fed3742_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_oyubpvo7852orsv4t9rlq4wf1427574721844emailandroidcom_" --_000_oyubpvo7852orsv4t9rlq4wf1427574721844emailandroidcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support The Milestone too. I suggest To add The keyword "hybrid" in the title. Best Tiziano Ionta -------- Messaggio originale -------- Da: Joachim Fabini Data:28/03/2015 14:25 (GMT-06:00) A: Brian Trammell ,ippm@ietf.org Oggetto: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive I support the milestone and I will review. best regards Joachim On 27.03.2015 20:17, Brian Trammell wrote: > Greetings, all, > > This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current > IPPM charter: > > Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive > and active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. > > Under consideration for this milestone is > draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01. > > Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: > > (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the > adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and > > (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. > > We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting > in Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this > draft as a starting point. > > This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. > > Many thanks, best regards, > > Brian (chair hat) > > > > _______________________________________________ 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 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. [rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ?= necessario. --_000_oyubpvo7852orsv4t9rlq4wf1427574721844emailandroidcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I support The Milestone too.
I suggest To add The keyword "hybrid" in the title. 
Best
Tiziano Ionta


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Joachim Fabini
Data:28/03/2015 14:25 (GMT-06:00)
A: Brian Trammell ,ippm@ietf.org
Oggetto: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive <= br>
I support the milestone and I will review.

best regards
Joachim

On 27.03.2015 20:17, Brian Trammell wrote:
> Greetings, all,
>
> This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current
> IPPM charter:
>
> Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive
> and active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft.
>
> Under consideration for this milestone is
> draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01.
>
> Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org:
>
> (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the
> adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and
>
> (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process.
>
> We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting
> in Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this
> draft as a starting point.
>
> This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014.
>
> Many thanks, best regards,
>
> Brian (chair hat)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/ippm
= Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigoro= samente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete= cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di pro= vvedere 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, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. I= f you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any at= tachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

3D"rispettaRispetta= l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.

--_000_oyubpvo7852orsv4t9rlq4wf1427574721844emailandroidcom_-- --_e79bda7d-0dad-4988-bb21-d62d2fed3742_ Content-Description: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: 00000000000000000000000000000003@TI.Disclaimer R0lGODlhGgAoANU5AEiFNnikNyRvNcvYOafCOEOEW3DO3jB2NqjGs9ny9o+zOIOrN+L1+G+ggbzo 8GCUN1SNNv///zx+NrPJOL/ROYPV44zY5YuzmrfQwCZxQlKNaMXZzOfy8NTi2TV6TuLs5vX8/ez5 +4yzmtTj2cXr8mCXdKni62ycN5/f6aDf6X2qjrPl7rLl7Zu6OJbb53nS4PH188bs8sXZzfH18pq9 p0SDWxhnNWbL3NfgOf///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEAADkALAAAAAAaACgAAAb/wJxw SBQ6WMWkMmm6kZbQ5OvmjFoT1JuBYYWmsrcXqJvEgm8WctFypnI66pyjfXMhCmqGgR4r2S5dIBV0 FjI2h3BRX20VHAUCEjZ4UHNtFo42BA+HCEskbQYOIwU2CjgBNgAZM0kMbSYcIjYCBDg4LTYLf0V6 YCghNBk2DwO2OASZqkS9VBYMCB6pE8bGucidOYJUoaOptdQTFDg2ATgHGkIs2wyyAqbUtgICCwfl uh8ge1sNNhDF8LYiHYKAg4INBJUS8FsAEF6AA6lsHWjg4gYKDDZONGwIAIAtCAX2hPAgYSNHj6ds 3KiA8V3DAQGm2epoS4HKFQ0EmMRhc97Mwge2kN1IoIGgyQECD5wQUO6YygTkdtpCdSgqDl0VoDaV OmDBpm+oTCQoABQgBZfGbIrDAUBDAgcNDnDs98/WA504Buxa0RKgzVkB/h0oi+pDjgQhHtU1RgDi oY6l8gpAJyTBCBsSFtuC6XjWTBuJhIRAgFkmwAmoAkM4mCQCBmEB1sIDIKAFRGytYfDrt4CAuAkn qnrYYCXCBxGkqlYtgbtLhOcbMNSw0SBOEmg2VFj/sGHDhRLCNBC3fqFqARWhowQBADs= --_e79bda7d-0dad-4988-bb21-d62d2fed3742_-- From nobody Sat Mar 28 22:00:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8721A9149 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 22:00:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.226 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ADV0l0lCtACY for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 22:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5081A9147 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 22:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t2T50dYh002369; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 23:00:39 -0600 Received: from exchange.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.19) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Sat, 28 Mar 2015 23:00:39 -0600 (MDT) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com) Received: from EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com ([::1]) by EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 23:00:38 -0600 From: Michael Kloberdans To: Joachim Fabini Thread-Topic: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive Thread-Index: AQHQaMK/LGMTkjpkW0OdCvo5bjD9NZ0yrMUAgAA8Tbw= Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 05:00:37 +0000 Message-ID: <4B06DE85-A3D7-4D6B-9CC1-35EC3CE9E472@cablelabs.com> References: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch>, <55170000.7070103@tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <55170000.7070103@tuwien.ac.at> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 29 Mar 2015 05:00:41 -0000 I also support this ippm adoption call for draft-Morton-ippm-active-passive= and will review. Sent from my iPad > On Mar 28, 2015, at 1:24 PM, Joachim Fabini = wrote: >=20 > I support the milestone and I will review. >=20 > best regards > Joachim >=20 >> On 27.03.2015 20:17, Brian Trammell wrote: >> Greetings, all, >>=20 >> This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current >> IPPM charter: >>=20 >> Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive >> and active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. >>=20 >> Under consideration for this milestone is >> draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01. >>=20 >> Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: >>=20 >> (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the >> adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and >>=20 >> (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. >>=20 >> We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting >> in Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this >> draft as a starting point. >>=20 >> This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. >>=20 >> Many thanks, best regards, >>=20 >> Brian (chair hat) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list=20 >> ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Sat Mar 28 23:17:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E441A92A9 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 23:17:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TZq_RaIR9fO6 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 23:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D00BB1A9252 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 23:17:09 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79686d0000030a8-fc-551742eae610 Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 51.E3.12456.AE247155; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 01:10:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 02:17:06 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive Thread-Index: AQHQaMLGKZyTsSdO+kWQQ1tACmBCUZ0y/krg Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:17:06 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B93C6CC@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoO5rJ/FQg799PBYbW96xWfQ8eMfs wOSxZMlPJo8n+2eyBDBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGW82HOCqWAeZ8XrvR0sDYyb2LsYOTkkBEwk jp7/xAJhi0lcuLeerYuRi0NI4AijxLKdc5khnOWMEo9a37OBVLEJGEm82NgD1i0i4CZx6eQm ZhBbWMBTYvGs10A1HEBxL4mGfToQJUYSu86+BlvAIqAqsaJ5DdgYXgFficmdc8HiQgJ2EjO2 7WEEaeUUsJc4vjIZJMwIdM/3U2uYQGxmAXGJW0/mM0HcKSCxZM95ZghbVOLl43+sELaSxJzX 15gh6nUkFuz+xAZha0ssW/iaGWKtoMTJmU9YJjCKzkIydhaSlllIWmYhaVnAyLKKkaO0OLUs N93IYBMjMBaOSbDp7mDc89LyEKMAB6MSD2+BkXioEGtiWXFl7iFGaQ4WJXHeRQ8OhggJpCeW pGanphakFsUXleakFh9iZOLglGpgzFXn3zGxj2vquWNZDveXxPdt72Ln4ct26ZCqDO/repsW +09cZdKPQI/eLTsb9e/ef7UkdeeDJ8z/85Zp8b+TkJ18oeXtS/dCW9uKr++kFd7pfT7375N5 31L5hQmTud3OWm+KDXvyUKvyxXuO8y0sloazTJiev3gXpCtwSs9Jzd3jkkh2gso3JZbijERD Leai4kQA7OxzNWYCAAA= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 29 Mar 2015 06:17:13 -0000 I will review and provide my comments to the group. Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 12:17 PM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive Greetings, all, This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current IPPM char= ter: Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and active= measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. Under consideration for this milestone is draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-= 01. Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the adoption of t= he draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting in Dallas= earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this draft as a starting= point. This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. Many thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) From nobody Sun Mar 29 06:16:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F1D1A1BB8 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:16:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4GMJeUkHNtx for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm3-vm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm3-vm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.225]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 447231A1BAE for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:16:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1427634974; bh=xxWxJTELNwrnIS/9zgub+/16Ks4bHnzzWmU5Zl2PwSw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=ZDW9mBCjEGSTrqAqXhlv57Tq2x+fprG7cBxEPbJMPMc3U/hVOGlgu/KYMvoftIxa2a9qtUjV27wKpC2KjzhRh1N2+IzhTlTlhfsWr5QLbASjXjTxoy+dHwXZiUwcHPIDPJyimkVAFxEDt88sx25ElupJcdCoJCeoZHCWVMcJWm/eFG4cIOTYhcElIke7Vv48Cd2NzBSQyQt5BJlhKe7oUDDbHRKKDNlM+AXqlM3qcCz8eI6KOtUqvi1e/phI9zSLiXhi5kaYKSCFosJRat+b8TWQGdJB0WeK4Qh/ZcU7bto5H6xLGsOmfbbQD66VSuaC6mUnhWSxS/LDyI/l7nmRVQ== Received: from [98.138.101.128] by nm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Mar 2015 13:16:14 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.160] by tm16.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Mar 2015 13:16:14 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1061.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Mar 2015 13:16:14 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 391404.62792.bm@omp1061.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: EjZ6j30VM1m3__id1gHwsXpwlY7fgPgKGkdD7WU6wgoxiCWHNx_6L1RDchlBk57 QfTS.GeqcAIc9PiUBTuCUijdgsrx82m4vnFgxVA1r589pseC8ILd4Zns8m3klFGcvsGy4GW8M6ar c4pg4_Yn8EoO6w_2xUYCTOBButgpLiARNLnDZDQ3Zu3YJiwnH6ma8du5szk9cQmH75tntmBnhmfl mxyXHZnjVYul.KN2LqBTNMGtp61kZ1xugmPTcTzMaR8KCvTIDLXKqdWUO3XY4RzkSty5y3KrpZzz hXeMsC6x1LxK_AHdkKTp_mbYeiPz1ZKHcZFGr17HajIAHPVIqnlcrpADFTZcHT8x7aOgsR9Z40jr TxkBdsfXX4_Dd7yfqBen2bU7_ClKU6bPjlytAM7CQMWScT8jUF6x.vneTpQS7ZTNLULsBx0HMSdv lZ9I5dZL.QFdBL2MHnXhr0bsEPf7UfeCJpJsJtWrW1m3c5hJP4j4nPELx7HjfAawB_VxHPmihjWm wyg9azRB2MDrmcGU.6KMaqUx.lpA0PNCz16QMVShaDI_cOwexZ3zfx0RRLCVXTjKKTJG.7wco2f1 HSLOv00_agYUP_c1xQIRhUb8FAPtY40L9KAhyYpdO Received: by 98.138.101.173; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:16:13 +0000 Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:16:12 +0000 (UTC) From: Nalini Elkins To: Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Message-ID: <1910499544.601422.1427634972786.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> References: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_601421_1695965877.1427634972782" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Nalini Elkins List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:16:17 -0000 ------=_Part_601421_1695965877.1427634972782 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I supported the draft at the meeting and I support it on the list. I will also pledge to review the draft during the WG process.=C2=A0Thanks, Nalini Elkins Inside Products, Inc. (831) 659-8360 www.insidethestack.com From: Brian Trammell To: ippm@ietf.org=20 Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 12:17 PM Subject: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive =20 Greetings, all, This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current IPPM char= ter: Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and active= measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. Under consideration for this milestone is draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-= 01. Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting in Dallas= earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this draft as a starting= point. This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. Many thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm ------=_Part_601421_1695965877.1427634972782 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I supported the draft at the meeting and I support it on the list.=

I will = also pledge to review the draft during the WG process.
 
Thanks,=


Nalini ElkinsInside Products, Inc.
(831) 659-8360
www.insidethestack.com

From: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
To: ippm@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 12:17 PM Subject: [ippm] WG adopt= ion call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive

Greetings,= all,

This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the curr= ent IPPM charter:

Submit a draft defining terminology for the contin= uum of passive and active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft= .

Under consideration for this milestone is draft-morton-ippm-active= -passive-01.

Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ie= tf.org:

(a) whether you support the addition of the milestone
and= the adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and
<= br>(b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process.
We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting in Dalla= s earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this draft as a startin= g point.

This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April = 2014.

Many thanks, best regards,

Brian (chair hat)
_______= ________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


------=_Part_601421_1695965877.1427634972782-- From nobody Sun Mar 29 06:33:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFED1A1BC8 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:33:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.73 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.73 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hoqvlRSFEPl4 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from teledg001ba020.telecomitalia.it (teledg001ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 134431A1BC9 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_66086d21-10b4-42fb-995a-a43ea83aa6bd_" Received: from TELCAH004BA020.telecomitalia.local (10.188.101.220) by teledg001ba020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.101.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 15:33:11 +0200 Received: from TELMBB001BA020.telecomitalia.local ([169.254.2.165]) by telcah004ba020.telecomitalia.local ([10.188.101.220]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 15:33:11 +0200 From: Ionta Tiziano To: Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive Thread-Index: AQHQaMLInAuU9QE/OEGxFJWF+xRpWp0yN2wAgAAjpuKAAR0zqQ== Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:33:10 +0000 Message-ID: <69kkp6q8s0oi47q4hx1n4smr.1427635951804@email.android.com> References: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch>, <55170000.7070103@tuwien.ac.at>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US Content-Language: it-IT X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] R: WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 29 Mar 2015 13:33:18 -0000 --_66086d21-10b4-42fb-995a-a43ea83aa6bd_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69kkp6q8s0oi47q4hx1n4smr1427635951804emailandroidcom_" --_000_69kkp6q8s0oi47q4hx1n4smr1427635951804emailandroidcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all. I will also pledge to review the draft during the WG process. Best Tiziano Ionta -------- Messaggio originale -------- Da: Ionta Tiziano Data:28/03/2015 21:32 (GMT+01:00) A: Joachim Fabini ,Brian Trammell ,ippm@ietf.org Oggetto: R: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive I support The Milestone too. I suggest To add The keyword "hybrid" in the title. Best Tiziano Ionta -------- Messaggio originale -------- Da: Joachim Fabini Data:28/03/2015 14:25 (GMT-06:00) A: Brian Trammell ,ippm@ietf.org Oggetto: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive I support the milestone and I will review. best regards Joachim On 27.03.2015 20:17, Brian Trammell wrote: > Greetings, all, > > This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current > IPPM charter: > > Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive > and active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. > > Under consideration for this milestone is > draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01. > > Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: > > (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the > adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and > > (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. > > We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting > in Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this > draft as a starting point. > > This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. > > Many thanks, best regards, > > Brian (chair hat) > > > > _______________________________________________ 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 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. [rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ?= necessario. --_000_69kkp6q8s0oi47q4hx1n4smr1427635951804emailandroidcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all.
I will also pledge to review the draft during the WG process.
Best
Tiziano Ionta


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Ionta Tiziano
Data:28/03/2015 21:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: Joachim Fabini ,Brian Trammell ,ippm@ietf.org
Oggetto: R: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive
I support The Milestone too.
I suggest To add The keyword "hybrid" in the title. 
Best
Tiziano Ionta


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Joachim Fabini
Data:28/03/2015 14:25 (GMT-06:00)
A: Brian Trammell ,ippm@ietf.org
Oggetto: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive <= br>
I support the milestone and I will review.

best regards
Joachim

On 27.03.2015 20:17, Brian Trammell wrote:
> Greetings, all,
>
> This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current
> IPPM charter:
>
> Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive
> and active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft.
>
> Under consideration for this milestone is
> draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01.
>
> Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org:
>
> (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the
> adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and
>
> (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process.
>
> We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting
> in Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this
> draft as a starting point.
>
> This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014.
>
> Many thanks, best regards,
>
> Brian (chair hat)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/ippm
= Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigoro= samente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete= cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di pro= vvedere 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, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. I= f you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any at= tachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

3D"rispettaRispetta= l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.

--_000_69kkp6q8s0oi47q4hx1n4smr1427635951804emailandroidcom_-- --_66086d21-10b4-42fb-995a-a43ea83aa6bd_ Content-Description: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: 00000000000000000000000000000003@TI.Disclaimer R0lGODlhGgAoANU5AEiFNnikNyRvNcvYOafCOEOEW3DO3jB2NqjGs9ny9o+zOIOrN+L1+G+ggbzo 8GCUN1SNNv///zx+NrPJOL/ROYPV44zY5YuzmrfQwCZxQlKNaMXZzOfy8NTi2TV6TuLs5vX8/ez5 +4yzmtTj2cXr8mCXdKni62ycN5/f6aDf6X2qjrPl7rLl7Zu6OJbb53nS4PH188bs8sXZzfH18pq9 p0SDWxhnNWbL3NfgOf///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEAADkALAAAAAAaACgAAAb/wJxw SBQ6WMWkMmm6kZbQ5OvmjFoT1JuBYYWmsrcXqJvEgm8WctFypnI66pyjfXMhCmqGgR4r2S5dIBV0 FjI2h3BRX20VHAUCEjZ4UHNtFo42BA+HCEskbQYOIwU2CjgBNgAZM0kMbSYcIjYCBDg4LTYLf0V6 YCghNBk2DwO2OASZqkS9VBYMCB6pE8bGucidOYJUoaOptdQTFDg2ATgHGkIs2wyyAqbUtgICCwfl uh8ge1sNNhDF8LYiHYKAg4INBJUS8FsAEF6AA6lsHWjg4gYKDDZONGwIAIAtCAX2hPAgYSNHj6ds 3KiA8V3DAQGm2epoS4HKFQ0EmMRhc97Mwge2kN1IoIGgyQECD5wQUO6YygTkdtpCdSgqDl0VoDaV OmDBpm+oTCQoABQgBZfGbIrDAUBDAgcNDnDs98/WA504Buxa0RKgzVkB/h0oi+pDjgQhHtU1RgDi oY6l8gpAJyTBCBsSFtuC6XjWTBuJhIRAgFkmwAmoAkM4mCQCBmEB1sIDIKAFRGytYfDrt4CAuAkn qnrYYCXCBxGkqlYtgbtLhOcbMNSw0SBOEmg2VFj/sGHDhRLCNBC3fqFqARWhowQBADs= --_66086d21-10b4-42fb-995a-a43ea83aa6bd_-- From nobody Sun Mar 29 08:17:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1F61A883C for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:17:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8aYO9yq6SYd0 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.z120.zixworks.com (mx.z120.zixworks.com [199.30.235.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 056341A8821 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (ZixVPM [127.0.0.1]) by Outbound.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id DB817281FCD for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:17:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from imsva1.bcbsm.com (unknown [12.107.172.80]) by mx.z120.zixworks.com (Proprietary) with SMTP id 7E96D281DA8; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:17:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from imsva1.bcbsm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA80 (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC99A4FF0D7; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 11:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pwn401ea105.ent.corp.bcbsm.com (unknown [10.64.102.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by imsva1.bcbsm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01694FE136; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 11:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([fe80::fdcb:603d:469e:b1db]) by PWN401EA105.ent.corp.bcbsm.com ([fe80::f13e:83e4:1dae:5345%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 11:17:27 -0400 From: "Ackermann, Michael" To: Brian Trammell , "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive Thread-Index: AQHQaMLAG57GyM4a7Emt8P9uwML4X50wxImg Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 15:17:27 +0000 Message-ID: <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CD94D60@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> References: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> In-Reply-To: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.64.83.71] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.3262-7.500.1018-21432.006 x-tm-as-result: No--42.333400-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-VPM-MSG-ID: 573d48d1-ec2b-4875-a75b-95cb8c40823f X-VPM-HOST: vmvpm02.z120.zixworks.com X-VPM-GROUP-ID: 8534c79b-a376-4d85-848b-92b22ba476f4 X-VPM-ENC-REGIME: Plaintext X-VPM-CERT-FLAG: 0 X-VPM-IS-HYBRID: 0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 29 Mar 2015 15:17:31 -0000 (a) This is a very useful document and should be adopted as a WG item.=20 (b) I will review this draft.=20 -----Original Message----- From: ippm =5Bmailto:ippm-bounces=40ietf.org=5D On Behalf Of Brian Trammell Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:17 PM To: ippm=40ietf.org Subject: =5Bippm=5D WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive Greetings, all, This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current IPPM = charter: Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and = active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. Under consideration for this milestone is = draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01. Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the adoption of = the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, and (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting in = Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this draft as a = starting point. This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. Many thanks, best regards, Brian (chair hat) The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and = is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this = communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are = hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of = this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic = mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original = message without making any copies. =20 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are = nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and = Blue Shield Association. From nobody Mon Mar 30 11:39:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D27A1A92F7 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:39:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K2BAx_n7JjbH for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from firefly.encrypted.net (firefly.encrypted.net [72.13.81.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34761A6F38 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from firefly.encrypted.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firefly.encrypted.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AFC64AD23; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:39:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at encrypted.net Received: from firefly.encrypted.net ([127.0.0.1]) by firefly.encrypted.net (firefly.encrypted.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZIPx3FWJju0; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [134.63.111.146] (66-7-254-66.static-ip.telepacific.net [66.7.254.66]) by firefly.encrypted.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EEC44ACEA; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Sarah Banks In-Reply-To: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:39:16 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0CAC3DEC-DCDB-4FEA-A8D7-09372D2DFE04@encrypted.net> References: <3A3D4A78-EE84-4CFF-A46A-E5E0E3318494@trammell.ch> To: Brian Trammell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for draft-morton-ippm-active-passive X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 30 Mar 2015 18:39:11 -0000 Hi Brian, I support this addition as a milestone, and adoption of draft as = a WG item, and I will review the draft during the WG process. Regards, Sarah > On Mar 27, 2015, at 12:17 PM, Brian Trammell wrote: >=20 > Greetings, all, >=20 > This is a call for adoption for a new milestone under the current IPPM = charter: >=20 > Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and = active measurement to the IESG as an Informational draft. >=20 > Under consideration for this milestone is = draft-morton-ippm-active-passive-01. >=20 > Please indicate the following to the list at ippm at ietf.org: >=20 > (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone > and the adoption of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone, = and >=20 > (b) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process. >=20 > We note there was clear consensus in the room at the IPPM meeting in = Dallas earlier today for adoption of this milestone, and this draft as a = starting point. >=20 > This call for adoption will continue until Friday 10 April 2014. >=20 > Many thanks, best regards, >=20 > Brian (chair hat) > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From nobody Mon Mar 30 21:20:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209DA1A8AFA for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:20:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.013 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GCf3WYRmJ2J3 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 575391A8AF0 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.27.105] (cust-integra-122-165.antanet.ch [80.75.122.165]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7B931A0244 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 06:20:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4F29170F-43B1-48C9-B0C0-162ED46BDAE6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 06:20:42 +0200 Message-Id: <5EAA3DE0-E530-41A4-88E1-74B682C0DEF9@trammell.ch> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: [ippm] IETF92 Dallas IPPM draft minutes posted X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 31 Mar 2015 04:20:48 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4F29170F-43B1-48C9-B0C0-162ED46BDAE6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, The draft minutes of the IPPM meeting on Friday morning have been posted = to: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/minutes/minutes-92-ippm Many thanks to Marius Georgescu and Sarah Banks for taking notes and = preparing the minutes! Please review and post any comments or = corrections to the ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org Thanks, cheers, Brian --Apple-Mail=_4F29170F-43B1-48C9-B0C0-162ED46BDAE6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVGiCaAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcUS8H+wdqyHhvPFoQAzDcTiOhZG4x r+Qi0+b9QBjzwSSj5Bv7RkIJtaNeU7J3iKeMktWa+FJWr4WHKc8eKpyieEdqOp3Z 2JjRMA2fE0fC0CKFLtevwtqWbIAVZw5bskDYudyHF8kJghDoxK3mWEzxFtUFIRPN 8P8IGxPPS+GVgY8yeGIUGpeZ+8U1fynor2vG3YkK7bL2PInsM+G5J0Nfow3puAgo vET8gxP8KMwANEmis5r+2J7svLNHe9qyfRq5uV6h7gLUI28+0yStLrgmvSYxrOby WCs5G/+NXRFxRX0eWCxb0kJ4tGGyjeAJ4rPeg+LxrPGEMeAJUkyvpicdedkkgDQ= =BUV7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4F29170F-43B1-48C9-B0C0-162ED46BDAE6--