Subject: Re: [lmap] comments on lmap-requirements - re-use

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 01:37:05 +0000

Comments in-line.
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] on behalf of Brian Trammell [[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lmap] comments on lmap-requirements

Is the intention of LMAP to design new measurement methodologies and protocols, to overlay control on an existing set of measurement protocols, or to provide a framework/control system for controlling existing measurement systems? The assumption seems to be the first, though I'm not sure it's a good idea to start from scratch. There's a lot of work in internet measurement (both protocols and tools, including already-deployed active and passive measurement systems) that could be leveraged to make an LMAP-based infrastructure more quickly deployable.

This is probably something that needs to be made clearer. My goal was support integration as much as possible, e.g., the actual probing (for active measurements) should be able to use any measurement technique and protocol.

You could and should be able to combine LMAP-standard and existing protocols for the other elements, e.g., maybe the controller-client protocol is infrastructure-specific and only the reporting protocol is LMAP-standardized.

Best regards,

Brian
_______________________________________________
lmap mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap