Subject: [lmap] LMAP: situation after the BoF

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:25:08 +0200

Dear LMAP participants,

Thanks again for a successful BoF, with two great chairs.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
Here is my high level analysis of the situation.

 From RFC 5434:

    The goal of the
    BOF is to demonstrate that the community has agreement that:

       - (1) there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right
         group to attempt solving it.

       - (2) there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the
         problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.).

       - (3) the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that
         is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and
         what it won't) and what its actual deliverables will be.

       - (4) there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e.,
         proposed documents) are the right set.

       - (5) it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of
         having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its
         charter in a timely fashion).

We passed (1) and (2). For example, I'm pleased that there are operator 
participation in LMAP.
Now, we have to finalize (3) ... before working on the charter text (4).

*Question 1. Use cases*
Do we agree that we want to focus on the Internet Service Provider and 
the End User Network Diagnostics use cases for now? As a phase 2, we 
could focus on the 3rd party use case: multi-provider, regulator, over 
the top
Question: in the End User Network Diagnostics use case, I'm unclear if 
the user initiated measurement is included?

*Question 2: IPv4/IPv6*
Do we agree that we need support both IPv6 and IPv4?
Note: The issue of NAT traversal complicates IPv4

*Question 3: Active and passive measurements*
Do we agree that both active and passive measurements are in scope?

*Question 4: Measurement Agent device type*
A branch office router, a home router, a dual home router, a laptop, a 
tablet, a mobile device, ...?
The discussion started on the list with an email sent on March 7th, with 
the "[lmap] Which devices does LMAP target?" subject. This needs more 
discussion.
The requirements will be different based on the device type (ex: router 
versus tablet versus mobile).
On my mobile, for which I pay per transmitted bytes, I don't want to pay 
for those measurements. This comes back to the question of voluntary 
based measurements or not?

*Question 5: **Gaming the system*
Do we agree that, from a technical point of view, there is nothing we 
can do to prevent gaming the system? So we're left with the assumption 
that people will behave.

*Question 6: Liaisons*
We agree not to speak about liaisons during the BoF. However, if we 
create this WG, then this will become an important topic. Which liaisons 
have we received so far, and which SDO should we liaise to?

Next steps: Discuss the questions in this email on the LMAP mailing 
list. For clarity, one question per email thread. Then, we could start 
working on the charter text.

In parallel, the WG could spend some time on
- Security: As mentioned by Dan on the mailing list some months ago, the 
security requirement aspects should be expanded. Security considerations 
related to the protocol (control and reporting), and to the collected 
data (anonymization? geolocation? etc...)
- Terminology: In my experience of dealing with new WGs, a necessary 
task on which the community spends a lot of time is the terminology 
definition. The sooner you start on this, the better. What is a metric, 
a  test, a test report, a measurement agent, a controller, a metric, a 
report, etc... What does a test or test report include, etc... During 
the various discussions, I've seen some confusions between a test and a 
metric.

Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)