Subject: [lmap] WGLC for http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lmap-framework-03.txt

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:30:48 +0000

This is a Working Group Last Call for the Internet-Draft 'A framework for large-scale measurement platforms (LMAP)' which can be found at
 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lmap-framework-03.txt. Please send your comments about this I-D to the WG mail list until 2/6/13.  If you have no comments but you believe that the document is ready to be submitted to the IESG for consideration as Informational RFC a short mail stating this is also welcome.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:46:23 -0800

Dear Authors,
please find my comments to the document:

   - Document needs table of Acronyms
   - Introduction, second paragraph. I think that reference to out-of-scope
   use cases is vague as charter of the LMAP WG may change over time.
   Perhaps it can be edited to "The LMAP framework should be useful for
   these such as to help end users to run diagnostic checks".
   - text of the third paragraph in Introduction needs tightening. Use of
   "perhaps" makes it less clear.
   - I'd consider to use Measurement Method rather than Measurement Task
   considering that Sec.2 describes the latter as instantiation of the former.
   - I think that "Measurement Tasks may be Active (the MA or Measurement
   Peer generates Active Measurement Traffic), Passive (the MA observes user
   traffic), or some hybrid form of the two" refers to Measurement Methods,
   not Measurement Tasks.
   - s/but that are/but these are/
   - I think that achieving Standardization of Measurement Methods across
   arbitrary domain of heterogeneous Measurement Agents would encompass goals
   one and three outlined in the Introduction.
   - Section 2 and Figure 1. I think that limiting scope of LMAP to only
   single-ended two-way Measurement Methods is too restrictive. For example,
   Passive Measurement Methods would likely to be one-way and Controller would
   be required to coordinate Measurement Task on both Measurement Agent and
   Measurement Peer (yes, I disagree with the assumption that passive method
   requires participation of only MA). And it is likely that the Measurement
   Peer would be exporting Measurement Results to a Collector. If the Figure 1
   considered as reference model for LMAP it has to present more generic case.
   - Section 2 "The next components we consider are the Measurement Agent
   (MA), Controller and Collector." Should it list Measurement Peer or
   acknowledge that Measurement Peer is just an instance of Measurement Agent.
   - Section 3. In definition of Active Measurement Method does not include
   case when both MA and Management Peer inject Active Measurement Traffic.
   Please consider "... where the Measurement Agent, the Measurement Peer or
   both inject Active Measurement Traffic ..."
   - Section 3. Please consider s/Capabilities/Measurement Capabilities/
   - Section 3. I think that Control Channel exists not only between
   Controller and MA but between Controller and Measurement Peer.
   - Section 3. What differentiates Control Channel and MA-to-Controller
   Channel? And why Control Channel not listed in definition of a Channel
   along with other types of LMAP channels?

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email-masked]>wrote:

>  This is a Working Group Last Call for the Internet-Draft ‘A framework for large-scale measurement platforms (LMAP)’ which can be found at
>
>  http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lmap-framework-03.txt. Please send
> your comments about this I-D to the WG mail list until 2/6/13.  If you have
> no comments but you believe that the document is ready to be submitted to
> the IESG for consideration as Informational RFC a short mail stating this
> is also welcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
>
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
>
>