Subject: Re: [lmap] preliminary agenda - please comment!

From: "Weil, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 09:52:10 -0400

I agree with Dan and Barbara on two separate points.

 1.  Framework Discussion - Any comments during the IETF90 meeting that have to do with the framework should take place during the timeslot dedicated to the Framework discussion in the posted agenda. We have 45mins set aside for this topic and any personal opinions should be raised at the mic or relayed in the jabber channel during this time. Keep in mind that the 3rd WGLC for the framework draft is set to end tomorrow, July 8th.
 2.  BBF Liaison – The Liaison documents that arrived last week from the Broadband Forum represent the view from that organization. I did not see any gaps or action items for the IETF LMAP WG in that document. I know a large number of active participants in LMAP are also participating in the BBF efforts, but any collective view out of either of these organizations should be communicated using the liaison process. It should also be noted that the BBF liaison includes the current WT-304 working text and requests any comments about that document to be directed to the LMAP WG list. LMAP participants that are concerned about alignment between the two organizations work items should feel free to provide personal opinions on the list for discussion.

I have included the liaison statement, bbf2014.636.01.pdf as an attachment to this mail, but the full liaison including the WT-304 working text and TR-069 data model change documents can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2014-07-01-broadband-forum-the-ietf-large-scale-performance-measurements-attachment-1.zip

Thanks,

Jason

From: <STARK>, BARBARA STARK <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Saturday, July 5, 2014 at 12:12 PM
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "Bugenhagen, Michael K" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "MORTON JR., AL" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [lmap] preliminary agenda - please comment!

The liaison statement from BBF said everything that BBF officially agreed to say to IETF. Note that there is no mention from BBF regarding any “gaps” that are officially perceived by “BBF” or any requests from BBF for IETF to consider additional deliverables.

Anyone is welcome to provide their personal opinions regarding perceived “gaps” and regarding what organization is best positioned to do what work. But it’s very, very important to recognize these as personal opinions. Please do not treat these personal opinions as official BBF statements. It would also be nice if these opinions were expressed in a way that made this clear.

IMO, it will still be needed to define somewhere the exact metrics and measurement methods for US-based measurement of broadband access services. But I see no need to try to drive this internationally, and do not think either BBF or IETF are well-suited to define this for the US. A US group that has strong technical representation from service providers, equipment manufacturers, and consumer advocates would probably be better suited to doing this. I can’t speak for other regions.

IMO, the framework, information-model, and registry are the most important deliverables needed from IETF.
Barbara

From: lmap [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 2:10 PM
To: Bugenhagen, Michael K; MORTON JR., AL; '<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>'
Subject: Re: [lmap] preliminary agenda - please comment!

Hi Michael,

See in-line.

Regards,

Dan

From: Bugenhagen, Michael K [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 9:02 PM
To: 'MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)'; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); '<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>'
Subject: RE: preliminary agenda - please comment!

Al,

    Then we may have another BBF to IETF LMAP gap.

The charter there says to define an Performance Metric standard for measuring Broadband performance – in fact it’s the first sentence of the scope in the BBF project.
Regional or not a universal metric on a live network needs to include method for handling environmental impacts such as terms of service.

      I’m OK with LMAP making common pipe information objects, if the scope “line” is drawn there – but the projects origin scope may have been broader, I definitely know it was on the BBF side.

Let me talk with Charles Cook and Ken Ko from the BBF side of the house.

If nothing else  I think LMAP and IPPM should coordinate with BBF on who’s doing what – I originally assumed the IETF would handle environmental and service state issues as part of the testing framework via writing some MA standard behavior standards.

DR:  This is not something that is within the scope of the current charter of LMAP.

What we do have now in what coordination with the BBF is concerned is:

Ø  The LMAP working group will coordinate with other standards bodies working in this area (e.g., BBF, IEEE 802.16, ETSI) regarding the information model, and with other IETF working groups in the areas of data models, protocols, multiple interface management, and measurement of performance metrics.

IF this is not the case, then the BBF may have to tackle that one … and the IETF simply put a “out of scope” statement that it’s an issue to be addressed by the owner of the test platform.

DR: In which of the document (or documents) you see the need for such a statement?

Thoughts ?
Mike

From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:55 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Bugenhagen, Michael K; '<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>'
Subject: RE: preliminary agenda - please comment!

I think the details of testing states and policies related to the In-service
environment may be measurement study-specific decisions, and then they should
appear in regional Implementer's guides and the governing body's Characterization
Plan.

In other words, the Framework is not a region-specific Characterization Plan,
and the Charter for the initial LMAP work sets the scope of the Framework,
drawing the line which may exclude gaps that the Characterization Plan would fill.

Al

From: lmap [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 1:45 PM
To: Bugenhagen, Michael K; '<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>'
Subject: Re: [lmap] preliminary agenda - please comment!

Why not discuss such issues as part of the comments to the framework and information model Internet-Drafts?

Time in meetings is expensive, and I prefer to focus on solving the open issues on the Internet-Drafts. What you call ‘gaps’ seem to belong here.

Do I miss anything?

Regards,

Dan

From: Bugenhagen, Michael K [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 8:40 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); '<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>'
Subject: RE: preliminary agenda - please comment!

A list of the “scope” to work underway.

Example – in the information model we have identified “Objects” involved with testing such as cross traffic, but we haven’t defined the “behavior” of the MA during that event.
So although we have a “registry” the registry itself is based upon existing test which don’t describe how test behavior in the presence of live network and service states that can change the expected outcome of the test.

Therefore on a large part we have not met the target goal of designing a framework that can handle live testing in a in-service network without describing the testing states, and methods required to be addressed in that environment.
A litmus test of this is “if one were to have different behaviors to those factors do the test results vary” – the answer here I believe is yes – which directly infers to meet the goal of a framework that can support apples to apples test results in a live network we need to address that issue, and given we haven’t addressed it yet – well, that’s a gap.

I may have mentioned that before, but I haven’t seen any of the current “framework” contributions propose solutions, even though we are saying the framework is becoming more mature… when it does those types of gaps should not exist IMO.

So I feel they warrant being called out at this point…

There may be more, it’s just one I don’t see being worked, but it’s a critical one as well – so we should be trying to close the big gaps before continued work on the small stuff, at least IMO it is…

Mike

From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:23 PM
To: Bugenhagen, Michael K; '<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>'
Subject: RE: preliminary agenda - please comment!

Hi Michael,

Can you clarify what kind of gaps you are referring to?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

From: Bugenhagen, Michael K [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 5:56 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); '<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>'
Subject: RE: preliminary agenda - please comment!

Dan,

   I don’t know if we’ve been actively tracking “gaps” in a list anywhere but that might be work setting aside at least 15 minutes for in the agenda…

See you in Toronto!

Cheers,
Mike

From: lmap [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 7:22 AM
To: '<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>'
Subject: [lmap] preliminary agenda - please comment!

I uploaded a preliminary agenda for the LMAP meeting in Toronto at IETF-90.

It is available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/agenda/agenda-90-lmap.

Please comment!

Regards,

Dan

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.