Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: Re: cron job for the IETF doctors/directorates
From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
To: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:16:23 +0530
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list <pmol.ietf.org>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Al Morton <[email-masked]> wrote:
> At 08:28 AM 9/20/2012, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>
>> ...We could use it to search, on a weekly basis, for all drafts containing
>> "performance" and "metric".
>>
>> I'm still hoping to host such a script on a IETF server (second attempt).
>> I'll keep you posted.
>> Any thougths?
>
>
> Interesting capability, and worth a try IMO (maybe with some tweaks).
> Al

Sounds like a good idea to me. We should try it out.

Regards
Vinayak

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:49:17 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [PMOL] FW: I-D Action: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt

I believe that this I-D (individual submission targeting the RTCWEB WG)
is of interest for some of the folks who participate in PMOL. Reaching
consistency between the metrics used by RTCP XR and RTCWEB (when
relevant) seems to be desirable.=20

Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:17 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D Action: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title           : A Registry for WebRTC statistics identifiers
	Author(s)       : Harald T. Alvestrand
	Filename        : draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2012-09-24

Abstract:
   This memo describes a registration procedure for statistics
   identifiers used in the WebRTC Javascript API to access statistical
   information about a PeerConnection.

   It also gives some identifiers that will, when approved, form the
   initial content of this registry.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:17:19 -0400
To: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: Re: cron job for the IETF doctors/directorates

At 08:28 AM 9/20/2012, Benoit Claise wrote:
>...We could use it to search, on a weekly basis, for all drafts 
>containing "performance" and "metric".
>I'm still hoping to host such a script on a IETF server (second 
>attempt). I'll keep you posted.
>Any thougths?

Interesting capability, and worth a try IMO (maybe with some tweaks).
Al

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:11:12 -0400
To: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Cc: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM

<html>
<body>
Hi Benoit,<br><br>
There's clearly a need to coordinate with BBF.<br><br>
After some digging, we found that information attached<br>
to a letter from the US FCC to the BBF proposes a <br>
division of work between IETF and BBF, and that the<br>
FCC intended to contact IETF formally with more details<br>
(see the exchange I had with Ron below, it answers some<br>
of your questions). <br><br>
IETF has considerable products that are immediately applicable,<br>
but there's additional work needed - some of which is critical<br>
to the topic of broadband access measurement.<br><br>
regards,<br>
Al<br><br>
At 11:31 AM 9/17/2012, Al Morton wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Sounds good, lets get through
the 2544 stuff first...<br><br>
At 11:01 AM 9/17/2012, Ronald Bonica wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Al,<br>
&nbsp;<br>
It took a while, but I just connected the dots=85.<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Back in March, I gave a talk on IPv6 at the FCC. After the talk, Henning
Schulzrinne (CTO FCC) mentioned the measurement project and I offered
whatever help we (the IETF) could give. If you think that it would be
helpful, I would be glad to set up a conference call with you and
Henning.<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n=
bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n=
bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Ron<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
<b>From:</b> Al Morton
[<a href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]" eudora=3D"autourl">
mailto:[email-masked]</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, September 16, 2012 8:44 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Ronald Bonica<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: WT-304 Liaison to IEEE, IETF, and ITU<br>
&nbsp;<br>
At 10:04 AM 9/14/2012, Ronald Bonica wrote:<br><br>
Would you be willing to draft a reply?<br><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n=
bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Ron<br><br>
Yes, but we need to wait a bit, because IETF is intended<br>
to receive a Liaison/letter from the FCC directly,<br>
and we should respond to BBF after understanding<br>
additional input from FCC.<br><br>
The BBF mentions an &quot;fcc document&quot; they received
(attached)<br>
in the 2nd BBF Liaison to IETF which arrived at end of August <br>
(which is here
<a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1185/">
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1185/</a>&nbsp;&nbsp; )<br>
It has been clarified that document was actually an attachment<br>
to a short FCC letter, and the document came from the New America <br>
Foundation (NAF), although it was clearly written with the FCC's <br>
interest in mind.<br><br>
This NAF document mentions informal and follow-up contacts with IETF<br>
(near the bottom of page 2): <br>
<b>We have had informal discussion with the IETF regarding their possible
role in standardizing metrics used to characterize broadband performance
and intend to submit a request to the IETF to undertake a work program
towards this end.</b> We believe that the data collection infrastructure
also requires standardization and are submitting this proposal to the
Broadband Forum to begin a work program to this end. It is our present
understanding that this proposal would match the objectives of the
Broadband Access Service Attributes and Performance Metrics (WT-304) work
program and would be appropriate for submission to this work group. <br>
Since this describes a high-level division of work between BBF and
IETF,<br>
I'll be looking for similar detail (as the document provides to BBF on
the <br>
pages that follow) in the planned request to IETF.<br><br>
Incidentally, this NAF document also refers to BBF's WT-304 doc as
though<br>
it is a product with some substance, but I confirmed from a
co-editor<br>
that it is just an outline and some text for the scope, nothing
more.<br><br>
I've been in contact with our external affairs people who have
frequent<br>
contact with the FCC - we're trying to determine the status of the <br>
planned FCC contact.&nbsp; I think that's worth waiting for, since it
should<br>
portray the project as a joint effort and we can pursue it that way<br>
in our reply to BBF.<br><br>
Al</blockquote></blockquote><br><br>
At 07:54 AM 9/20/2012, Benoit Claise wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Hi,<br><br>
[copying Wes Eddy, Transport A.D., responsible for IPPM]<br><br>
This is what I can read in the liaison statement:<br>

<dl><br>

<dd>This project will address the following topics. <br><br>

<dd>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Specification of
the test architecture<br><br>

<dd>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A set of
definitions to enable standard performance testing and reporting which
includes:<br><br>

<dd>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Network
Segment(s) being tested <br><br>

<dd>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Tests and
methodologies appropriate for each segment<br><br>

<dd>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Test methods
including test controller and test end-point requirements<br><br>

<dd>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recommended
testing intervals for performance characterization and summarization
purposes.<br><br>

<dd>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Support of tests
that span multiple operator networks. <br><br>

<dd>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A standard method
for quantifying and comparing access services.<br><br>

<dd>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A common language
for effective communication of service attributes between service
providers and the customer.<br><br>

<dd>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Templates for
application providers on the network performance requirements.<br><br>

<dd>&nbsp;<br><br>

<dd>The BBF welcomes input and contributions on this project from
partnering SDO=92s, and will keep you informed of progress on the Working
Text.&nbsp; <br><br>

</dl>My initial reaction, in no particular order: <br>
- test architecture: <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; active or passive? <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; if active, does BBF plan on reusing TWAMP, OWAMP?<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; if passive, does BBF plan on defining the architecture
on its own?<br>
- a set of definitions: it would be ideal to have performance metrics
specified according to our BCP RFC 6390<br>
- &quot;support of tests than span multiple operator
networks&quot;.&nbsp; Protocol extensions to what we have in the IETF (as
mentioned by Al already)?<br>
- basically, which IETF building blocks could BBF reuse? And which one(s)
do they plan on reusing?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Example: IPPM OWAMP and TWAMP, IPPM spatial and
temporal aggregation, PMOL way of specifying metric, etc...<br>
- we should separate what's generic (architecture and perf. metrics
definition) from what's specific to an environment (&quot; Recommended
testing intervals for performance characterization and summarization
purposes.&quot;, &quot;A standard method for quantifying and comparing
access services.&quot;, &quot;Templates for application providers on the
network performance requirements.&quot;)<br><br>
Thoughts?<br><br>
How should we draft the response?<br><br>
Regards, Benoit.<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">I'd like to read the recent
letter from the FCC, because I doubt<br>
the roles and assignments of various SDOs are defined there.<br>
BBF's claim to certain roles is understood at a high level.<br>
If we agree it makes sense for BBF to define the architecture,<br>
that's fine -- but let's agree on that first.<br><br>
Al<br><br>
At 08:53 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">My understanding from the
reading of their interaction with the IETF and ITU-T is that the BBF
intent to take the responsibility of defining the testing architecture
and the procedures, re-using components defined in other SDOs, and
possibly pointing to existing gaps and requirements for extensions that
could fill these. <br>
&nbsp;<br>
Is this your understanding also? Do you believe that we should do more
than pointing to the protocols and metrics defined in the IETF and
considering requirements for extensions if these show up? <br>
&nbsp;<br>
Regards,<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Dan<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
From:</b> Al Morton [
<a href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]" eudora=3D"autourl">
mailto:[email-masked]</a>] <br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:46 PM<br>
To:</b> Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Yaakov Stein;
<a href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a><br>
Cc:</b> Benoit Claise; Ronald Bonica<br>
Subject:</b> RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE
BROADBAND FORUM<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Hi Dan,<br><br>
At 07:33 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:<br><br>
<br>
One question =96 you wrote: <br><br>
=D8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO, the next steps are to agree on
a test architecture and<br>
divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement,<br>
and supporting protocol development among SDOs<br><br>
Do you believe that there is a need for new protocol development for BB
access performance? <br><br>
Not necessarily new protocols, but likely protocol extensions<br>
to enable control among the various entities in the TBD
architecture.<br>
For example, we have OWAMP and TWAMP test protocols, but they
probably<br>
don't yet specify all the controls needed. Once the results are<br>
measured, how are they transferred for further processing,<br>
display, and archiving? What could we augment to do this
efficiently?<br><br>
And, what SDO has the mandate to determine the testing
architecture?<br><br>
Al</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:28:02 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [PMOL] Fwd: Re: cron job for the IETF doctors/directorates

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050801060200010202070002
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear all,

The first priority for this group is to be aware of performance metrics 
related drafts.
Below is a mechanism put in place in the AAA directorate.
We could use it to search, on a weekly basis, for all drafts containing 
"performance" and "metric".
I'm still hoping to host such a script on a IETF server (second 
attempt). I'll keep you posted.
Any thougths?

Regards, Benoit.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: cron job for the IETF doctors/directorates
Date: 	Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:11:57 +0200
From: 	Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
To: 	Tools Team Discussion <[email-masked]>, Henrik Levkowetz 
<[email-masked]>
CC: 	IESG IESG <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

Dear tools expert,

I'm not sure I saw any replies to this request.
Please let me know if installing such as cron job, customized for the 
different directorates, is possible?
I now have one more use for this script: the PMOL directorate, searching 
for performance metrics related drafts

Regards, Benoit.
> Dear all,
>
> Alan Dekok has this excellent weekly script for the AAA directorates: 
> it returns all the active IETF drafts that have a reference to radius. 
> The results are sent via email.
> For example:
>
>     draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-05          Active	
>     draft-ietf-abfab-arch-03                          Active	
>     draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-02                  Active	
>     draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-05           Active	
>     draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-01               Active	
>     draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-03                      Active	
>     draft-ietf-precis-framework-04                    Active	
>
> This script from Alan Dekok helps the doctors to list which drafts 
> reference the directorate area of interest.
> During the AAA lunch at the IETF, we discussed the script extension to 
> other directorates.
> Alan updated his script for the YANG doctors.
>
>     $ ./ietf-tech-report -r yang
>     draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-04                  Active	
>     draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04                 Active	
>     draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-02                  Active	
>     draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-05               Active	
>     draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-11           In IESG processing -
>     ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
>     draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-00               Active	
>     draft-ietf-netmod-snmp-cfg-00                     Active	
>     draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-05                       Active
>
> Pretty cool, isn't it?
>
> The ideal solution would be
>     - to host this script on an IETF server
>     - to have multiple script instances for each doctor/directorate
> I'm trying to pursue that route.
>
> Do you think it's possible? Practically, how to proceed?
>
> Regards, Benoit.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	[AAA-DOCTORS] Updated "tech report" script
> Date: 	Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:28:30 +0200
> From: 	Alan T DeKok <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: 	[email-masked]
> To: 	[email-masked]
>
>
>
>    I've put it up on github:
>
> https://github.com/alandekok/ietf-tech-report
>
>    With documentation and everything...
>
> $ ./ietf-tech-report -r radius
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-01               Active	
> draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-05          Active	
> draft-ietf-abfab-arch-03                          Active	
> draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-03                      Active	
> draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-02                  Active	
> draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap-08                       In IESG processing -
> ID Tracker state <Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised -
> writeup needed>	
>
>
> $ ./ietf-tech-report -r yang
> draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-04                  Active	
> draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04                 Active	
> draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-02                  Active	
> draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-05               Active	
> draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-11           In IESG processing -
> ID Tracker state <RFC Ed Queue>	
> draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-00               Active	
> draft-ietf-netmod-snmp-cfg-00                     Active	
> draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-05                       Active
> _______________________________________________
> AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors
>
>
>
>
>

--------------050801060200010202070002
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    Dear all,<br>
    <br>
    The first priority for this group is to be aware of performance
    metrics related drafts.<br>
    Below is a mechanism put in place in the AAA directorate.<br>
    We could use it to search, on a weekly basis, for all drafts
    containing "performance" and "metric".<br>
    I'm still hoping to host such a script on a IETF server (second
    attempt). I'll keep you posted.<br>
    Any thougths?<br>
    <br>
    Regards, Benoit.<br>
    <div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
      -------- Original Message --------
      <table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
        cellspacing="0">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject:
            </th>
            <td>Re: cron job for the IETF doctors/directorates</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
            <td>Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:11:57 +0200</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
            <td>Benoit Claise <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
            <td>Tools Team Discussion <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a>,
              Henrik Levkowetz <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
            <td>IESG IESG <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a>, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a></td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <br>
      <br>
      <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
        http-equiv="Content-Type">
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear tools expert,<br>
        <br>
        I'm not sure I saw any replies to this request.<br>
        Please let me know if installing such as cron job, customized
        for the different directorates, is possible?<br>
        I now have one more use for this script: the PMOL directorate,
        searching for performance metrics related drafts<br>
        <br>
        Regards, Benoit.<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote cite="mid:[email-masked]" type="cite">
        <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
          charset=ISO-8859-1">
        Dear all,<br>
        <br>
        Alan Dekok has this excellent weekly script for the AAA
        directorates: it returns all the active IETF drafts that have a
        reference to radius. The results are sent via email.<br>
        For example:<br>
        <blockquote>
          <pre wrap="">draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-05          Active	
draft-ietf-abfab-arch-03                          Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-02                  Active	
draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-05           Active	
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-01               Active	
draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-03                      Active	
draft-ietf-precis-framework-04                    Active	

</pre>
        </blockquote>
        This script from Alan Dekok helps the doctors to list which
        drafts reference the directorate area of interest.<br>
        During the AAA lunch at the IETF, we discussed the script
        extension to other directorates.<br>
        Alan updated his script for the YANG doctors.<br>
        <blockquote>
          <pre>$ ./ietf-tech-report -r yang
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-04                  Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04                 Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-02                  Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-05               Active	
draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-11           In IESG processing -
ID Tracker state &lt;RFC Ed Queue&gt;	
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-00               Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-snmp-cfg-00                     Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-05                       Active</pre>
        </blockquote>
        Pretty cool, isn't it?<br>
        <br>
        The ideal solution would be <br>
        &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to host this script on an IETF server<br>
        &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to have multiple script instances for each
        doctor/directorate
        <div class="moz-forward-container"> I'm trying to pursue that
          route.<br>
          <br>
          Do you think it's possible? Practically, how to proceed?<br>
          <br>
          Regards, Benoit.<br>
          <br>
          -------- Original Message --------
          <table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0"
            cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject:

                </th>
                <td>[AAA-DOCTORS] Updated "tech report" script</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date:

                </th>
                <td>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:28:30 +0200</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From:

                </th>
                <td>Alan T DeKok <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                    href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a></td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Reply-To:

                </th>
                <td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                    href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a></td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To:
                </th>
                <td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                    href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a></td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
          <br>
          <br>
          <pre>  I've put it up on github:

<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/alandekok/ietf-tech-report">https://github.com/alandekok/ietf-tech-report</a>

  With documentation and everything...

$ ./ietf-tech-report -r radius
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-01               Active	
draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-05          Active	
draft-ietf-abfab-arch-03                          Active	
draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-03                      Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-02                  Active	
draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap-08                       In IESG processing -
ID Tracker state &lt;Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised -
writeup needed&gt;	

$ ./ietf-tech-report -r yang
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-04                  Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04                 Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-02                  Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-05               Active	
draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-11           In IESG processing -
ID Tracker state &lt;RFC Ed Queue&gt;	
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-00               Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-snmp-cfg-00                     Active	
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-05                       Active
_______________________________________________
AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors</a>

</pre>
          <br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
    </div>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------050801060200010202070002--

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:54:32 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
To: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Cc: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040501060909050008060302
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi,

[copying Wes Eddy, Transport A.D., responsible for IPPM]

This is what I can read in the liaison statement:

    This project will address the following topics.

    1.Specification of the test architecture

    2.A set of definitions to enable standard performance testing and
    reporting which includes:

    a.The Network Segment(s) being tested

    b.Tests and methodologies appropriate for each segment

    c.Test methods including test controller and test end-point requirements

    3.Recommended testing intervals for performance characterization and
    summarization purposes.

    4.Support of tests that span multiple operator networks.

    5.A standard method for quantifying and comparing access services.

    6.A common language for effective communication of service
    attributes between service providers and the customer.

    7.Templates for application providers on the network performance
    requirements.

    The BBF welcomes input and contributions on this project from
    partnering SDO's, and will keep you informed of progress on the
    Working Text.

My initial reaction, in no particular order:
- test architecture:
     active or passive?
     if active, does BBF plan on reusing TWAMP, OWAMP?
     if passive, does BBF plan on defining the architecture on its own?
- a set of definitions: it would be ideal to have performance metrics 
specified according to our BCP RFC 6390
- "support of tests than span multiple operator networks". Protocol 
extensions to what we have in the IETF (as mentioned by Al already)?
- basically, which IETF building blocks could BBF reuse? And which 
one(s) do they plan on reusing?
     Example: IPPM OWAMP and TWAMP, IPPM spatial and temporal 
aggregation, PMOL way of specifying metric, etc...
- we should separate what's generic (architecture and perf. metrics 
definition) from what's specific to an environment ("Recommended testing 
intervals for performance characterization and summarization purposes.", 
"A standard method for quantifying and comparing access services.", 
"Templates for application providers on the network performance 
requirements.")

Thoughts?

How should we draft the response?

Regards, Benoit.
> I'd like to read the recent letter from the FCC, because I doubt
> the roles and assignments of various SDOs are defined there.
> BBF's claim to certain roles is understood at a high level.
> If we agree it makes sense for BBF to define the architecture,
> that's fine -- but let's agree on that first.
>
> Al
>
> At 08:53 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> My understanding from the reading of their interaction with the IETF 
>> and ITU-T is that the BBF intent to take the responsibility of 
>> defining the testing architecture and the procedures, re-using 
>> components defined in other SDOs, and possibly pointing to existing 
>> gaps and requirements for extensions that could fill these.
>>
>> Is this your understanding also? Do you believe that we should do 
>> more than pointing to the protocols and metrics defined in the IETF 
>> and considering requirements for extensions if these show up?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Al Morton [mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:46 PM
>> *To:* Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Yaakov Stein; [email-masked]
>> *Cc:* Benoit Claise; Ronald Bonica
>> *Subject:* RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE 
>> BROADBAND FORUM
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> At 07:33 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>>
>>
>> One question -- you wrote:
>>
>> Ø       IMO, the next steps are to agree on a test architecture and
>> divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement,
>> and supporting protocol development among SDOs
>>
>> Do you believe that there is a need for new protocol development for 
>> BB access performance?
>>
>> Not necessarily new protocols, but likely protocol extensions
>> to enable control among the various entities in the TBD architecture.
>> For example, we have OWAMP and TWAMP test protocols, but they probably
>> don't yet specify all the controls needed. Once the results are
>> measured, how are they transferred for further processing,
>> display, and archiving? What could we augment to do this efficiently?
>>
>> And, what SDO has the mandate to determine the testing architecture?
>>
>> Al

--------------040501060909050008060302
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
      <br>
      [copying Wes Eddy, Transport A.D., responsible for IPPM]<br>
      <br>
      This is what I can read in the liaison statement:<br>
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=ISO-8859-1">
      <blockquote>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm"><span
            style="font-size:
            11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">This project will address the
            following topics. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm"><span
            style="font-size:
            11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">1.<span style="mso-tab-count:1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Specification
of
            the test architecture<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm"><span
            style="font-size:
            11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">2.<span style="mso-tab-count:1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>A
            set of definitions to enable standard performance testing
            and reporting which
            includes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"
          style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
          margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:
            11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">a.<span style="mso-tab-count:1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>The
Network
            Segment(s) being tested <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"
          style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
          margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:
            11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">b.<span style="mso-tab-count:1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Tests
and
            methodologies appropriate for each segment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"
          style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
          margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
            style="font-size:
            11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">c.<span style="mso-tab-count:1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Test
methods
            including test controller and test end-point requirements<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"
          style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
          margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">3.<span style="mso-tab-count:1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Recommended
            testing intervals for
            performance characterization and summarization purposes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"
          style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
          margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">4.<span style="mso-tab-count:1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Support
            of tests that span multiple
            operator networks. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"
          style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
          margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">5.<span style="mso-tab-count:1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>A
            standard method for quantifying and
            comparing access services.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"
          style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
          margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">6.<span style="mso-tab-count:1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>A
            common language for effective
            communication of service attributes between service
            providers and the customer.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"
          style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
          margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">7.<span style="mso-tab-count:1">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Templates
            for application providers on
            the network performance requirements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm"><span
            style="font-size:
            11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm"><span
            style="font-size:
            11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"
            lang="EN-US">The BBF welcomes input and
            contributions on this project from partnering SDO&#8217;s, and
            will keep you informed
            of progress on the Working Text.<span
              style="mso-spacerun:yes">&nbsp; </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
      </blockquote>
      My initial reaction, in no particular order: <br>
      - test architecture: <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; active or passive? <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; if active, does BBF plan on reusing TWAMP, OWAMP?<br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; if passive, does BBF plan on defining the architecture on its
      own?<br>
      - a set of definitions: it would be ideal to have performance
      metrics specified according to our BCP RFC 6390<br>
      - "support of tests than span multiple operator networks".&nbsp;
      Protocol extensions to what we have in the IETF (as mentioned by
      Al already)?<br>
      - basically, which IETF building blocks could BBF reuse? And which
      one(s) do they plan on reusing?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Example: IPPM OWAMP and TWAMP, IPPM spatial and temporal
      aggregation, PMOL way of specifying metric, etc...<br>
      - we should separate what's generic (architecture and perf.
      metrics definition) from what's specific to an environment ("<span
        style="font-size: 11pt;" lang="EN-US"><span
          style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Recommended testing intervals
        for
        performance characterization and summarization purposes.", </span>"<span
        style="font-size: 11pt;" lang="EN-US"><span
          style="mso-tab-count:1"></span>A standard method for
        quantifying and
        comparing access services.", "</span><span style="font-size:
        11pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: 11pt;" lang="EN-US">Templates
          for application providers on
          the network performance requirements."</span>)</span><br>
      <br>
      Thoughts?<br>
      <br>
      How should we draft the response?<br>
      <br>
      Regards, Benoit.<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:[email-masked]"
      type="cite">
      I'd like to read the recent letter from the FCC, because I doubt<br>
      the roles and assignments of various SDOs are defined there.<br>
      BBF's claim to certain roles is understood at a high level.<br>
      If we agree it makes sense for BBF to define the architecture,<br>
      that's fine -- but let's agree on that first.<br>
      <br>
      Al<br>
      <br>
      At 08:53 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:<br>
      <blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">My understanding from
        the
        reading of their interaction with the IETF and ITU-T is that the
        BBF
        intent to take the responsibility of defining the testing
        architecture
        and the procedures, re-using components defined in other SDOs,
        and
        possibly pointing to existing gaps and requirements for
        extensions that
        could fill these. <br>
        &nbsp;<br>
        Is this your understanding also? Do you believe that we should
        do more
        than pointing to the protocols and metrics defined in the IETF
        and
        considering requirements for extensions if these show up? <br>
        &nbsp;<br>
        Regards,<br>
        &nbsp;<br>
        Dan<br>
        &nbsp;<br>
        &nbsp;<br>
        &nbsp;<br>
        <b>From:</b> Al Morton
        [<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:[email-masked]"
          eudora="autourl">
          mailto:[email-masked]</a>] <br>
        <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:46 PM<br>
        <b>To:</b> Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Yaakov Stein; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a><br>
        <b>Cc:</b> Benoit Claise; Ronald Bonica<br>
        <b>Subject:</b> RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT
        FROM THE
        BROADBAND FORUM<br>
        &nbsp;<br>
        Hi Dan,<br>
        <br>
        At 07:33 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:<br>
        <br>
        <br>
        One question &#8211; you wrote: <br>
        <br>
        &Oslash;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO, the next steps are to agree on
        a test architecture and<br>
        divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement,<br>
        and supporting protocol development among SDOs<br>
        <br>
        Do you believe that there is a need for new protocol development
        for BB
        access performance? <br>
        <br>
        Not necessarily new protocols, but likely protocol extensions<br>
        to enable control among the various entities in the TBD
        architecture.<br>
        For example, we have OWAMP and TWAMP test protocols, but they
        probably<br>
        don't yet specify all the controls needed. Once the results are<br>
        measured, how are they transferred for further processing,<br>
        display, and archiving? What could we augment to do this
        efficiently?<br>
        <br>
        And, what SDO has the mandate to determine the testing
        architecture?<br>
        <br>
        Al<br>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------040501060909050008060302--

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:14:04 -0400
To: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] Review of two performance related documents

In particular, does anyone have comments they would like
to share on
At 12:00 PM 9/12/2012, Benoit Claise wrote:
>     http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/

I passed my comments on
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05

to Benoit, but comments are welcome on the pdv draft, too.

Al

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:15:06 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] Review of two performance related documents

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020409090504000905090802
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Good news already!

Regards, Benoit.
>
> FWIW -- I am shepherding the first document as XRBLOCK WG chair, and 
> Al Morton who is an active contributor in the XRBLOCK WG has carefully 
> reviewed it (I believe).
>
> Dan
>
> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf 
> Of *Benoit Claise
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:00 PM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Cc:* Ron Bonica; Gonzalo Camarillo; Robert Sparks
> *Subject:* [PMOL] Review of two performance related documents
>
> Hi Directorate,
>
> I wonder if the PMOL has to say something regarding these two drafts, 
> which are on the IESG telechat tomorrow.
> Very sorry about this late notice:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/
>
> Do you believe that PMOL directorate should really review these two?
> There is always the possibility to defer the two drafts, even if it's 
> not ideal
>
> Note: I will review the drafts now.
>
>
> Regards, Benoit.
>

--------------020409090504000905090802
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Good news already!<br>
      <br>
      Regards, Benoit.<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:[email-masked]"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=ISO-8859-1">
      <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
        medium)">
      <style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
	color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
      <div class="WordSection1">
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">FWIW
            &#8211; I am shepherding the first document as XRBLOCK WG chair,
            and Al Morton who is an active contributor in the XRBLOCK WG
            has carefully reviewed it (I believe). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Dan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
        <div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
          0in 0in 4.0pt">
          <div>
            <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
              1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
              <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:windowtext">
                  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>] <b>On
                    Behalf Of </b>Benoit Claise<br>
                  <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:00 PM<br>
                  <b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a><br>
                  <b>Cc:</b> Ron Bonica; Gonzalo Camarillo; Robert
                  Sparks<br>
                  <b>Subject:</b> [PMOL] Review of two performance
                  related documents<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            </div>
          </div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi
            Directorate,<br>
            <br>
            I wonder if the PMOL has to say something regarding these
            two drafts, which are on the IESG telechat tomorrow.<br>
            Very sorry about this late notice:<br>
            <br>
            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05</a><br>
            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/">http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/</a><br>
            <br>
            Do you believe that PMOL directorate should really review
            these two?<br>
            There is always the possibility to defer the two drafts,
            even if it's not ideal<br>
            <br>
            Note: I will review the drafts now.<br>
            <br>
            <br>
            Regards, Benoit.<o:p></o:p></p>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------020409090504000905090802--

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:11:37 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>, Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] Review of two performance related documents

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CD9101.4A4DAFF7
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

FWIW - I am shepherding the first document as XRBLOCK WG chair, and Al
Morton who is an active contributor in the XRBLOCK WG has carefully
reviewed it (I believe).=20

=20

Dan

=20

=20

=20

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Benoit Claise
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ron Bonica; Gonzalo Camarillo; Robert Sparks
Subject: [PMOL] Review of two performance related documents

=20

Hi Directorate,

I wonder if the PMOL has to say something regarding these two drafts,
which are on the IESG telechat tomorrow.
Very sorry about this late notice:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05
    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/

Do you believe that PMOL directorate should really review these two?
There is always the possibility to defer the two drafts, even if it's
not ideal

Note: I will review the drafts now.

Regards, Benoit.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CD9101.4A4DAFF7
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 =
(filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
	color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=3Dwhite =
lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>FWIW &#8211; I am shepherding the first document as XRBLOCK WG chair, =
and Al Morton who is an active contributor in the XRBLOCK WG has =
carefully reviewed it (I believe). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Dan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><div =
style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in =
4.0pt'><div><div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF =
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowt=
ext'>From:</span></b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowt=
ext'> [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] <b>On Behalf =
Of </b>Benoit Claise<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:00 =
PM<br><b>To:</b> [email-masked]<br><b>Cc:</b> Ron Bonica; Gonzalo =
Camarillo; Robert Sparks<br><b>Subject:</b> [PMOL] Review of two =
performance related documents<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Hi Directorate,<br><br>I wonder if the =
PMOL has to say something regarding these two drafts, which are on the =
IESG telechat tomorrow.<br>Very sorry about this late =
notice:<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a =
href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05">htt=
p://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05</a><br>&nbsp;&n=
bsp;&nbsp; <a =
href=3D"http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/">http=
://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/</a><br><br>Do =
you believe that PMOL directorate should really review these =
two?<br>There is always the possibility to defer the two drafts, even if =
it's not ideal<br><br>Note: I will review the drafts =
now.<br><br><br>Regards, Benoit.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01CD9101.4A4DAFF7--

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:00:07 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>, Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Subject: [PMOL] Review of two performance related documents

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070901090709030305010101
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Directorate,

I wonder if the PMOL has to say something regarding these two drafts, 
which are on the IESG telechat tomorrow.
Very sorry about this late notice:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/ 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/>

Do you believe that PMOL directorate should really review these two?
There is always the possibility to defer the two drafts, even if it's 
not ideal

Note: I will review the drafts now.

Regards, Benoit.

--------------070901090709030305010101
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Hi Directorate,<br>
    <br>
    I wonder if the PMOL has to say something regarding these two
    drafts, which are on the IESG telechat tomorrow.<br>
    Very sorry about this late notice:<br>
    <br>
    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
    <a
      href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05"
      eudora="autourl">
      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05</a><br>
    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
    <a
      href="http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/"
      eudora="autourl">
      http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch/</a><br>
    <br>
    Do you believe that PMOL directorate should really review these two?<br>
    There is always the possibility to defer the two drafts, even if
    it's not ideal<br>
    <br>
    Note: I will review the drafts now.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Regards, Benoit.<br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------070901090709030305010101--

Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:05:52 -0400
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>, "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM

<html>
<body>
I'd like to read the recent letter from the FCC, because I doubt<br>
the roles and assignments of various SDOs are defined there.<br>
BBF's claim to certain roles is understood at a high level.<br>
If we agree it makes sense for BBF to define the architecture,<br>
that's fine -- but let's agree on that first.<br><br>
Al<br><br>
At 08:53 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">My understanding from the
reading of their interaction with the IETF and ITU-T is that the BBF
intent to take the responsibility of defining the testing architecture
and the procedures, re-using components defined in other SDOs, and
possibly pointing to existing gaps and requirements for extensions that
could fill these. <br>
&nbsp;<br>
Is this your understanding also? Do you believe that we should do more
than pointing to the protocols and metrics defined in the IETF and
considering requirements for extensions if these show up? <br>
&nbsp;<br>
Regards,<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Dan<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
<b>From:</b> Al Morton
[<a href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]" eudora=3D"autourl">
mailto:[email-masked]</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:46 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Yaakov Stein; [email-masked]<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Benoit Claise; Ronald Bonica<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE
BROADBAND FORUM<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Hi Dan,<br><br>
At 07:33 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:<br><br>
<br>
One question =96 you wrote: <br><br>
=D8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO, the next steps are to agree on
a test architecture and<br>
divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement,<br>
and supporting protocol development among SDOs<br><br>
Do you believe that there is a need for new protocol development for BB
access performance? <br><br>
Not necessarily new protocols, but likely protocol extensions<br>
to enable control among the various entities in the TBD
architecture.<br>
For example, we have OWAMP and TWAMP test protocols, but they
probably<br>
don't yet specify all the controls needed. Once the results are<br>
measured, how are they transferred for further processing,<br>
display, and archiving? What could we augment to do this
efficiently?<br><br>
And, what SDO has the mandate to determine the testing
architecture?<br><br>
Al<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:53:56 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Al Morton" <[email-masked]>, "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CD8B65.8306367C
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My understanding from the reading of their interaction with the IETF and =
ITU-T is that the BBF intent to take the responsibility of defining the =
testing architecture and the procedures, re-using components defined in =
other SDOs, and possibly pointing to existing gaps and requirements for =
extensions that could fill these.=20

=20

Is this your understanding also? Do you believe that we should do more =
than pointing to the protocols and metrics defined in the IETF and =
considering requirements for extensions if these show up?=20

=20

Regards,

=20

Dan

=20

=20

=20

From: Al Morton [mailto:[email-masked]]=20
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:46 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Yaakov Stein; [email-masked]
Cc: Benoit Claise; Ronald Bonica
Subject: RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND =
FORUM

=20

Hi Dan,

At 07:33 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

One question - you wrote:=20

=D8       IMO, the next steps are to agree on a test architecture and
divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement,
and supporting protocol development among SDOs

Do you believe that there is a need for new protocol development for BB =
access performance?=20

Not necessarily new protocols, but likely protocol extensions
to enable control among the various entities in the TBD architecture.
For example, we have OWAMP and TWAMP test protocols, but they probably
don't yet specify all the controls needed. Once the results are
measured, how are they transferred for further processing,
display, and archiving? What could we augment to do this efficiently?

And, what SDO has the mandate to determine the testing architecture?

Al

------_=_NextPart_001_01CD8B65.8306367C
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word =
12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Wingdings;
	panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Wingdings;
	panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>My understanding from the reading of their interaction with the IETF =
and ITU-T is that the BBF intent to take the responsibility of defining =
the testing architecture and the procedures, re-using components defined =
in other SDOs, and possibly pointing to existing gaps and requirements =
for extensions that could fill these. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Is this your understanding also? Do you believe that we should do =
more than pointing to the protocols and metrics defined in the IETF and =
considering requirements for extensions if these show up? =
<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>Dan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><div =
style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in =
4.0pt'><div><div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF =
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> =
Al Morton [mailto:[email-masked]] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, =
September 05, 2012 3:46 PM<br><b>To:</b> Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Yaakov =
Stein; [email-masked]<br><b>Cc:</b> Benoit Claise; Ronald =
Bonica<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT =
FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Hi =
Dan,<br><br>At 07:33 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) =
wrote:<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>One =
question</span> <span =
style=3D'font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>&#8211; you =
wrote:</span> <br><br><span =
style=3D'font-family:Wingdings'>=D8</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp; <span style=3D'font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>IMO, the next =
steps are to agree on a test architecture and<br>divide the work of =
metric definition, methods of measurement,<br>and supporting protocol =
development among SDOs<br></span><br><span =
style=3D'font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Do you =
believe that there is a need</span> <span =
style=3D'font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>for new =
protocol development for</span> <span =
style=3D'font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>BB =
access</span> <span =
style=3D'font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>performance?</=
span> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>Not necessarily new protocols, but =
likely protocol extensions<br>to enable control among the various =
entities in the TBD architecture.<br>For example, we have OWAMP and =
TWAMP test protocols, but they probably<br>don't yet specify all the =
controls needed. Once the results are<br>measured, how are they =
transferred for further processing,<br>display, and archiving? What =
could we augment to do this efficiently?<br><br>And, what SDO has the =
mandate to determine the testing =
architecture?<br><br>Al<br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01CD8B65.8306367C--

Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:45:49 -0400
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>, "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM

<html>
<body>
Hi Dan,<br><br>
At 07:33 AM 9/5/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">
<font face=3D"Calibri" color=3D"#1F497D">One question</font>
<font face=3D"Calibri" color=3D"#1F497D">=96 you wrote:</font> <br><br>
<font face=3D"Wingdings">=D8</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<font face=3D"Arial, Helvetica">IMO, the next steps are to agree on a test
architecture and<br>
divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement,<br>
and supporting protocol development among SDOs<br>
</font><br>
<font face=3D"Calibri" color=3D"#1F497D">Do you believe that there is a
need</font> <font face=3D"Calibri" color=3D"#1F497D">for new protocol
development for</font> <font face=3D"Calibri" color=3D"#1F497D">BB
access</font> <font face=3D"Calibri" color=3D"#1F497D">performance?</font>
</blockquote><br>
Not necessarily new protocols, but likely protocol extensions<br>
to enable control among the various entities in the TBD
architecture.<br>
For example, we have OWAMP and TWAMP test protocols, but they
probably<br>
don't yet specify all the controls needed. Once the results are<br>
measured, how are they transferred for further processing,<br>
display, and archiving? What could we augment to do this
efficiently?<br><br>
And, what SDO has the mandate to determine the testing
architecture?<br><br>
Al<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 13:33:00 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Al Morton" <[email-masked]>, "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CD8B5A.3503A8D8
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Al,

I would let our (OPS) ADs decide together with the Transport ADs
sponsoring IPPM who is to be charged with drawing a response.=20

One question - you wrote:=20

*	IMO, the next steps are to agree on a test architecture and
divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement,=20
and supporting protocol development among SDOs

Do you believe that there is a need for new protocol development for BB
access performance?=20

Regards,

Dan

		_____________________________________________
		From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Al Morton
		Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:20 PM
		To: Yaakov Stein; [email-masked]
		Subject: MCAFEE E-MAIL SCAN ALERT!~RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM]
FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND FORUM
	=09

	=09
		Attachment file :
bbf2012.1068.01.Liaison_to_IEEE__IETF__and_ITU_Regarding_WT-304_Status.d
oc\3.OLE
		Scanner Detected: Suspicious Extensions (Virus)
		Action taken : No Action Taken (File has a multiple
extension)=20
	=09
	=09
		At 10:33 AM 9/3/2012, Yaakov Stein wrote:

				Although I am sure that most of you have
already seen this message,=20
				I am forwarding it, because I believe
that this liaison function should be the responsibility of the
performance directorate.
	=09
			Interesting possibility.  I can certainly
imagine members of=20
			the Directorate commenting on this liaison, but
why would we
			claim responsibility for development of a reply?
		=09
			IMO, the next steps are to agree on a test
architecture and
			divide the work of metric definition, methods of
measurement,=20
			and supporting protocol development among SDOs,
where the=20
			first step is to package existing standards that
are relevant=20
			and identify new standards development needed.
		=09
			Some background on this Liaison:
		=09
			The current text:
			https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/
			is the first of two liaisons from BBF.  There is
a more recent
			liaison from BBF's meeting last week which has
not found its way=20
			[email-masked] yet.  (I just forwarded it
myself, attached.)
			The response should be to the combination of
both liaisons (now that=20
			there are two), not the first alone.  David
Sinicrope <mailto:[email-masked]>=20
			is IETF's Liaison Manager with BBF.
		=09
			Apparently (second-hand info from a BBF
attendee), the FCC has sent
			a letter to both the BBF and the IETF requesting
the development
			of industry standards for broadband performance
measurement,
			and the FCC letter was discussed at BBF last
week.
			*Russ or someone in IETF/IAB should have
received that letter.*
			I don't have a copy.
		=09
			Ron Bonica has asked for comments on the first
liaison on ietf@ietf.
			Some questions were raised among IPPM folks
after Matt Z forwarded
			Ron's request on ippm-list.
		=09
			Finally, ITU-T SG 12 prepared an informative
reply to the first=20
			BBF liaison last June (also attached).
		=09
			Al
		=09
	=09
	=09
		 << File:
bbf2012.1068.01.Liaison_to_IEEE__IETF__and_ITU_Regarding_WT-304_Status.d
oc >>  << File: T09-SG12-120529-TD-GEN-0875!r1!!MSW-E.doc >>  << File:
ATT1826957.txt >>=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01CD8B5A.3503A8D8
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7655.11">
<TITLE>RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND =
FORUM</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" =
FACE=3D"Calibri">Hi Al,</FONT></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" =
FACE=3D"Calibri">I would let our (OPS) ADs decide together with the =
Transport ADs</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"> <FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" =
FACE=3D"Calibri">sponsoring IPPM who is to be charged with drawing a =
response.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"> </SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" =
FACE=3D"Calibri">One question</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"> <FONT =
COLOR=3D"#1F497D" FACE=3D"Calibri">&#8211;</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" FACE=3D"Calibri"> you =
wrote:</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"> </SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT FACE=3D"Wingdings">&#216;<FONT =
FACE=3D"Courier =
New">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"> =
<FONT FACE=3D"Arial">IMO, the next steps are to agree on a test =
architecture and<BR>
divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement,<BR>
and supporting protocol development among SDOs</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" =
FACE=3D"Calibri">Do you believe that there is a need</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"> =
<FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" FACE=3D"Calibri">for new protocol development =
for</FONT> <FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" FACE=3D"Calibri">BB access</FONT> =
<FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" FACE=3D"Calibri">performance?</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"> </SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" =
FACE=3D"Calibri">Regards,</FONT></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#1F497D" =
FACE=3D"Calibri">Dan</FONT></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>
<UL DIR=3DLTR><UL DIR=3DLTR>
<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">_____________________________________________<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">From:</FONT></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> [email-masked] [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>]</=
FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B> <FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">On Behalf Of</FONT></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"> =
<FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Al Morton<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">Sent:</FONT></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:20 PM<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">To:</FONT></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Yaakov Stein; [email-masked]<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">Subject:</FONT></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma"> MCAFEE E-MAIL SCAN =
ALERT!~RE: [PMOL] FW: [IPPM] FWD: LIAISON STATEMENT FROM THE BROADBAND =
FORUM</FONT></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Attachment file =
:</FONT></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial"> =
bbf2012.1068.01.Liaison_to_IEEE__IETF__and_ITU_Regarding_WT-304_Status.do=
c\3.OLE</FONT></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Scanner =
Detected:</FONT></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial"> Suspicious Extensions (Virus)</FONT></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Action taken =
:</FONT></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial"> No Action Taken (File has a multiple extension) =
</FONT></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">At 10:33 =
AM 9/3/2012, Yaakov Stein wrote:</FONT></SPAN></P>
<UL DIR=3DLTR><UL DIR=3DLTR>
<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Although =
I am sure that most of you have already seen this message, =
</FONT></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">I am forwarding =
it, because I believe that this liaison function should be the =
responsibility of the performance directorate.</FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL></UL>
<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>
<UL DIR=3DLTR>
<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial">Interesting possibility.&nbsp; I can certainly imagine =
members of<BR>
the Directorate commenting on this liaison, but why would we<BR>
claim responsibility for development of a reply?<BR>
<BR>
IMO, the next steps are to agree on a test architecture and<BR>
divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement,<BR>
and supporting protocol development among SDOs, where the<BR>
first step is to package existing standards that are relevant<BR>
and identify new standards development needed.<BR>
<BR>
Some background on this Liaison:<BR>
<BR>
The current text:<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><A =
HREF=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/"><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><U><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" =
FACE=3D"Arial">https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/<BR>
</FONT></U></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></A><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">is the first of two liaisons from =
BBF.&nbsp; There is a more recent<BR>
liaison from BBF's meeting last week which has not found its way<BR>
[email-masked] yet.&nbsp; (I just forwarded it myself, =
attached.)<BR>
The response should be to the combination of both liaisons (now that<BR>
there are two), not the first alone.&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"> </SPAN><A =
HREF=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><U><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" FACE=3D"Arial">David =
Sinicrope</FONT></U></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></A><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><BR>
<FONT FACE=3D"Arial">is IETF's Liaison Manager with BBF.<BR>
<BR>
Apparently (second-hand info from a BBF attendee), the FCC has sent<BR>
a letter to both the BBF and the IETF requesting the development<BR>
of industry standards for broadband performance measurement,<BR>
and the FCC letter was discussed at BBF last week.<BR>
*Russ or someone in IETF/IAB should have received that letter.*<BR>
I don't have a copy.<BR>
<BR>
Ron Bonica has asked for comments on the first liaison on ietf@ietf.<BR>
Some questions were raised among IPPM folks after Matt Z forwarded<BR>
Ron's request on ippm-list.<BR>
<BR>
Finally, ITU-T SG 12 prepared an informative reply to the first<BR>
BBF liaison last June (also attached).<BR>
<BR>
Al<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B></B></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"System">&nbsp;&lt;&lt; File: =
bbf2012.1068.01.Liaison_to_IEEE__IETF__and_ITU_Regarding_WT-304_Status.do=
c &gt;&gt;&nbsp; &lt;&lt; File: =
T09-SG12-120529-TD-GEN-0875!r1!!MSW-E.doc &gt;&gt;&nbsp; &lt;&lt; File: =
ATT1826957.txt &gt;&gt; </FONT></B></SPAN></P>
</UL></UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01CD8B5A.3503A8D8--

Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:23:18 -0400
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>, "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum

<html>
<body>
At 03:01 AM 9/4/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>...I also notice that the letter was also sent to ITU-T SG15Q14 and
<dd>SG12Q17. Al Morton is one of the leading contributors (also) in the
<dd>ITU-T work, so I suggest that we hear his input. </blockquote>
</dl><br>
Sorry, should have read to the end of the thread before responding,<br>
but at least I did as you asked...<br><br>
Al<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>

Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:19:56 -0400
To: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum

--=====================_5838775==_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<body>
At 10:33 AM 9/3/2012, Yaakov Stein
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>Although I am sure that most of you have already seen this message,
<dd>I am forwarding it, because I believe that this liaison function
should be the responsibility of the performance
directorate.</blockquote>
</dl>Interesting possibility.&nbsp; I can certainly imagine members of
<br>
the Directorate commenting on this liaison, but why would we<br>
claim responsibility for development of a reply?<br><br>
IMO, the next steps are to agree on a test architecture and<br>
divide the work of metric definition, methods of measurement, <br>
and supporting protocol development among SDOs, where the <br>
first step is to package existing standards that are relevant <br>
and identify new standards development needed.<br><br>
Some background on this Liaison:<br><br>
The current text:<br>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/" eudora="autourl">
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/<br>
</a>is the first of two liaisons from BBF.&nbsp; There is a more
recent<br>
liaison from BBF's meeting last week which has not found its way <br>
[email-masked] yet.&nbsp; (I just forwarded it myself,
attached.)<br>
The response should be to the combination of both liaisons (now that
<br>
there are two), not the first alone.&nbsp;
<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">David Sinicrope</a><br>
is IETF's Liaison Manager with BBF.<br><br>
Apparently (second-hand info from a BBF attendee), the FCC has sent<br>
a letter to both the BBF and the IETF requesting the development<br>
of industry standards for broadband performance measurement,<br>
and the FCC letter was discussed at BBF last week.<br>
*Russ or someone in IETF/IAB should have received that letter.*<br>
I don't have a copy.<br><br>
Ron Bonica has asked for comments on the first liaison on ietf@ietf.<br>
Some questions were raised among IPPM folks after Matt Z forwarded<br>
Ron's request on ippm-list.<br><br>
Finally, ITU-T SG 12 prepared an informative reply to the first <br>
BBF liaison last June (also attached).<br><br>
Al<br>
</body>
</html>

--=====================_5838775==_
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="bbf2012.1068.01.Liaison_to_IEEE__IETF__and_ITU_Regarding_WT-304_Status.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="bbf2012.1068.01.Liaison_to_IEEE__IETF__and_ITU_Regarding_WT-304_Status.doc"

0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAcQAAAAAAAAAA
EAAAcwAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAHAAAAD/////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--=====================_5838775==_
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="T09-SG12-120529-TD-GEN-0875!r1!!MSW-E.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="T09-SG12-120529-TD-GEN-0875!r1!!MSW-E.doc"

0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAXwAAAAAAAAAA
EAAAYQAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAF4AAAD/////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--=====================_5838775==_--

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:01:19 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PMOL] FW: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum

It would be probably good if somebody can draft a response and provide
it as feedback as Ron asked initially. The response would probably point
to a number of RFCs that can help the Broadband Forum, probably most of
them resulting from work in IPPM. Based on this Ron and Benoit can sort
out with the Transport ADs who needs to answer the liaison letter.=20

I also notice that the letter was also sent to ITU-T SG15Q14 and
SG12Q17. Al Morton is one of the leading contributors (also) in the
ITU-T work, so I suggest that we hear his input.=20

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Yaakov Stein
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 5:33 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [PMOL] FW: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband
> Forum
>=20
> Although I am sure that most of you have already seen this message, I
am
> forwarding it, because I believe that this liaison function should be
> the responsibility of the performance directorate.
>=20
> Y(J)S
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Reinhard Schrage
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 22:28
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum
>=20
> I kind of like the idea of a liaison, as due to the work already done
in
> the IETF there is no need to re-invent already proven standards and
> procedures and both sides may actually benefit.
>=20
> Any actions already in place / planned?
>=20
> Best regards
> Reinhard Schrage
> t:	+49 (0) 5137 909540
> m:	+49 (0) 172  26.36.046
> [email-masked]
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: 10 August 2012 08:34
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum
>=20
> Matt,
>=20
> I've read the liaision statement. The BBF informs us, that they plan
to
> "create a standard set of Broadband performance metrics to address on-
> going regulatory, and consumer performance information needs."
>=20
> BBF asks for guidance and support. From the document I couldn't
identify
> the architecture. I personally think IPPM members may volunteer to
> suggest IETF metrics to BBF. But to me that requires that the
> architecture is clearly defined (by BBF).
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Ruediger
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Matthew J Zekauskas
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:59 AM
> To: IETF IPPM WG
> Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum
>=20
> FYI, if folks here want to review.  Ron wants comments to
[email-masked].
>=20
> --Matt
>=20
> -------------------
>=20
> Folks,
>=20
> The Broadband Forum has sent a liaison statement to the IETF regarding
a
> "New Project - Broadband Access Service Attributes and Performance
> Measures".
>=20
> Click on the following link for details:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/.
>=20
> Please review and send comments to this list.
>=20
> --------------------------
> Ron Bonica
> vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf
> _______________________________________________
> PMOL mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 14:33:07 +0000
Accept-Language: en-US
Subject: [PMOL] FW: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum

Although I am sure that most of you have already seen this message,
I am forwarding it, because I believe that this liaison function should be =
the responsibility
of the performance directorate.

Y(J)S

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rei=
nhard Schrage
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 22:28
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum

I kind of like the idea of a liaison, as due to the work already done in th=
e
IETF there is no need to re-invent already proven standards and procedures
and both sides may actually benefit.

Any actions already in place / planned?

Best regards
Reinhard Schrage
t:	+49 (0) 5137 909540
m:	+49 (0) 172  26.36.046
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: 10 August 2012 08:34
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum

Matt,

I've read the liaision statement. The BBF informs us, that they plan to
"create a standard set of Broadband performance metrics to address on-going
regulatory, and consumer performance information needs."

BBF asks for guidance and support. From the document I couldn't identify th=
e
architecture. I personally think IPPM members may volunteer to suggest IETF
metrics to BBF. But to me that requires that the architecture is clearly
defined (by BBF).

Regards,

Ruediger

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Matthew J Zekauskas
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:59 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG
Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum

FYI, if folks here want to review.  Ron wants comments to [email-masked].

--Matt

-------------------

Folks,

The Broadband Forum has sent a liaison statement to the IETF regarding a
"New Project - Broadband Access Service Attributes and Performance
Measures".

Click on the following link for details:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/.

Please review and send comments to this list.

--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf