Re: [ippm] questions of TCP metrics

["Loki Jorgenson" <ljorgenson at apparentnetworks.com>]

Ruediger - thanks for your response.

It probably does then come down to philosophical leanings (and
historical precedence).  For myself, PMOL's hiatus notwithstanding, I
still see TCP as an additional layer on top of IP packets behavior -
access to network resources is being actively gated at the end-hosts
(not part of IP mid-path implementation), potentially in accordance with
application parameterization.  And especially in light of there being
different stacks.

That said, I have no objection to IPPM pursuing a TCP metric development
though I still consider PMOL the better fit.

I have some interest in participating depending on some clarification of
what "this" is.

Loki Jorgenson
Apparent Networks
t   604 433 2333 ext 105
m   604 250-4642

-----Original Message-----
From: Ruediger.Geib at telekom.de [mailto:Ruediger.Geib at telekom.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 00:29
To: Loki Jorgenson
Cc: ippm at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [ippm] questions of TCP metrics

Hi Loki,

I like your statement, especially as you point out to Padhyes/Mathis et
al.'s work. 

PMOL's charter states

"Thus there is a gap in the currently chartered coverage of IETF WGs:
development of performance metrics for IP-based protocols and
applications that operate over UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP, Forward Error
Correction (FEC) and other robust transport protocols, and that can be
used to characterize traffic on live networks."

That's why I thought, PMOL is chartered to deal with layers above TCP
only. Maybe 
work on HTTP over TCP would fit to PMOL. 

While I'm not interested in work on TCP, I also don't object to it. As
the IPPM charter
isn't explicitely mentioning the layers which are in scope, I formulated
my questions 
in a way, that Barry hopefully could find a WG, where his proposal fits
for the case 
that IPPM isn't the right WG. I don't object however, if IPPM is the WG
to work on 
the subject (as expressed by several work group members).