INTERNET-DRAFT Marc Linsner Intended Status: Informational Cisco Systems Expires: June 7, 2014 Philip Eardley Trevor Burbridge BT Frode Sorensen NPT December 4, 2013 Large-Scale Broadband Measurement Use Cases draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-01 Abstract Measuring broadband performance on a large scale is important for network diagnostics by providers and users, as well for as public policy. To conduct such measurements, user networks gather data, either on their own initiative or instructed by a measurement controller, and then upload the measurement results to a designated measurement server. Understanding the various scenarios and users of measuring broadband performance is essential to development of the system requirements. The details of the measurement metrics themselves are beyond the scope of this document. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 Copyright and License Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Internet Service Provider (ISP) Use Case . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Regulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Details of ISP Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Existing Capabilities and Shortcomings . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 Understanding the quality experienced by customers . . . . . 6 3.3 Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4 Design and planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5 Identifying, isolating and fixing network problems . . . . . 9 3.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 Details of Regulator Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1 Promoting competition through transparency . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2 Promoting broadband deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3 Monitoring "net neutrality" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 1 Introduction Large-scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) includes use cases to be considered in deriving the requirements to be used in developing the solution. This documents attempts to describe those use cases in further detail and include additional use cases. 1.1 Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2 Use Cases The LMAP architecture utilizes metrics for instructions on how to execute a particular measurement. Although layer 2 specific metrics can and will be defined, from the LMAP perspective, there is no difference between fixed service and mobile (cellular) service used for Internet access. Hence, like measurements will take place on both fixed and mobile networks. Fixed services, commonly known as "Last Mile" include technologies like DSL, Cable, and Carrier Ethernet. Mobile services include all those advertised as 2G, 3G, 4G, and LTE. A metric defined to measure over-the-top services will execute similarly on all layer 2 technologies. The LMAP architecture covers networks utilizing both IPv4 and IPv6. 2.1 Internet Service Provider (ISP) Use Case An ISP, or indeed another network operator, needs to understand the performance of their networks, the performance of the suppliers (downstream and upstream networks), the performance of services, and the impact that such performance has on the experience of their customers. In addition they may also desire visibility of their competitor's networks and services in order to be able to benchmark and improve their own offerings. Largely the processes that ISPs operate (which are based on network measurement) include: o Identifying, isolating and fixing problems in the network, services or with CPE and end user equipment. Such problems may be common to a point in the network topology (e.g. a single exchange), common to a vendor or equipment type (e.g. line card or home gateway) or unique to a single user line (e.g. copper access). Part of this process may also be helping users understand whether the problem exists in their home network or with an over- the-top service instead of with their BB product. Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 o Design and planning. Through identifying the end user experience the ISP can design and plan their network to ensure specified levels of user experience. Services may be moved closer to end users, services upgraded, the impact of QoS assessed or more capacity deployed at certain locations. SLAs may be defined at network or product boundaries. o Understanding the quality experienced by customers. Alongside benchmarking competitors, gaining better insight into the user's service through a sample panel of the operator's own customers. The end-to-end perspective matters, across home /enterprise networks, peering points, CDNs etc. o Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and technology. As a new product is deployed, or a new technology introduced into the network, it is essential that its operation and impact on other services is measured. This also helps to quantify the advantage that the new technology is bringing and support the business case for larger roll-out. 2.2 Regulators Regulators in jurisdictions around the world are responding to consumers' adoption of Internet access services for traditional telecommunications and media services by promoting competition among providers of electronic communications, to ensure that users derive maximum benefit in terms of choice, price, and quality. Some jurisdictions have responded to a need for greater information about Internet access service performance in the development of regulatory policies and approaches for broadband technologies by developing large-scale measurement programs. Programs such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's Measuring Broadband America, European Commission's Quality of Broadband Services in the EU reports and a growing list of other programs employ a diverse set of operational and technical approaches to gathering data to perform analysis and reporting on diverse aspects of broadband performance. While each jurisdiction responds to distinct consumer, industry, and regulatory concerns, much commonality exists in the need to produce datasets that are able to compare multiple Internet access service providers, diverse technical solutions, geographic and regional distributions, and marketed and provisioned levels and combinations of broadband Internet access services. In some jurisdictions, the role of measuring is provided by a measurement provider. Measurement providers measure network performance from users towards multiple content and application providers, included dedicated test Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 measurement servers, to show a performance of the actual Internet access service provided by different ISPs. Users need to know the performance that are achieving from their own ISP. In addition, they need to know the performance of other ISPs of same location as background information for selecting their ISP. Measurement providers will provide measurement results with associated measurement methods and measurement metrics. From a consumer perspective, the differentiation between fixed and mobile (cellular) Internet access services is blurring as the applications used are very similar. Hence, regulators are measuring both fixed and mobile Internet access services. Regulators role in the development and enforcement of broadband Internet access service policies also require that the measurement approaches meet a high level of verifiability, accuracy and provider- independence to support valid and meaningful comparisons of Internet access service performance LMAP standards could answer regulators shared needs by providing scalable, cost-effective, scientifically robust solutions to the measurement and collection of broadband Internet access service performance information. 3 Details of ISP Use Case 3.1 Existing Capabilities and Shortcomings In order to get reliable benchmarks some ISPs use vendor provided hardware measurement platforms that connect directly to the home gateway. These devices typically perform a continuous test schedule, allowing the operation of the network to be continually assessed throughout the day. Careful design ensures that they do not detrimentally impact the home user experience or corrupt the test results by testing when the user is also using the Broadband line. While the test capabilities of such probes are good, they are simply too expensive to deploy on mass scale to enable detailed understanding of network performance (e.g. to the granularity of a single backhaul or single user line). In addition there is no easy way to operate similar tests on other devices (eg set top box) or to manage application level tests (such as IPTV) using the same control and reporting framework. ISPs also use speed and other diagnostic tests from user owned devices (such as PCs, tablets or smartphones). These often use browser related technology to conduct tests to servers in the ISP Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 network to confirm the operation of the user Internet access line. These tests can be helpful for a user to understand whether their Internet access line has a problem, and for dialogue with a helpdesk. However they are not able to perform continuous testing and the uncontrolled device and home network means that results are not comparable. Producing statistics across such tests is very dangerous as the population is self-selecting (e.g. those who think they have a problem). Faced with a gap in current vendor offerings some ISPs have taken the approach of placing proprietary test capabilities on their home gateway and other consumer device offerings (such as Set Top Boxes). This also means that different device platforms may have different and largely incomparable tests, developed by different company sub- divisions managed by different systems. 3.2 Understanding the quality experienced by customers Operators want to understand the quality of experience (QoE) of their broadband customers. The understanding can be gained through a "panel", i.e., a measurement probe is deployed to a few 100 or 1000 of its customers. The panel needs to be a representative sample for each of the operator's technologies (FTTP, FTTC, ADSL...) and broadband options (80Mb/s, 20Mb/s, basic...), ~100 probes for each. The operator would like the end-to-end view of the service, rather than (say) just the access portion. So as well as simple network statistics like speed and loss rates they want to understand what the service feels like to the customer. This involves relating the pure network parameters to something like a 'mean opinion score' which will be service dependent (for instance web browsing QoE is largely determined by latency above a few Mb/s). An operator will also want compound metrics such as "reliability", which might involve packet loss, DNS failures, re-training of the line, video streaming under-runs etc. The operator really wants to understand the end-to-end service experience. However, the home network (Ethernet, wifi, powerline) is highly variable and outside its control. To date, operators (and regulators) have instead measured performance from the home gateway. However, mobile operators clearly must include the wireless link in the measurement. Active measurements are the most obvious approach, i.e., special measurement traffic is sent by - and to - the probe. In order not to degrade the service of the customer, the measurement data should only be sent when the user is silent, and it shouldn't reduce the customer's data allowance. The other approach is passive measurements Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 on the customer's ordinary traffic; the advantage is that it measures what the customer actually does, but it creates extra variability (different traffic mixes give different results) and especially it raises privacy concerns. From an operator's viewpoint, understanding customers better enables it to offer better services. Also, simple metrics can be more easily understood by senior managers who make investment decisions and by sales and marketing. The characteristics of large scale measurements that emerge from these examples: 1. Averaged data (over say 1 month) is generally ok 2. A panel (subset) of only a few customers is OK 3. Both active and passive measurements are possible, though the former seems easier 4. Regularly scheduled tests are fine (providing active tests back off if the customer is using the line). Scheduling can be done some time ahead ('starting tomorrow, run the following test every day'). 5. The operator needs to devise metrics and compound measures that represent the QoE 6. End-to-end service matters, and not (just) the access link performance 3.3 Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and technology Another type of measurement is to test new capabilities and services before they are rolled out. For example, the operator may want to: check whether a customer can be upgraded to a new broadband option; understand the impact of IPv6 before it makes it available to its customers (will v6 packets get through, what will the latency be to major websites, what transition mechanisms will be most is appropriate?); check whether a new capability can be signaled using TCP options (how often it will be blocked by a middlebox? - along the lines of some existing experiments) [Extend TCP]; investigate a quality of service mechanism (eg checking whether Diffserv markings are respected on some path); and so on. The characteristics of large scale measurements that emerge from these examples are: Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 7] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 1. New tests need to be devised that test a prospective capability. 2. Most of the tests are probably simply: "send one packet and record what happens", so an occasional one-off test is sufficient. 3. A panel (subset) of only a few customers is probably OK, to gain an understanding of the impact of a new technology, but it may be necessary to check an individual line where the roll-out is per customer. 4. An active measurement is needed. 3.4 Design and planning Operators can use large scale measurements to help with their network planning - proactive activities to improve the network. For example, by probing from several different vantage points the operator can see that a particular group of customers has performance below that expected during peak hours, which should help capacity planning. Naturally operators already have tools to help this - a network element reports its individual utilisation (and perhaps other parameters). However, making measurements across a path rather than at a point may make it easier to understand the network. There may also be parameters like bufferbloat that aren't currently reported by equipment and/or that are intrinsically path metrics. With better information, capacity planning and network design can be more effective. Such planning typically uses simulations to emulate the measured performance of the current network and understand the likely impact of new capacity and potential changes to the topology. It may also be possible to run stress tests for risk analysis, for example 'if whizzy new application (or device) becomes popular, which parts of my network would struggle, what would be the impact on other services and how many customers would be affected'. What-if simulations could help quantify the advantage that a new technology brings and support the business case for larger roll-out. This approach should allow good results with measurements from a limited panel of customers. Another example is that the operator may want to monitor performance where there is a service level agreement. This could be with its own customers, especially enterprises may have an SLA. The operator can proactively spot when the service is degrading near to the SLA limit, and get information that will enable more informed conversations with the customer at contract renewal. Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 8] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 An operator may also want to monitor the performance of its suppliers, to check whether they meet their SLA or to compare two suppliers if it is dual-sourcing. This could include its transit operator, CDNs, peering, video source, local network provider (for a global operator in countries where it doesn't have its own network), even the whole network for a virtual operator. Through a better understanding of its own network and its suppliers, the operator should be able to focus investment more effectively - in the right place at the right time with the right technology. The characteristics of large scale measurements emerging from these examples: 1. A key challenge is how to integrate results from measurements into existing network planning and management tools 2. New tests may need to be devised for the what-if and risk analysis scenarios. 3. Capacity constraints first reveal themselves during atypical events (early warning). So averaging of measurements should be over a much shorter time than the sub use case discussed above. 4. A panel (subset) of only a few customers is OK for most of the examples, but it should probably be larger than the QoE use case #1 and the operator may also want to regularly change who is in the subset, in order to sample the revealing outliers. 5. Measurements over a segment of the network ("end-to-middle") are needed, in order to refine understanding, as well as end-to- end measurements. 6. The primary interest is in measuring specific network performance parameters rather than QoE. 7. Regularly scheduled tests are fine 8. Active measurements are needed; passive ones probably aren't 3.5 Identifying, isolating and fixing network problems Operators can use large scale measurements to help identify a fault more rapidly and decide how to solve it. Operators already have Test and Diagnostic tools, where a network element reports some problem or failure to a management system. However, many issues are not caused by a point failure but something Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 9] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 wider and so will trigger too many alarms, whilst other issues will cause degradation rather than failure and so not trigger any alarm. Large scale measurements can help provide a more nuanced view that helps network management to identify and fix problems more rapidly and accurately. The network management tools may use simulations to emulate the network and so help identify a fault and assess possible solutions. One example was described in [IETF85-Plenary]. The operator was running a measurement panel for reasons discussed in sub use case #1. It was noticed that the performance of some lines had unexpectedly degraded. This led to a detailed (off-line) investigation which discovered that a particular home gateway upgrade had caused a (mistaken!) drop in line rate. Another example is that occasionally some internal network management event (like re-routing) can be customer-affecting (of course this is unusual). This affects a whole group of customers, for instance those on the same DSLAM. Understanding this will help an operator fix the fault more rapidly and/or allow the affected customers to be informed what's happening and/or request them to re-set their home hub (required to cure some conditions). More accurate information enables the operator to reassure customers and take more rapid and effective action to cure the problem. There may also be problems unique to a single user line (e.g. copper access) that need to be identified. Often customers experience poor broadband due to problems in the home network - the ISP's network is fine. For example they may have moved too far away from their wireless access point. Perhaps 80% of customer calls about fixed BB problems are due to in-home wireless issues. These issues are expensive and frustrating for an operator, as they are extremely hard to diagnose and solve. The operator would like to narrow down whether the problem is in the home (with the home network or edge device or home gateway), in the operator's network, or with an over-the-top service. The operator would like two capabilities. Firstly, self-help tools that customers use to improve their own service or understand its performance better, for example to re-position their devices for better wifi coverage. Secondly, on- demand tests that can the operator can run instantly - so the call centre person answering the phone (or e-chat) could trigger a test and get the result whilst the customer is still on-line session. The characteristics of large scale measurements emerging from these examples: Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 10] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 1. A key challenge is how to integrate results from measurements into the operator's existing Test and Diagnostics system. 2. Results from the tests shouldn't be averaged 3. Tests are generally run on an ad hoc basis, ie specific requests for immediate action 4. "End-to-middle" measurements, ie across a specific network segment, are very relevant 5. The primary interest is in measuring specific network performance parameters and not QoE 6. New tests are needed for example to check the home network (ie the connection from the home hub to the set top boxes or to a tablets on wifi) 7. Active measurements are critical. Passive ones may be useful to help understand exactly what the customer is experiencing. 8. Ideally the measurement functionality should be at every customer (not just a subset), in order to allow per-line fault diagnosis. 3.6 Conclusions There is a clear need from an ISP point of view to deploy a single coherent measurement capability across a wide number of heterogeneous devices both in their own networks and in the home environment. These tests need to be able to operate from a wide number of locations to a set of interoperable test points in their own network as well as spanning supplier and competitor networks. Regardless of the tests being operated, there needs to be a way to demand or schedule the tests and critically ensure that such tests do not affect each other; are not affected by user traffic (unless desired) and do not affect the user experience. In addition there needs to be a common way to collect and understand the results of such tests across different devices to enable correlation and comparison between any network or service parameters. Since network and service performance needs to be understood and analysed in the presence of topology, line, product or contract information it is critical that the test points are accurately defined and authenticated. Finally the test data, along with any associated network, product or Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 11] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 contract data is commercial or private information and needs to be protected. 4 Details of Regulator Use Case 4.1 Promoting competition through transparency Competition plays a vital role in regulation of the electronic communications markets. For competition to successfully discipline operators' behaviour in the interests of their customers, end users must be fully aware of the characteristics of the ISPs' access offers. In some jurisdictions regulators mandate transparent information made available about service offers. End users need effective transparency to be able to make informed choices throughout the different stages of their relationship with ISPs, when selecting Internet access service offers, and when considering switching service offer within an ISP or to an alternative ISP. Quality information about service offers could include speed, delay, and jitter. Regulators can publish such information to facilitate end users' choice of service provider and offer. It may also help content, application, service and device providers develop their Internet offerings. The published information needs to be: o Accurate - the measurement results must be correct and not influenced by errors or side effects. The results should be reproducible and consistent over time. o Comparable - common metrics should be used across different ISPs and service offerings so that measurement results can be compared. o Meaningful - the metrics used for measurements need to reflect what end users value about their broadband Internet access service o Reliable - the number and distribution of measurement agents, and the statistical processing of the raw measurement raw data, needs to be appropriate A set of measurement parameters and associated measurement methods are used over time, e.g. speed, delay, and jitter. Then the measurement raw data are collected and go through statistical post- processing before the results can be published in an Internet access service quality index to facilitate end users' choice of service provider and offer. Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 12] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 A measurement system that monitor Internet access services and collect quality information can typically consist of a number of measurement probes and one or more test servers located at peering points. The system can be operated by a regulator or a measurement provider. Number and distribution of probes follows specific requirements depending on the scope and the desired statistical reliability of the measurement campaign. Further, the regulator may consider making measurement tools available for end users, so that they can monitor the performance of their own broadband Internet access service. They might use this information to check that the performance meets that specified in their contract or to understand whether their current subscription is the most appropriate. Such end user scenarios are not the focus of the initial LMAP charter, although it is expected that the mechanisms developed would be readily applied. 4.2 Promoting broadband deployment Governments sometimes set strategic goals for high-speed broadband penetration as an important component of the economic, cultural and social development of the society. To evaluate the effect of the stimulated growth over time, broadband Internet access take-up and penetration of high-speed access can be monitored through measurement campaigns. An example of such an initiative is the "Digital Agenda for Europe" which was adopted in 2010, to achieve universal broadband access. The goal is to achieve by 2020, access for all Europeans to Internet access speeds of 30 Mbps or above, and 50% or more of European households subscribing to Internet connections above 100 Mbps. To monitor actual broadband Internet access performance in a specific country or a region, extensive measurement campaigns are needed. A panel can be built based on operators and packages in the market, spread over urban, suburban and rural areas. Probes can then be distributed to the participants of the campaign. Periodic tests running on the probes can for example measure actual speed at peak and off-peak hours, but also other detailed quality metrics like delay and jitter. Collected data goes afterwards through statistical analysis, deriving estimates for the whole population which can then be presented and published regularly. Using a harmonized or standardised measurement methodology, or even a common quality measurement platform, measurement results could also be used for benchmarking of providers and/or countries. Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 13] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 4.3 Monitoring "net neutrality" Regulatory approaches related to net neutrality and the open Internet has been introduced in some jurisdictions. Examples of such are the Internet policy as outlined by the FCC Preserving the Open Internet Report and Order [FCC R&O] and the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications Guidelines for quality of service [BEREC Guidelines]. The exact definitions and requirements vary from one jurisdiction to another; the comments below provide some hints about the potential role of measurements. Net neutrality regulations do not necessarily require every packet to be treated equally. Typically they allow "reasonable" traffic management (for example if there is exceptional congestion) and allow "specialized services" in parallel to, but separate from, ordinary Internet access (for example for facilities-based IPTV). A regulator may want to monitor such practices as input to the regulatory evaluation. However, these concepts are evolving and differ across jurisdictions, so measurement results should be assessed with caution. A regulator could monitor departures from application agnosticism such as blocking or throttling of traffic from specific applications, and preferential treatment of specific applications. A measurement system could send, or passively monitor, application-specific traffic and then measure in detail the transfer of the different packets. Whilst it is relatively easy to measure port blocking, it is a research topic how to detect other types of differentiated treatment. The paper, "Glasnost: Enabling End Users to Detect Traffic Differentiation" [M-Labs NSDI 2010] and follow-on tool "Glasnost" [Glasnost] are examples of work in this area. A regulator could also monitor the performance of the broadband service over time, to try and detect if the specialized service is provided at the expense of the Internet access service. Comparison between ISPs or between different countries may also be relevant for this kind of evaluation. 5 Security Considerations This informational document provides an overview of the use cases for LMAP and so does not, in itself, raise any security issues. The framework document [framework] discusses the potential security, privacy (data protection) and business sensitivity issues that LMAP raises. The main threats are: Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 14] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 1. a malicious party that gains control of Measurement Agents to launch DoS attacks at a target, or to alter (perhaps subtly) Measurement Tasks in order to compromise the end user's privacy, the business confidentiality of the network, or the accuracy of the measurement system. 2. a malicious party that intercepts or corrupts the Measurement Results &/or other information about the Subscriber, for similar nefarious purposes. 3. a malicious party that uses fingerprinting techniques to identify individual end users, even from anonymized data 4. a measurement system that does not obtain the end user's informed consent, or fails to specify a specific purpose in the consent, or uses the collected information for secondary uses beyond those specified. 5. a measurement system that is vague about who is the "data controller": the party legally responsible for privacy (data protection). The [framework] also considers some potential mitigations of these issues. They will need to be considered by an LMAP protocol and more generally by any measurement system. 6 IANA Considerations None Contributors The information in this document is partially derived from text written by the following contributors: James Miller jamesmilleresquire@gmail.com Rachel Huang rachel.huang@huawei.com Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 15] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 [IETF85 Plenary] Crawford, S., "Large-Scale Active Measurement of Broadband Networks", http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-iesg- opsandtech-7.pdf 'example' from slide 18 [Extend TCP] Michio Honda, Yoshifumi Nishida, Costin Raiciu, Adam Greenhalgh, Mark Handley and Hideyuki Tokuda. "Is it Still Possible to Extend TCP?" Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), November 2011, Berlin, Germany. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/IRTF-1.pdf [framework] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Aitken, P., Akhter, A. "A framework for large-scale measurement platforms (LMAP)", http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-framework/ [FCC R&O] United States Federal Communications Commission, 10-201, "Preserving the Open Internet, Broadband Industries Practices, Report and Order", http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10- 201A1.pdf [BEREC Guidelines] Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, "BEREC Guidelines for quality of service in the scope of net neutrality", http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/ subject_matter/berec/download/0/1101-berec-guidelines-for- quality-of-service-_0.pdf [M-Labs NSDI 2010] M-Lab, "Glasnost: Enabling End Users to Detect Traffic Differentiation", http://www.measurementlab.net/download/AMIfv945ljiJXzG- fgUrZSTu2hs1xRl5Oh-rpGQMWL305BNQh-BSq5oBoYU4a7zqXOvrztpJh K9gwk5unOe-fOzj4X-vOQz_HRrnYU-aFd0rv332RDReRfOYkJuagysst N3GZ__ lQHTS8_UHJTWkrwyqIUjffVeDxQ/ [Glosnast] M-Lab tool "Glasnost", http://mlab-live.appspot.com/tools/ glasnost Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 16] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases December 4, 2013 Authors' Addresses Marc Linsner Cisco Systems, Inc. Marco Island, FL USA EMail: mlinsner@cisco.com Philip Eardley BT B54 Room 77, Adastral Park, Martlesham Ipswich, IP5 3RE UK Email: philip.eardley@bt.com Trevor Burbridge BT B54 Room 77, Adastral Park, Martlesham Ipswich, IP5 3RE UK Email: trevor.burbridge@bt.com Frode Sorensen Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority (NPT) Lillesand Norway Email: frode.sorensen@npt.no Linsner, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 17]