IETF 96 IPPM WG, Tuesday 19-07-2016 1400-1600 Chair Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-ippm-0.pdf ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...many thanks to Barbara Stern and Al Morton 14:10 | A. Aldabbagh | Invited Talk: QoS Monitoring Activity at BEREC https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-ippm-6.pdf ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Ackermann: What level of information is collected? Ahmed: Speed and latency. Mike: How? Ahmed: That's our question. Diffierent NRAs use different techniques, we want to harmonize. Luis Miguel Contreras(?): ...(CDN localization question): how can you compare results if you can't preselect content delivery location? Ahmed: We're focused on the access leg only. Should we be looking at live traffic (eg. OTT video), or should we emulate and inject into access net? RĂ¼diger (DT): Have you considered background traffic? Ahmed: yes, there can be background tampering, fine-tuning, don't know how to Joachim Fabini: have a look at 7312. access networks are no longer copper wires. If you need support, just ask. Ahmed: We work at L3, theoretically blind. 14:25 | A. Morton | draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-ippm-8.pdf ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discussion on slide 4: Ahmed Aldabbagh: (on columns and categories) Can the registry entry express anything about resolution or accuracy or calibration? Al: That may need to be included as an output. Brian Trammell: There is accuracy and resolution associated with the output but it may also be a property of the measurement. Some measurements may not be useful if they are insufficiently accurate. Marius Georgescu: Asked clarifying questions Greg Mirsky: Will benchmarking WG work on accuracy/precision? Al: That's something we can discuss in benchmarking. Slide 7: Marius: Thinks this should be enough. Slide 8: Brian Trammell: Thinks allowing "%" may cause problems for programmers. The length is not useful for humans. Matt Mathis: Likes hierarchy of proposed names. Andrew McGregor: [...?] Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin: names of examples in slide need fixing Brian Trammell: Need example for bulk transfer capacity (speed). (J. Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin via Jabber: 14:58 speed is not good because the main problem is the packet loss, jitter, delay, that affect the QoS for me) Matt Mathis: Will think about how to represent model-based metrics 14:50 | K. Pentikousis | draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-ippm-9.pdf ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who has read the draft? 5 hands. Slide 4 Kostas: Does anyone have strong opinions about operational commands? Greg Mirsky: Yes, they are essential. Further discussion to go to the mailing list. TWAMP experts are asked to review. Document is behind schedule. Aiming for November. 15:05 | M. Mathis | draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-ippm-10.pdf ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- We think we're done with this draft, multiple last calls, most comments about language. Test of target performance in terms of loss, RTT, with specific stream characteristics. Location independence for metric measurement This method suppresses self-inflicted congestion Brian: Who has read most recent revision? [It was very recent, so just one] Al expressed view that it was ready to go to last call. Ignacio: How do you expect to apply this to multipath TCP? Al: Apply this test to each path separately. Brian: They are also talking about how these things are coupled, so they do need to be understood together. Brian: Will start WG last call. Will include github link in WG last call. 15:15 | J. Fabini | draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6 https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-ippm-11.pdf ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This work spawned by Brian Carpenter's comments on "-bis" delay and loss drafts Adopted by WG in June? Fred Baker offered additional coments on 00 wg version Marius Georgescu: Are compression technologies considered by the draft? Joachim: Small mention made. All related to TYPE-P Brian: Give time in Seoul. Matt Mathis: How much time was put into [...?] Nalini Elkin: Worried about need for interaction with 6man and v6ops. review waiting time. Brian: We can put a hold on this for them. 15:20 | G. Mirsky | draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format No presentation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian: WG Last call will go out shortly. 15:25 | G. Fioccola | draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-ippm-12.pdf Ignacio: For re-ordering part it would be good to have some sort of rule/formula for what is marked which way. Mike Ackermann: Will this be for IPv6 as well as IPv4? Giuseppe: Yes They are looking into v6 (but not in draft yet) Brian: Please read the alt-mark-active draft and comment to the list