LMAP WG Meeting 
Date and Time: MONDAY 6/13/16, 1PM EDT

Meeting information: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lmap/current/msg02560.html


1. Note Well, Note Takers, Agenda Bashing - (Chairs, 5 min)

2. WG Status - (Chairs, 5 min)

3. IPPM relevant work Status - (Al, 5 min)

4. Open Issues: schedule events (Tim, 30 min)

5. YANG and in the information model (Juergen, 45 min)

6. Next steps, advancing documents to WGLC - 30 min


* Attendees

  - Al Morton
  - Alissa Cooper
  - Barbara Stark
  - Dan Romascanu
  - Godfred
  - Greg Mirsky
  - Jason Weil
  - Juergen Schoenwaelder
  - Tim Carey

* IPPM Update (Al Morton)

  - There is a new I-D draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-00.txt in IPPM.
  - The I-D draft-morton-lmap-examples was just for internal use.
  - The Performance Metrics Registry has addressed a key open issue, the Metric Naming Format, based on previous experience with projects like m-Plane and other measurement projects.
This format will be tested using the metrics in the initial registry contents draft.

- There is new work to expand the IPPM Framework to include
IPv6 measurement details, which are more complicated than originally thought.  There is also an effort to define the traceroute measurement as a registered metric, since there are many parameters that affect the measurement outcome, in addition to different procedural methods.

- Jason mentioned that IPPM co-chair Brian Trammell presented a summary of the WG status at the European Internet Mapping project. Al added that Hiroshi Ota presented Al's slides describing ITU-T SG 12 work on IP performance there as part of the same agenda item.. There was an extended discussion and the presentations were much appreciated and may influence the future of the project.

* Cycle-ID Discussion

  Cycle-ID = Cycle-Context-ID + Cycle-Number.

  - Al shows a slide from IETF 50 (IPPM)
  - What is the scope of the Cycle-Number? Al wants to have the
    Cycle-Number aligned across systems.
  - Al wants a simple global index into the results.
  - Al wants a Cycle-Number that includes the date and a bin number.
  - Alissa remarks that this can be calculated on both ends, the
    discussion seems to be whether there is an advantage to do it on the MA.
  - 6 digit of date YYYYMMDD + number (in GMT?)
  - Cycle number is a bin of N minutes starting from midnight.
  - Tim says one would have to fix the overall length and the bin length.
  - Al says that he wants the cycle ID calculated from the start time of the schedule (the time the event fired), not the start time of the actions.
  - Alissa suggest that it might help to have concrete text that says how this feature is configured, what the format of the Cycle-Number is, and how the MA calculates the Cycle-Number (from the event fire time).
  - Al to provide some concrete proposal.

  - Greg asks how are the Cycle-Context-IDs assigned?
  - Al responds that these names are assigned by the controller and the
    controller guarantees the uniqueness.

  - Tim: Should the Cycle-Context-ID be a tag or an option?
  - Al says that the tag should not be modified by the MA and simply be echoed back.
  - Both can be made to work. This was on the mailing list, I will try to bring it up again.

* LMAP Information Model Issues (Tim Carey)

  - Addition of ma-schedule-start and ma-schedule-end.
  - Tim wants to remove ma-schedule-start and ma-schedule-end.
  - Al asks if we run a one-off test, do we give up the capability to
    define the end time?
  - Tim says if we keep the duration, we should put it on the actions and not on the schedule. And it should be part of the options anyway.
  - Consider a passive iperf server that I start at a specific point in time and which I want to turn off at either another point in time or after a certain duration. Note that iperf does not have options to control this.
  - Al says this is like pressing crtl-c in an automated fashion.

  - Tim will bring this up on the list again.

* YANG Model and Information Model (Juergen Schoenwaelder)

  - skipped

* Next Steps (Chairs)

  - The plan is to have the issues (above) resolved quickly and to have I-Ds ready for WG last call beginning of July (at the submission deadline) so that we can issue the last call and discuss last call comments at IETF 96