Skip to main content

IP Performance Measurement
charter-ietf-ippm-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-03-25
06 Cindy Morgan Responsible AD changed to Martin Duke from Mirja Kühlewind
2018-05-21
06 Cindy Morgan Responsible AD changed to Mirja Kühlewind from Spencer Dawkins
2017-08-29
06 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-06.txt
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved from Internal review
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the charter
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Closed "Ready w/o external review" ballot
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "submit a Standards Track draft on inband OAM based measurement methodologies to the IESG", due November 2018, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "submit a Standards Track document to the IESG updating RFC2330 to cover IPv6", due July 2018, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit an Experimental draft on coloring-based hybrid measurement methodologies for loss and delay to the IESG", due November 2017, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "submit a Standards Track document to the IESG defining initial contents of performance metric registry", due November 2017, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft on core registry for performance metrics to IESG as Proposed Standard", due November 2017, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan
Added milestone "submit a Standards Track document to the IESG for a YANG model for managing TWAMP clients and servers", due October 2017, from current …
Added milestone "submit a Standards Track document to the IESG for a YANG model for managing TWAMP clients and servers", due October 2017, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "submit a Standards Track document to the IESG adding support for IEEE-1588 timestamps to TWAMP", due November 2016, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit a draft on the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option as Proposed Standard", due August 2016, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity metrics to IESG as Experimental", due July 2016, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan
Added milestone "Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and active measurement to the IESG as Informational", due November 2015, from current …
Added milestone "Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and active measurement to the IESG as Informational", due November 2015, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft on the UDP Checksum Trailer in OWAMP and TWAMP to the IESG as Informational", due July 2015, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft on DSCP and ECN monitoring in TWAMP to IESG as Proposed Standard", due July 2015, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft on "A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM" (RFC 2680 bis) as Internet Standard", due March 2015, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft on "A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM" (RFC 2679 bis) as Internet Standard", due March 2015, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed Standard", due November 2014, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft on access rate measurement protocol problem statement to IESG as Informational", due November 2014, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft on reference path for measurement location to IESG as Informational", due April 2014, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft updating the IPPM Framework (2330-update) to IESG as Proposed Standard", due April 2014, from current group milestones
2017-08-29
05-00 Cindy Morgan Added milestone "Submit draft on RFC 2680 standards-track advancement testing to IESG as Informational", due July 2013, from current group milestones
2017-08-17
05-00 Spencer Dawkins Changed charter title from 'IP Performance Metrics' to 'IP Performance Measurement'.
2017-08-16
05-00 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2017-08-16
05-00 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-08-16
05-00 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
I fully support this update.

However, is the intent to change the name of the WG at the same time?  The Internal Review …
[Ballot comment]
I fully support this update.

However, is the intent to change the name of the WG at the same time?  The Internal Review announcement, as well as the write-ups talk about "IP Performance Metrics", but the first line of the charter says "IP Performance Measurement" instead.  I don't object to the name change, it may in fact be a better reflection of the work, but I think it is a process issue (if the name is to be changed) that should be addressed before approval.
2017-08-16
05-00 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-08-15
05-00 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2017-08-15
05-00 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-08-15
05-00 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-08-14
05-00 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-08-14
05-00 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-08-12
05-00 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-08-10
05-00 Cindy Morgan Telechat date has been changed to 2017-08-17 from 2013-06-13
2017-08-10
05-00 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-08-10
05-00 Spencer Dawkins WG action text was changed
2017-08-10
05-00 Spencer Dawkins WG review text was changed
2017-08-10
05-00 Spencer Dawkins WG review text was changed
2017-08-10
05-00 Spencer Dawkins Created "Ready w/o external review" ballot
2017-08-10
05-00 Spencer Dawkins State changed to Internal review from Informal IESG review
2017-08-10
05-00 Spencer Dawkins State changed to Informal IESG review from Approved
2017-08-10
05-00 Spencer Dawkins New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-05-00.txt
2015-10-14
05 (System) Notify list changed from ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org to (None)
2015-09-14
05 Spencer Dawkins Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins from Martin Stiemerling
2013-06-14
05 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-05.txt
2013-06-14
05 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved from IESG review
2013-06-14
05 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the charter
2013-06-14
05 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2013-06-14
05 Cindy Morgan Closed "Ready for external review" ballot
2013-06-14
04-05 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2013-06-14
04-05 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2013-06-13
04-05 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-06-13
04-05 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2013-06-13
04-05 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-06-13
04-05 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2013-06-13
04-05 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-06-12
04-05 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-06-12
04-05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-06-12
04-05 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-06-12
04-05 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-06-12
04-05 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-06-12
04-05 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-06-12
04-05 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-06-12
04-05 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling Created "Approve" ballot
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling State changed to IESG review from External review
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling Added charter milestone "Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity metrics to IESG as Experimental", due March 2014
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling Added charter milestone "Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed Standard", due December 2013
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling Added charter milestone "Submit draft on reference path for measurement location to IESG as Informational", due December 2013
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling Added charter milestone "Submit draft updating the IPPM Framework (2330-update) to IESG as Proposed Standard", due December 2013
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling Added charter milestone "Submit draft on access rate measurement protocol problem statement to IESG as Informational", due December 2013
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling Added charter milestone "Submit draft on RFC 2680 standards-track advancement testing to IESG as Informational", due July 2013
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling Updated charter text according to Benoit's text proposal.
2013-06-12
04-05 Martin Stiemerling New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-04-05.txt
2013-06-11
04-04 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
Benoit's new text is an improvement and I support it.
2013-06-11
04-04 Stewart Bryant Ballot comment text updated for Stewart Bryant
2013-06-11
04-04 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Assuming that the following change is incorporated.

OLD:
Direct measurement of raw network- or lower-layer protocols, such as OAM based performance measurement, is …
[Ballot comment]
Assuming that the following change is incorporated.

OLD:
Direct measurement of raw network- or lower-layer protocols, such as OAM based performance measurement, is out of scope for IPPM.
NEW:
Specifying network or lower layer OAM mechanisms is out of scope of the IPPM charter
2013-06-11
04-04 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to Yes from No Objection
2013-06-06
04-04 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-06-13
2013-06-06
04-04 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2013-06-06
04-04 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2013-06-06
04-04 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2013-06-06
04-04 Martin Stiemerling State changed to External review from Internal review
2013-06-06
04-04 Martin Stiemerling Removed from agenda for telechat
2013-06-06
04-04 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my concern.
2013-06-06
04-04 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Block
2013-06-06
04-04 Martin Stiemerling Telechat date has been changed to 2013-06-13 from 2013-05-30
2013-06-05
04-04 Martin Stiemerling New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-04-04.txt
2013-05-29
04-03 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot block]
The charter needs to make it clear that performance related measurement of network layer protocols such as IP and MPLS using OAM protocols …
[Ballot block]
The charter needs to make it clear that performance related measurement of network layer protocols such as IP and MPLS using OAM protocols are out of scope.
2013-05-29
04-03 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
I am surprised that SCCP is not a named protocol.
2013-05-29
04-03 Stewart Bryant Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Stewart Bryant
2013-05-28
04-03 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Block
2013-05-27
04-03 Martin Stiemerling New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-04-03.txt
2013-05-16
04-02 Cindy Morgan Telechat date has been changed to 2013-05-30 from 2013-05-16
2013-05-16
04-01 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-05-16
04-01 Benoît Claise
[Ballot block]
-
The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and
procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The
working group …
[Ballot block]
-
The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and
procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The
working group will continue advancing these metrics along the standards
track, using the guidelines stated in RFC 6576. To the extent possible,
these metrics will be used as the basis for future work on metrics in the
WG.

NEW
The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and
procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The
working group will continue advancing the most useful metrics along the standards
track, using the guidelines stated in RFC 6576. To the extent possible,
these metrics will be used as the basis for future work on metrics in the
WG.

The IPPM has produced way too many metrics (IIRC 82 was mentioned in the past).
Most of my customers would be happy already with consistent reporting of packet loss, one way and round trip delay, and delay variation.
I would not like to see this list of RFC ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ippm/ ) doubled just of sake of advancing metrics.

-
New metric development will focus on the suitability of measurements for
automation, in order to support large-scale measurement efforts.

I don't understand. The metric development is orthogonal to the automation.
Discussing with Brian Trammell, what he meant was the metric parameters, not the metric itself. But this would require an update to RFC 2330.
We came up with this proposal:
"The work of the WG will take into account the suitability of measurements for automation, in order to support large-scale measurement efforts."

-
The WG has produced protocols for communication among test equipment to
enable the measurement of the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectively). These protocols will be advanced along the standards track.
The WG will further develop and improve these protocols.

What for? Are we signing a blank check here?

OLD:
The WG has produced protocols for communication among test equipment to
enable the measurement of the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectively). These protocols will be advanced along the standards track.
The WG will further develop and improve these protocols.

Here is a proposal, also discussed with Brian Trammell:

NEW:
The WG has produced protocols for communication among test equipment to
enable the measurement of the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectively). These protocols will be advanced along the standards track.

(and updating the previus proposal with one extra sentence)
The work of the WG will take into account the suitability of measurements
for automation, in order to support large-scale measurement efforts.
This may result in further developments in protocols such as OWAMP and TWAMP.


- Please add "New metric definitions must follow RFC 6390 template."
Note: We could debate whether this is necessary of existing metrics that you want to progress (RFC6410). I believe it is, but we had an different agreement with the XRBLOCK community.
2013-05-16
04-01 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-05-15
04-01 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-05-15
04-01 Pete Resnick Ballot comment text updated for Pete Resnick
2013-05-15
04-01 Adrian Farrel [Ballot comment]
Thanks for updates that improve the charter and help to focus the WG's work
2013-05-15
04-01 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Block
2013-05-15
04-01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-05-15
04-02 Martin Stiemerling New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-04-02.txt
2013-05-15
04-01 Martin Stiemerling New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-04-01.txt
2013-05-15
04-00 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-05-15
04-00 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
I have no objection to this charter modulo the changes needed to address Adrian's and Stewart's DISCUSS points.
2013-05-15
04-00 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-05-15
04-00 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-05-14
04-00 Pete Resnick [Ballot comment]
Like others, I name Adrian my fearless leader.
2013-05-14
04-00 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-05-13
04-00 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot block]
I am concerned that the WG appears to disregard the OAM work done at the network layer, which includes bearer services and other …
[Ballot block]
I am concerned that the WG appears to disregard the OAM work done at the network layer, which includes bearer services and other tools to measure the performance of IP and MPLS networks.

Related to this concern, it is worrying that this WG seems to operate with a transport centric model when it claims to be an IP performance group. I would be find, if it's charter clearly called out its mission as restricted to the instrumentation of a set of named transport protociols, but once it goes beyond that it needs to consider its views on the broader use of IP, and of MPLS and even TRILL as protocols that require performance measurement.
2013-05-13
04-00 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
I agree with Adrian's concern.
2013-05-13
04-00 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-05-10
04-00 Ted Lemon [Ballot comment]
I, too, support Adrian's position.
2013-05-10
04-00 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2013-05-09
04-00 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
I support Adrian's position.
2013-05-09
04-00 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-05-09
04-00 Barry Leiba [Ballot comment]
I support Adrian's position, and look forward to seeing to more specific information about work items.
2013-05-09
04-00 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-04-28
04-00 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot block]
In reading this new charter text I am disappointed to find no targeted deliverables. Instead the text is very open-ended.

For example:

> …
[Ballot block]
In reading this new charter text I am disappointed to find no targeted deliverables. Instead the text is very open-ended.

For example:

> The WG will develop the minimum number of new metrics and models needed
> to more accurately quantitatively characterize the network path(s) under
> test and/or the performance of transport and application layer protocols
> on these path(s).

This is a fine objective, but I would hope that the working group has some specific metrics/models in mind. If the WG does not have any specifics on the table at the moment, then either:
- why are we rechartering instead of closing down?
or
- how about making the specific work be the analysis of
  which new metrics/models are needed?

The same question applies to all of the items in the new charter text. Reading through the old charter text, I see that that was far more focused on specific work items.
2013-04-28
04-00 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-05-16
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling WG review text was changed
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling WG action text was changed
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling WG review text was changed
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling Created "Ready for external review" ballot
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling State changed to Internal review from Informal IESG review
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling Notification list changed to ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling Responsible AD changed to Martin Stiemerling
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling State changed to Informal IESG review from Approved
2013-04-25
04-00 Martin Stiemerling New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-04-00.txt
2009-08-29
04 (System) New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-04.txt
2009-08-29
03 (System) New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-03.txt
2009-08-29
02 (System) New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-02.txt
1997-10-20
01 (System) New version available: charter-ietf-ippm-01.txt