Minutes for IPPM at IETF-96
minutes-96-ippm-1

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?

Rüdiger (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