Minutes for LMAP at interim-2016-lmap-1
minutes-interim-2016-lmap-1-2

Meeting Minutes Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (lmap) WG
Title Minutes for LMAP at interim-2016-lmap-1
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2016-01-21

Meeting Minutes
minutes-interim-2016-lmap-1

LMAP WG Interim Meeting 01/12/2016

(notes by Holger Wiehen and Barbara Stark)

Participants:

Dan Romascanu
Jason Weil
Jurgen Schoenwaelder
Al Morton
Barbara Stark
Alissa Cooper
Timothy Carey
Holger Wiehen
Greg Minsky
Phil Eardley

Agenda:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/01/12/lmap/agenda/agenda-interim-2016-lmap-1

1) Opening
----------
Dan - opening and agenda; 2 note takers are chosen (Barbara and Holger);

2) WG Status
------------

Chairs slides:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/01/12/lmap/slides/slides-interim-2016-lmap-1-1.pdf

Dan - states little progress in active wg items; draft-liu-lmap-rest (alternate
protocol proposal) expired without activity on the mailing list (Jurgen
confirmed that lack of activity); if authors of the alternate proposal would
like to pursue it they may do as comments to the WG I-D.

3) IPPM Metrics Registry
------------------------

Slides from Al:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/01/12/lmap/slides/slides-interim-2016-lmap-1-2.pdf

Al - summarizes work on 3 drafts relevant for LMAP (see Al Morton's slides);
method used by the IPPM wg is specification by example
(draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry) Al - IPv6 is not covered by current
proposed metrics; draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep intended to capture IPv6
(RFC 2330 Update); solution is update to IPPM framework and not single drafts;
still difficulties to extend IPv4 metrics to IPv6 (might touch registry); Dan -
questions the working group status? Al - consensus call is outstanding; good
reception; Al - details key points of draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep
relevant for LMAP (see Al Morton's slides)

4) LMAP Information Model
-------------------------

Slides from Jurgen:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/01/12/lmap/slides/slides-interim-2016-lmap-1-0.pdf

Jurgen - presents 4 key issues regarding the relation of the LMAP information
model and the IPPM metrics registry (see Jurgen' slides) Tim - questions if the
'schedule' needs a 'stop parameter'; couldn't it be solved by the
'calendar-end' of the 'calendar' object already in the draft; Jurgen - makes a
correction to the LMAP 'parameter' object shown in the slides; the 'parameter'
is an element of the 'action', not the 'schedule' Tim - questions the diference
between 'options' and 'parameters' Jurgen - 'parameter' would be anything
specified machine-readable; Tim - why not solve simpler with a YANG identity;
Jurgen - YANG eco-sistem leans towards stronger formalization (with a proper
YANG data model); Tim - distinguishing between options & parameters will
produce duplication in the spec;

Dan - states that the suggested formal approach assumes that part of the
IPPM-registry will be expressed as YANG models; questions complexity imposed on
the IPPM wg; Jurgen - recalls that the IPPM group aims to keep efforts like
YANG model to metric authors; Tim - summarizes wg's message to industry: IPPM
prefers formal definition of tests (machine readable); but there is a less
formal fallback (registry only);

Al - assumes that many parameters that could be machine readable will be known
in advance as IPPM fixed parameters; those don't need a schema to be read and
understood by machines (as the developer codes them). Tim - even fixed
parameters need to be defined with rigor (for example dimensions), even being
only human readable Barbara - states that there are use cases for machine
readable fixed parameters; for example an implementer might control a private
registry, and a change in metric's values should be understood and applied
programmatically; Al - a change in fixed parameter value in the registry should
result in a new metric name, so the MA points to a new metric URL Barbara -
states that this would not allow to run one same implementation with different
parameters; key is to not equal "fixed parameter" with "hard coded parameter";

Tim and Jurgen retake the discussion on start/stop times for schedules;
Tim - states that we have start and stop on event objects; proposed is an
additional start and stop on schedule objects; Jurgen - clarifies that those
times deal with a different granularity; Tim - adds that regarding the granular
control, the start/stop of measurement traffic could be controlled by action
parameters;

5) Next Steps
--------------
Dan - questions next steps
Jurgen - estimates end of January to update the information model; suggests to
give people time to think through his information model proposals; feedback
required (especially on slide 8); if endorsed would extend his work; Dan -
comments that additional examples for the information model would be helpful;
Dan - announces plans for IETF 95: 1x 2 hour session; key contributor remote;
discuss possible time slot An additional interim meeting before IETF 95 is
planned for the week's around 02/15/2015 or 02/22/2105;