Ericsson Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Value-Added Octets
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ippm mailing list <email@example.com>, ippm chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Document Action: 'Ericsson TWAMP Value-Added Octets' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-09.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Ericsson TWAMP Value-Added Octets' (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-09.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin Stiemerling. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets/
Technical Summary This memo describes an extension to the TWAMP test protocol for identifying and managing packet trains, which enables measuring capacity metrics like the available path capacity, tight section capacity and UDP delivery rate in the forward and reverse path directions. This memo contains the description of a working prototype. It does not represent a consensus of the IETF community. The IETF community is currently working on the problem statement and has not reached consensus on the preferred method for measuring capacity metrics. Working Group Summary The prototype (and the first version of the draft) was presented at the March 2011 meeting, as the result of an experiment conducted by the authors. At the meeting, there was consensus that the prototype addressed a problem, though there was no consensus on what the problem exactly was. In subsequent discussion, the WG agreed to work on the problem statement, while publishing this document in order to document the work done. As the prototype evolved during the year, and people brought up ideas, the document evolved as well. There was some discussion on what should (not) be in this write-up. This has been settled. There were no objections from the IPPM working group to publishing this revision of the document. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Henk Uijterwaal is the document shepherd, the responsible AD is Wes Eddy. RFC Editor Note Please change the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" boilerplate text that will appear in the published RFC to say: "It does not represent a consensus of the IETF community." This will match the statements made in the abstract and introduction.