Align with IPPM, I agree with the second approach, since IPPM is not limited to IP based metric but also cover protocol specific metric and application specific metric, I think use the IPPM registry (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10#section-10) is pretty much reasonable to me, we can fill additional ALTO related Performance Metric Registry Entries in this registry. what is not clear to me is the relation between draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics and draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02. It seems draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02 intends to cover all the performance metrics which are defined in the IETF and add registry entry for each of these performance metrics. Also I am not sure whether draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02 only focus on (1).direct metric can be measured in the network via 3rd party measurement tools (2).or some composite metric or derived metric or aggregated performance metrics? If the answer is draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02 only focus on (1), I think we can cover (2).
-Qin -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR) [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2017年2月9日 21:53 收件人: Mirja Kühlewind; Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US) 抄送: [email protected]; Qin Wu; IETF ALTO 主题: RE: [alto] Submitting draft-wu-alto-te-metrics as a WG item Hello Mirja and Altoers, Should the ALTO WG consider broadening the scope of the ALTO performance metrics draft by having at least a section for potential IPPM metrics and another section covering other network performance metrics? Indeed, network performance metrics that are already documented in the IPPM initial registry can just be referenced in the ALTO metrics document. As the IPPM initial registry is in progress, the ALTO metrics draft may include a placeholder for IPPM relevant metrics until they get adopted and specified in IPPM. Definitely, ALTO-IPPM coordination will be fruitful. However, quoting Al Morton's e-mail on July 21st: "Another way to interpret what ALTO needs is to look at cost metrics the same as link costs in routing. Routing link costs are usually static and the values might be set relative to some real metric like latency or max link line rate. These involve no measurement at all." Additionally, some network metric values may stem from both measurements and provider policy as for example, many bandwidth related ALTO metrics. ALTO may convey such information not available via 3rd party measurement tools. Besides, IPPM informational RFC 5136 points the difficulty to have a unified nomenclature for network capacity related measurements. To guide users and applications, ALTO performance Metric values may also add abstraction to measurements and/or provide unitless performance scores. Last, given the growing WG interest in wireless networks, nothing precludes ALTO metrics from covering them. Thanks, Sabine >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alto [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind >>Sent: jeudi 5 janvier 2017 15:02 >>To: Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US) <[email protected]> >>Cc: [email protected]; Qin Wu <[email protected]>; >>IETF ALTO <[email protected]> >>Subject: Re: [alto] Submitting draft-wu-alto-te-metrics as a WG item >> >>Hi all, >> >>sorry for being super late. >> >>One thing is to align with IPPM, there other question is do we need an >>own alto registry for these metric or can we use the IPPM registry? I >>would prefer the second approach if appropriate which would also mean >>that the other metrics that are not part of the IPPM registry yet, should be >>registered there. >>Given this is still work in progress, we definitely should coordinate >>with the IPPM working group and see if the registration itself should >>happen in IPPM or ALTO. >> >>Mirja >> >> >>> Am 29.08.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Vijay K. Gurbani >>> <vijay.gurbani@nokia- >>bell-labs.com>: >>> >>> On 08/29/2016 03:47 AM, Qin Wu wrote: >>>> Here is the update of draft-wu-alto-te-metrics to address two open >>>> issues raised in the last meeting. The diff is: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-alto-te-metrics-09 >>> >>> Qin: Thanks. More below. >>> >>> Folks: Please take a look at the above diffs that address the >>> concerns in [1]. >>> >>> Authors: Please wait a few days for any feedback from the WG and >>> incorporate feedback in a -00 version. Irrespective of any >>> feedback, please generate a WG -00 and submit by next week (mid- to >>> late next week). >>> >>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg03277.html >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> - vijay >>> -- >>> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks >>> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) >>> Email: [email protected] / [email protected] >>> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: >>> http://goo.gl/x3Ogq >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> alto mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >> >>_______________________________________________ >>alto mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
