RE: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt

["Robert Holley \(rholley\)" <rholley@cisco.com>]

Al,
Roman,

I've been (rather passively) monitoring the list's discussions on this subject.

However, I didn't see any responses on the availability metric mentioned below.

Have I missed it, or am I just jumping ahead?

Regards
Bob 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Al Morton
> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:03 AM
> To: roman.krzanowski@verizon.com
> Cc: psamp@ops.ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [ippm] comments on draft-morton-ippm-composition-00.txt
> 
> Hi Roman,
> 
> Thanks for your comments, see initial responses below:
> 
> At 06:32 PM 8/17/2005, roman.krzanowski@verizon.com wrote:
> >Al
> >
> >My few thoughts:
> >
> >(1) regarding the delay variation metric
> >would we follow the ITU proposal or 2 point IPPM definition 
> .. what would
> >be our preference?
> >My initial take on the ITU  delay variation proposal is 
> negative. It is
> >different from MEF and from what we already use
> >as well as it is not very practical - my view..
> >can we have a discussion on it?
> 
> We've had some good discussions comparing these metrics on ippm-list
> (my guess is that the 2001 archive has most of the exchange).
> It's worthwhile pointing out that when one of the selected packets in
> the pair (as in RFC3393) is always the packet with the minimum delay,
> the IPPM and ITU definitions are equivalent.  I don't know if the same
> flexibility exists in the MEF definition.  In any case, we have the
> freedom to consider both in this effort, and I suggest we do 
> just that.
> 
> Personally, I think we may have more success with compositions of the
> ITU-T delay histogram.  The traditional version of IPPM's
> adjacent packet pair metric depends on packet spacing, and
> that may make compositions more challenging, somewhat like reordering.
> 
> 
> >(2) I can draft  the availability and packet loss metric 
> section , is this
> >OK with you. I am not sure how far you are on it
> 
> I have some material on Loss already, so start with availability.
> (I'll send you a template to make things easier.)
> What IPPM (or ITU) metric will you start with to compose availability?
> 
> 
> >(3) We need some generic definition of the composite metric 
> itself - my
> >view:
> 
> Thanks, I'll look at working these ideas into the draft.  
> Clearly we need
> a new section containing definitions. I also like some of the
> definitions composed by Andreas Åkre Solberg.  This topic really seems
> to be of wide interest...
> 
> Al
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org 
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>