RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tewg-measure-06.txt

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-te-wg@ops.ietf.org 
>[mailto:owner-te-wg@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ash, Gerald R 
>(Jerry), ALABS
>Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:55 AM
>To: Jim Boyle; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS; 
>Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tewg-measure-06.txt
>
>
>Jim,
>
>I'm sorry to hear your opinion.
>
>I definitely agree that your comments should have been 
>addressed.  Certainly they still can be.  There was *major* 
>surgery on the I-D, and some comments apparently got lost in 
>all the revisions.
>
>I still hope to talk you out of it, not because I want to save 
>an I-D but because I think that meeting the TEM milestone is critical:
>
>1. Main comment:
>
>I think the 06-draft 
>http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-measure-06.txt 
>satisfies the TEM goal to 'document additional measurements 
>needed for TE'.  There are clear requirements in the I-D not 
>covered by any MIB or protocol.  
>
>For example, in Section 2 "Conclusions & Recommendations", the 
>very first requirement is:
>
>'(1) Requirements for specific TE measurements 
>    
>. Node-pair-based traffic data to derive per-service-class 
>traffic matrix statistics, including statistics of carried 
>load and offered load (Sections 3.3 and Appendix A) 
>. Statistics of achieved performance and throughput (Section 3.4)
>. A standardized method to detect and record label binding 
>changes for LDP-signaled label-switched paths, at the 
>ingress-egress pair level (Section 3.5)'
>
>Such a requirement is basic to operating any network, and 
>allows a traffic matrix to be derived for purposes of 
>engineering and management of the network.  Such a measurement 
>*is not available in any MIB or protocol*.  It is a major 
>problem in the engineering and management of IP-based networks 
>today that such measurements are not available.  There are 
>indirect work-arounds to this that are not altogether accurate 
>or satisfactory, but there is no substitute for the actual 
>measurements.  

	That is not entirely accurate. The IETF's IPFX WG is 
standardizing the NetFlow protocol which can be used for 
precisely this. It has been available in a proprietary form 
from my company and others for several years now.

	--Tom



>If Jim or anyone thinks such measurements are available, 
>please point out where, which MIB, which protocol? 
>
>2. I think the 06-draft 
>http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-measure-06.txt 
>well addresses Bert's comments:
>
>'I would expect a CRISP set of "requirements for additional 
>measurements, configurable/negotiable parameters/controls" ... 
>but not the extensive exploration and text that I now see'.
> 
>The requirements are now clearly identified for additional 
>measurements, configurable/negotiable parameters/controls, 
>etc., and the main text has been greatly shortened.
>
>Certainly the I-D can be made more crisp and shortened more, 
>if needed, but that doesn't justify dropping the TEM milestone.
>
>3. When Bert made his comments on the 05 version (April, 
>2003), there was a lengthy discussion on the list.  In that 
>discussion many voiced their support for the draft, including 
>Christian Jacquenet, Rüdiger Geib, Raymond Zhang, Merike Kaeo, 
>Dimitri Papadimitriou, and others.  In that discussion, Bert 
>was the *only* negative vote.  I invite you to look back at 
>the thread.  Many strong supportive opinions were expressed, 
>e.g., Merike Kaeo (former co-chair of IPPM) commented 'There 
>is indeed a critical need for this sort of document', and 
>Christian Jacquenet said 'I fully support this draft'.
>
>4. The I-D is directed to satisfy a critical TEWG milestone 
>('TEM').  It gives requirements for essential extensions for 
>TEM.  It should be used to drive protocol extensions and MIB 
>extensions.  An excellent example is the node-to-node 
>measurements to derive the traffic matrix as explained in #1 
>above.  Such measurements are not available today, and are 
>vitally needed.  Jim argues that the TEM milestone is not 
>needed since 'the need for this is potentially tempered by a 
>good MIB, which I think we have now'.  With all due respect to 
>the MIB, it *does not* satisfy the requirements (e.g., see 
>point #1 above).  If all the requirements in the I-D are met, 
>please point out where, specifically. 
>
>5. It becomes an argument as to 
>a. whether the TEM milestone is needed
>b. there are essential requirements in the I-D that are not met.
>I say definitely 'yes' to both.  Let's be sure we have valid 
>arguments to drop TEM before we do that.  
>
>6. TEWG needs to complete its milestones.  Other important 
>TEWG milestones have been dropped (in effect), e.g., 'BCP 
>documents on ISP uses, requirements, desires (TEBCPs)'.  There 
>were several authors who contributed valuable input to satisfy 
>this milestone, yet none of the I-Ds (4 or more) made it 
>through the TEWG.  I do not ascribe the reason for this to any 
>of the authors.  Let's not do this again with TEM.
>
>Thanks,
>Jerry
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:13 PM
>To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>Cc: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tewg-measure-06.txt
>
>After figuring out which sections had been moved where, I was able to
>coorelate the new draft up against my previous comments.
>
>http://ops.ietf.org/lists/te-wg/te-wg.2003/msg00256.html
>
>Most the comments still hold.
>
>My feeling is that we are not hitting the target on this, and 
>I think we
>should seriously consider just dropping this item :(
>
>From my comments you can see I at least was looking for some
>more tangible recomendations.  But truthfully, a lot of the 
>need for this
>is potentially tempered by a good MIB, which I think we have now.
>
>If there are folks that disagree, as to whether -06.txt hits the
>mark, or whether we should not give up, please do not hessitate to make
>your point known.  Or if you in general agree, or have any comments on
>this deliverable, or this draft, again, now is the time to make those
>comments.
>
>thanks
>
>Jim
>
>