Subject: [Fwd: BOUNCE [email-masked]: Non-member submission from [[email-masked]]]

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 08:28:04 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: BOUNCE [email-masked]:    Non-member submission from [
From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:26:32 -0700
Subject: Re: BMWG New Work Proposal: L3 QoS Benchmarking

I have done some similar work with the ITU to try and develop a process to
evaluate QOS functionality. Have you looked at the I380 documents defined by the
ITU which evaluates IP performance from an IP perspective?

If you are interested I can give you a rough copy of the development work I have
done for defining QOS performance measurement. I feel that it is OK to use the
RFC 1242 to define measurement parameters but I feel the point of reference
perspective and how the testing process is defined should be considered to
insure unbiased point of view.  This is clearly the ITU focus.

I understand the value of testing the IP precedence  QOS process but from an end
users perspective, developing a process that evaluates a mix of methods should
be done to evaluate the performance and effectiveness between different methods.

Terry Martin

---

From: "David Newman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:48:06 -0500

Hi Terry,

Thanks for your comments. I'd be very interested in seeing a copy of I380,
or a "rough copy" thereof.

Couple of responses:

I feel that it is
> OK to use the
> insure unbiased point of view.

Having trouble parsing this statement. Are you saying RFC 1242 is biased in
some way? If so, how?

> be done to evaluate the performance and effectiveness between

There is no question that measurement of a mix of QOS mechanisms is a worthy
long-term goal. However, the cardinal rule of testing (whether it's done by
the IETF, the ITU, or anyone else) is to isolate one variable at a time. I
don't believe measuring multiple QOS mechanisms will a meaningful exercise
until we first understand the effect of each mechanism by itself.

dn