Subject: WG Action: Rechartered IP Performance Measurement (ippm)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:37:05 -0700

The IP Performance Measurement (ippm) WG in the Transport Area of the IETF
has been rechartered. For additional information, please contact the Area
Directors or the WG Chairs.

IP Performance Measurement (ippm)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current status: Active WG

Chairs:
  Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
  Bill Cerveny <[email-masked]>

Assigned Area Director:
  Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>

Transport Area Directors:
  Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
  Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>

Mailing list:
  Address: [email-masked]
  To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
  Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/

Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/ippm/

Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ippm/

The IP Performance Measurement (IPPM) Working Group develops and maintains
standard metrics that can be applied to the quality, performance, and
reliability of Internet data delivery services and applications running over
transport layer protocols (e.g. TCP, UDP) over IP. It also develops and
maintains methodologies and protocols for the measurement of these metrics.
These metrics, protocols, and methodologies are designed such that they can be
used by network operators, end users, or independent testing groups. Metrics
developed by the IPPM WG are intended to provide unbiased quantitative
performance measurements.

The IPPM WG works to foster commonality and comparability of metrics and
measurements across IETF protocols at different layers. Its work is limited to
metrics and methodologies which are applicable over transport-layer protocols
over IP, and does not specify encapsulations required for measurements over
non-IP layers.

The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and procedures
for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The working group will
continue advancing the most useful of these metrics along the standards track,
using the guidelines stated in RFC 6576. To the extent possible, these metrics
will be used as the basis for future work on metrics in the WG.

The WG will seek to develop new metrics and models to accurately characterize
the network paths under test and/or the performance of transport and
application layer protocols on these paths. The WG will balance the need for
new metrics with the desire to minimize the introduction of new metrics, and
will require that new metric definitions state how the definition improves on
an existing metric definition, or assesses a property of network performance
not previously covered by a defined metric. Metric definitions will follow
the template given in RFC 6390.

Additional methods will be defined for the composition and calibration of
IPPM-defined metrics, as well as active, passive and hybrid measurement
methods for these metrics. In addition, the WG encourages work which
describes the applicability of metrics and measurement methods, especially to
improve understanding of the tradeoffs involved among active, passive, and
hybrid methods.

The WG may update its core framework RFC 2330 as necessary to accommodate
these activities.

The WG has produced protocols for communication among test equipment to enable
the measurement of the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectively). These protocols will be advanced along the standards track.
The work of the WG will take into account the suitability of measurements for
automation, in order to support large-scale measurement efforts. This may
result in further developments in protocols such as OWAMP and TWAMP.

Agreement about the definitions of metrics and methods of measurement enables
accurate, reproducible, and equivalent results across different
implementations. To this end, the WG defines and maintains a registry of
metric definitions.

The WG encourages work which assesses the comparability of measurements of
IPPM metrics with metrics developed elsewhere. The WG also encourages work
which improves the availability of information about the context in which
measurements were taken, for example (but not limited to) measurement
implementation information, estimates of confidence in these measurements,
conditions on the network(s) on which measurements are taken, and/or
information about the data-plane topology of these network(s).

In the interest of measurement comparability, the WG may define data formats
and information models for the storage and exchange of the results of
measurements defined within IPPM.

The IPPM WG seeks cooperation with other appropriate standards bodies and
forums to promote consistent approaches and metrics. Within the IETF process,
IPPM metric definitions and measurement protocols will be subject to as
rigorous a scrutiny for usefulness, clarity, and accuracy as other protocol
standards. The IPPM WG will interact with other areas of IETF activity whose
scope intersects with the requirement of these specific metrics. The WG will,
on request, provide input to other IETF working groups on the use and
implementation of these metrics.

Milestones:

  Done     - Submit draft on RFC 2680 standards-track advancement testing to
  IESG as Informational

  Done     - Submit draft updating the IPPM Framework (2330-update) to IESG
  as Proposed Standard

  Done     - Submit draft on reference path for measurement location to IESG
  as Informational

  Done     - Submit draft on access rate measurement protocol problem
  statement to IESG as Informational

  Done     - Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed
  Standard

  Done     - Submit draft on "A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM" (RFC 2679 bis)
  as Internet Standard

  Done     - Submit draft on "A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM" (RFC 2680 bis)
  as Internet Standard

  Done     - Submit draft on DSCP and ECN monitoring in TWAMP to IESG as
  Proposed Standard

  Done     - Submit draft on the UDP Checksum Trailer in OWAMP and TWAMP to
  the IESG as Informational

  Done     - Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive
  and active measurement to the IESG as Informational

  Done     - Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity metrics
  to IESG as Experimental

  Done     - Submit a draft on the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics
  (PDM) Destination Option as Proposed Standard

  Done     - submit a Standards Track document to the IESG adding support for
  IEEE-1588 timestamps to TWAMP

  Oct 2017 - submit a Standards Track document to the IESG for a YANG model
  for managing TWAMP clients and servers

  Nov 2017 - Submit draft on core registry for performance metrics to IESG as
  Proposed Standard

  Nov 2017 - submit a Standards Track document to the IESG defining initial
  contents of performance metric registry

  Nov 2017 - Submit an Experimental draft on coloring-based hybrid
  measurement methodologies for loss and delay to the IESG

  Jul 2018 - submit a Standards Track document to the IESG updating RFC2330
  to cover IPv6

  Nov 2018 - submit a Standards Track draft on inband OAM based measurement
  methodologies to the IESG