Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] BOF: Applications Performance Management (APM) BOF

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:38:40 -0400

Hi Daryl,

Thanks for your comments, here's the on-list response.
(Now that the drafts are out-there, it can be more complete.
We've exchanged some messages off list, so you knew this was coming.)

At 11:23 AM 6/20/2007, Daryl Malas wrote:
>IMO, I completely agree there is a gap in the IETF for this type of
>work, and I absolutely think an APM Directorate is the right approach.
>There are only two drafts associated with this BOF at this point.  It
>does not appear there are a lot of other drafts in the pipeline for this
>work.  Since this is the case, I don't see a need to create a new
>working group for 1 or 2 drafts.

The APM agenda lists more than two now:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/agenda/apm.txt

- draft-malas-performance-metrics-07.txt
- draft-venna-ippm-app-loss-metrics-00.txt
- draft-ietf-avt-rtcpxr-video-01.txt
- draft-ietf-avt-rtcpxr-audio-00.txt
- draft-ietf-avt-rtcphr-01.txt
- draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-01.txt
- draft-kikuchi-passive-measure-00.txt

IDR Stability Performance (draft?)
(There is a Liaison statement on this topic, at least:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/237/ )

>Unfortunately, I don't think this type
>of work is "sexy" from an IETF perspective.  I am concerned if a working
>group is created, this type of work will not receive the necessary
>visibility to be successful and truly valuable.

It's a valid concern.  Performance metric definition has never
been "sexy".  The work in IPPM and BMWG is carried out by
small but dedicated core groups, and a healthy influx of new people
with work proposals.  Can this "performance community" sustain a
third chartered activity?  That's what we hope to learn in the BOF.
However, it seems to me that forming a working group would tend to
increase the visibility (more so than an APM Directorate),
if this move is warranted.

>On the flip side, I
>also know that it will take up time within the existing working groups,
>but I think those are the right locations to get a temperature reading
>on their value.

In either case (WG or directorate), it would be a necessary step
to have the proposal reviewed by the associated protocol development
WG, and then develop the draft(s) in partnership with the protocol
experts.

Al

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area