The IP Performance Metrics (ippm) working group in the Transport Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs. IP Performance Metrics (ippm) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Active WG Chairs: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Bill Cerveny <bill@wjcerveny.com> Assigned Area Director: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mailing list Address: ippm@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/ Charter: The IP Performance Metrics (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. Specifying network or lower layer OAM mechanisms is out of scope of the IPPM charter. It also develops and maintains protocols for the measurement of these metrics. These metrics 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 and not a value judgement. 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 more 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. It is possible that new measurement protocols will be needed to support new metrics; if this is the case, the working group will be rechartered to develop these protocols. 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 will define and maintain 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. 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. Specific near-term milestones include: 1. Advancement of protocols for one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP respectively) along the standards track. 2. Update of the IPPM framework document (RFC 2330) to reflect experience with the framework, and to cover planned future metric development. 3. Definition of a registry of metric definitions to improve the equivalency of metric results across multiple implementations. 4. Publication of a rate measurement problem statement. 5. Publication of documents supporting the use of IPSec to protect OWAMP/TWAMP. 6. Publication of documents related to model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity metrics. Milestones: Jul 2013 - Submit draft on RFC 2680 standards-track advancement testing to IESG as Informational Dec 2013 - Submit draft on access rate measurement protocol problem statement to IESG as Informational Dec 2013 - Submit draft updating the IPPM Framework (2330-update) to IESG as Proposed Standard Dec 2013 - Submit draft on reference path for measurement location to IESG as Informational Dec 2013 - Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed Standard Mar 2014 - Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity metrics to IESG as Experimental
