--- 1/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04.txt 2015-12-24 07:15:23.106902514 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05.txt 2015-12-24 07:15:23.142903400 -0800 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ Network Working Group A. Morton Internet-Draft AT&T Labs -Intended status: Informational December 10, 2015 -Expires: June 12, 2016 +Intended status: Informational December 24, 2015 +Expires: June 26, 2016 Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (and everything in-between, or Hybrid) - draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04 + draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05 Abstract This memo provides clear definitions for Active and Passive performance assessment. The construction of Metrics and Methods can be described as Active or Passive. Some methods may use a subset of both active and passive attributes, and we refer to these as Hybrid Methods. This memo also describes multiple dimensions to help evaluate new methods as they emerge. @@ -25,21 +25,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 26, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -402,23 +402,23 @@ completely Known known We recognize that method categorization could be based on additional dimensions, but this would require a different graphical approach. For example, "effect of stream of interest on network conditions" could easily be further qualified into: 1. effect on the performance of the stream of interest itself: for - example, choosing a packet marking or DSCP resulting in domain - treatment as a real-time stream (as opposed to default/best- - effort marking. + example, choosing a packet marking or Differentiated Services + Code Point (DSCP) resulting in domain treatment as a real-time + stream (as opposed to default/best-effort marking). 2. effect on unmeasured streams that share the path and/or bottlenecks: for example, an extremely sparse measured stream of minimal size packets typically has little effect on other flows (and itself), while a stream designed to characterize path capacity may affect all other flows passing through the capacity bottleneck (including itself). 3. effect on network conditions resulting in network adaptation: for example, a network monitoring load and congestion conditions @@ -482,23 +482,22 @@ o The method intends to have a small effect on the measured stream and other streams in the network (smaller than PDM above). There are conditions where this intent may not be realized. o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is processed to add the coloring in the header, and the stream could be measured and time-stamped during that process. We note that [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] proposes - a method similar to [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], and ippm-list discussion - indicates [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] may be - covered by the same IPR as [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m]. + a method similar to [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], as ippm-list discussion + revealed. We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one characteristic of both active and passive methods for a single stream of interest. 4.4. Brief Discussion of OAM Methods Many Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) methods exist beyond the IP-layer. For example, [Y.1731] defines several different measurement methods which we would classify as follows: @@ -516,28 +515,28 @@ methods both inject dedicated measurement frames, so the "stream of interest is generated as the basis of measurement". We conclude that SLM and DM methods are Active Methods. We also recognize the existence of alternate terminology used in OAM at layers other than IP. Readers are encouraged to consult [RFC6374] for MPLS Loss and Delay measurement terminology, for example. 5. Security considerations - When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those - whose traffic is measured, there is sensitive information - communicated and observed at observation and measurement points - described above. We refer the reader to the privacy considerations - described in the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance - (LMAP) Framework [RFC7594], which covers active and passive - measurement techniques and supporting material on measurement - context. + When considering security and privacy of those involved in + measurement or those whose traffic is measured, there is sensitive + information communicated and observed at observation and measurement + points described above, and protocol issues to consider. We refer + the reader to the security and privacy considerations described in + the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework + [RFC7594], which covers active and passive measurement techniques and + supporting material on measurement context. 6. IANA Considerations This memo makes no requests for IANA consideration. 7. Acknowledgements Thanks to Mike Ackermann for asking the right question, and for several suggestions on terminology. Brian Trammell provided key terms and references for the passive category, and suggested ways to @@ -602,25 +601,25 @@ . 8.2. Informative References [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, . [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep] - Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V. - Hegde, "Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework: - Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets", draft- - morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-01 (work in progress), - October 2015. + Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., mackermann@bcbsm.com, + m., and V. Hegde, "IP Options and IPv6 Updates for IPPM's + Active Metric Framework: Packets of Type-P and Standard- + Formed Packets", draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-02 + (work in progress), December 2015. [I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option] Elkins, N. and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", draft-ietf- ippm-6man-pdm-option-01 (work in progress), October 2015. [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m] Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., and A. Bonda, "A packet based method for passive performance monitoring", draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04 (work in