[00:22:19] Joseph joins the room [00:23:15] Henk Uijterwaal joins the room [00:34:23] Joseph has set the subject to: IPPM Working Group [00:37:47] YJS joins the room [00:44:52] gforget joins the room [01:00:47] barry.constantine joins the room [01:00:51] Morning all, we are about to start, not sure if I have a jabber scribe [01:01:20] I'll be monitoring the jabber, if you are on the audio stream and have a question, please type it and I'll relay it to the speaker [01:01:45] Thanks Henk [01:02:00] Hi Henk - I would appreciate if someone could jabber as I can not attend (I am in PWE3) [01:03:22] scott.mansfield joins the room [01:03:52] scott.mansfield leaves the room [01:04:27] Audio appears to be working for the chairs [01:04:40] glen joins the room [01:04:42] I can hear things ok [01:04:49] glen leaves the room [01:09:46] swany joins the room [01:13:23] reporting draft is close. need to add one reference and verify that we have harmonized the reordering definition [01:13:36] finished discussing the things we won't discuss today [01:14:10] @henk: I can monitor since I finally got here [01:14:15] Just an FYI, the audio stream is working well [01:14:24] That would be great Martin [01:14:47] which presentation is being discussed ? [01:15:08] We're now moving to item #2, the metrics advancement drafts [01:15:32] Al is going to discuss draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-02 [01:17:12] Can not hear Al, is his mic on? [01:17:21] it is [01:17:33] you could hear the questions from the floor? [01:17:35] I can hear him fine [01:17:44] on the audio stream [01:18:02] ok, I'm boosting the volume that seemed to help. Henk was notably louder [01:18:26] I didn't notice any floor questions before [01:18:56] (maybe for the same reason) - but with the boosted audio, it's seems ok [01:19:03] (not questions, but comments from Al from the floor. Al is using a clip on now) [01:20:01] Stewart Bryant joins the room [01:24:13] gforget leaves the room [01:25:20] gforget joins the room [01:29:07] new slides, talking about draft-morton-ippm-advance-metrics-02 (I don't think he said that) [01:32:15] Matt Zekauskas joins the room [01:41:38] Henk Uijterwaal leaves the room [01:41:39] Henk Uijterwaal joins the room [01:43:58] 5136 [01:47:05] DAve asking a question using the audience mike, can you hear him? [01:48:14] It's soft [01:50:24] henk's mic is much louder than the other two. I'm next to the board but I can't read the labels... [01:52:16] experimentation may be dangerous [01:52:34] Matt Zekauskas is not listening, am on a plane [01:52:54] Yeah the mixer levels need adjusting, but it's OK - I would not mess with it now. The noise level is very low, which helps a lot. [01:53:03] good [01:53:21] Matt Zekauskas will be listening to the recording, assuming it works [01:53:54] Joseph would try recording the stream, but can't find the stereo mix option in ALSA [01:54:36] heh [01:54:51] Joel does a pretty good job, normally [01:55:00] What slisw number is Al on now? [01:55:07] slide number? [01:55:19] 4 [01:55:45] OK, now I see he is on 5 [01:55:47] thanks [01:58:00] Al, does Y.1540 specify how to measure IP-Layer capacity? [01:58:09] Sorry, missed him! [01:58:12] I have some questions but I'll save them for the list [01:59:59] slide 4 [02:00:12] Yeah, I'll catch up with Al the same way and send him an email [02:01:32] jgunn joins the room [02:02:00] no [02:05:19] I am thinking this draft proposal is directly applicable to Al's ITU work with Y.1540. Are others thinking the same? [02:05:38] So I think there is some confusion on link capacity. on slide 5. [02:05:47] but I'm saving my comments till the end [02:05:56] Got it [02:06:02] I was thinking that the definition of link should be flexible enough to include the router capacity or not [02:06:06] depends on the scope of the link [02:06:18] which is related to what Al was saying, IMO [02:06:22] That's how we defined it in 5136 [02:06:46] Link capacity includes router limitations [02:06:51] Problem with including the router capacity is that it then becomes difficult to separate bandwidth issues from congestion [02:07:59] capacity and available capacity are both conceivably interesting [02:08:04] barry.constantine: I'm not sure I follow.... congestion is more at something like TCP's level [02:08:29] capacity - utilization = available capacity [02:09:00] congestion is in the eye of the beholder [02:09:10] well said [02:09:25] swany: exactly [02:11:13] Matt Zekauskas leaves the room [02:11:43] can you hear dave? [02:11:52] gforget leaves the room [02:12:11] I'm having a hard time seeing the actual 5136 definitions applied to the diagram, or in other words, I don't think it's being applied correctly in slide 11 [02:12:37] @henk, can you relay that comment or should I? [02:13:42] On slide 5, Link Capacity would not be 0 [02:14:11] On slide 6: We specifically wanted to avoid a definition such as this [02:14:48] right, he highlights "can" but seemed to be arguing that since no packets "were" being transmitted, the measurement of it would be 0 [02:14:52] as it does not capture the *numerous* number of factors that can affect the link capacity [02:15:32] pfc joins the room [02:15:34] swany: right... [02:15:42] A link receiving "0" would have more to do with availability, right? [02:16:30] or just lack of demand? (if passive, or no measurements ongoing for active...) [02:16:34] utilization is the term we used [02:17:23] thing is that 5136 divorces itself of how to measure these values. [02:18:27] the original plan was to define first what the quantities were, then take up how to measure them. But the latter was deferred. [02:20:46] Al is correct [02:20:49] yep [02:22:24] wesley.m.eddy joins the room [02:22:26] I think Al is summing things up very nicely [02:22:43] his last point raises my issue with slide 6 [02:24:13] Joseph wonders what slide is he talking to [02:24:24] still on 11 [02:24:31] no 12 [02:25:01] I agree, but I do think that one could imagine that even the static "capacity" notion could be parameterized [02:25:22] that is I'm not sure that I completely agree that router capacity is purely empirical [02:26:28] MIC: I agree with Al [02:26:52] Matt Zekauskas joins the room [02:26:53] well link capacity isn't 100% static, it has the same time parameters as the other metrics [02:27:09] I can't get the audio, so I can't quite follow. [02:27:46] Al is saying that there seem to be discrepancies in the speaker's interpretation. [02:27:55] But I agree with Joseph, all these parameters are functions of time. That is what the flaw is with slides 11 and 12. [02:28:14] first need clear statement of perceived problems in the draft. work on it on the list [02:29:09] (well that's just be trying to summarize for pfc, but I do agree with it as well.) [02:29:16] Yes, and input from the list and working group on if they agree with those issues and /then/ how it should be handled [02:30:17] There was already quite a bit of preliminary discussion on the list. [02:31:36] I think Henk's slides are broken [02:31:36] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/ippm-1.pdf [02:32:37] Matt Zekauskas agrees (can't open, downloaded abt 1.5 hrs ago) [02:33:03] it's not a PDF but a zip file of something ppt-ish [02:33:09] I'm suprised they are pdf, bet it's ppt [02:33:39] henk never does pdf, at least to date [02:33:45] ppt works [02:33:47] ah, ok, mv pdf to ppt [02:34:40] Open Office users would need to change the extension to pptx [02:34:53] at least mine complained with ppt [02:35:16] ippm-11 [02:35:43] ?? wasn't there an hour ago [02:35:51] al or emile? [02:36:29] emile [02:36:33] k [02:37:10] will download, but really, I think I have it in email [03:06:35] wesley.m.eddy leaves the room [03:11:03] barry.constantine leaves the room [03:15:45] Do we need this for each metric, or is a general template enough? [03:16:24] I would say that there could be some sharing, but metrics, broadly considered, have different parameters [03:17:01] But each metric definition should say what the proper collateral information is....shouldn't they? [03:17:31] our model is to define a metric (hierarchical name) and then define the parameters for that metric in that namespace (in XML) [03:17:40] yes, agree [03:24:27] Joseph wonders how many folks are in the room? [03:24:38] oops, but forward and reverse paths may not be the same.... [03:25:32] ~25 now, but some have come and gone [03:25:39] Stewart Bryant leaves the room [03:26:40] About 20 to 25, Joseph [03:29:46] swany leaves the room [03:29:54] pfc leaves the room [03:34:05] Joseph leaves the room [03:35:04] YJS leaves the room [03:37:15] Henk Uijterwaal leaves the room [03:38:44] Matt Zekauskas leaves the room [03:52:03] swany joins the room [04:29:53] Henk Uijterwaal joins the room [04:46:21] Henk Uijterwaal leaves the room [04:52:03] swany leaves the room [04:58:18] swany joins the room [05:04:58] Stewart Bryant joins the room [05:08:20] swany leaves the room [05:17:51] Matt Zekauskas joins the room [05:42:15] Matt Zekauskas leaves the room [06:56:06] Stewart Bryant leaves the room [07:19:28] Stewart Bryant joins the room [07:23:19] Stewart Bryant leaves the room [07:56:29] Stewart Bryant joins the room [08:12:43] Stewart Bryant leaves the room [13:34:18] jgunn leaves the room [16:20:00] Matt Zekauskas joins the room [16:31:56] Matt Zekauskas leaves the room [23:45:37] Stewart Bryant joins the room