Re: Open Standards vs IOPS etc
There are currently several different organizations working on various measurement and performance 'standards' for the Internet and IP-related networks. IETF has created a couple of working groups working on benchmarking and metrics. IOPS says they plan to be a point of contact for developing various industry-wide technical procedures. ATIS/T1 (an ANSI standards organization) is developing two vital Internet performance standards and three technical reports. ANX, The Automotive Network Exchange, has documented several requirements including metrics for service quality. Bellcore has some Internet related work in their new GR standards. And, of course while it doesn't develop anything formal, NANOG has occasional presentations from various other industry organizations. Most of the above have said in their press releases they are working with other standards bodies, but it isn't very clear how much inter- organizational communications actual occurs. And I suspect there are a few more I don't know about. It would be nice if this work could be consolidated into one place. I, for one, don't have the time or the money to even attempt active involvement in half these groups.
Since you suggest IOPS as a body to track this issue, what do people think about IOPS as a pseudo-standards group. This also came up at the December IETF when Curtis suggested that draft-berkowitz-multirqmt document would not be necessary since IOPS had a draft on the same subject. The IDR WG seemed very sceptical of having a small closed body fill that role. How do people see IOPS meshing with NANOG and the operational side of IETF?
I have a little bit of a problem when people refer to IOPS as a "standards organization." A "standards" body needs to be open.
Is IOPS an open group? No.
Can anyone in the Internet community participate? No, they have to be a member of the collective, and pay a membership fee ranging from between US$9500 to US$25000.
IOPS is free to define all of the operations guides that they desire, but it can't really be referred to as a "standards organization" since it is a private club. :-/ -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
At 6:34 -0500 1/18/98, Sean Donelan wrote:
There are currently several different organizations working on various measurement and performance 'standards' for the Internet and IP-related networks.
IETF has created a couple of working groups working on benchmarking and metrics.
IOPS says they plan to be a point of contact for developing various industry-wide technical procedures.
ATIS/T1 (an ANSI standards organization) is developing two vital Internet performance standards and three technical reports.
Actually, a fair bit was done in ANSI already. I was a member of a different ANSI committee, X3, had a digital communications performance working group, X3S35, which produced two standards, X3.102 User-oriented data communications performance parameters X3.141 Measurement methods for the above (basically statistical techniques) The architecture in these standards was the basis of CCITT X.140, and the CCITT X.130-139 parameter family for circuit-switched and packet-switched performance. In turn, these fed into the ANSI T1 committee cited by Sean; the focus of this committee was telecommunications rather than data network. Most of these working groups, and a late 1970s effort on the Federal Telecommunications Standards Committee (FED-STD-1033) that preceded them, were chaired by Neal Seitz of the NTIA.
ANX, The Automotive Network Exchange, has documented several requirements including metrics for service quality.
Bellcore has some Internet related work in their new GR standards.
And, of course while it doesn't develop anything formal, NANOG has occasional presentations from various other industry organizations.
Most of the above have said in their press releases they are working with other standards bodies, but it isn't very clear how much inter- organizational communications actual occurs.
And I suspect there are a few more I don't know about. It would be nice if this work could be consolidated into one place. I, for one, don't have the time or the money to even attempt active involvement in half these groups.
Since you suggest IOPS as a body to track this issue, what do people think about IOPS as a pseudo-standards group. This also came up at the December IETF when Curtis suggested that draft-berkowitz-multirqmt document would not be necessary since IOPS had a draft on the same subject. The IDR WG seemed very sceptical of having a small closed body fill that role. How do people see IOPS meshing with NANOG and the operational side of IETF?
I have a little bit of a problem when people refer to IOPS as a "standards organization." A "standards" body needs to be open.
Is IOPS an open group? No.
Can anyone in the Internet community participate? No, they have to be a member of the collective, and pay a membership fee ranging from between US$9500 to US$25000.
IOPS is free to define all of the operations guides that they desire, but it can't really be referred to as a "standards organization" since it is a private club. :-/ -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
participants (2)
-
Howard C. Berkowitz -
Sean Donelan