<- RFC Index (7701..7800)
RFC 7799
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Morton
Request for Comments: 7799 AT&T Labs
Category: Informational May 2016
ISSN: 2070-1721
Active and Passive Metrics and Methods
(with Hybrid Types In-Between)
Abstract
This memo provides clear definitions for Active and Passive
performance assessment. The construction of Metrics and Methods can
be described as either "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.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Morton Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
2. Purpose and Scope ...............................................3
3. Terms and Definitions ...........................................3
3.1. Performance Metric .........................................3
3.2. Method of Measurement ......................................4
3.3. Observation Point ..........................................4
3.4. Active Methods .............................................4
3.5. Active Metric ..............................................5
3.6. Passive Methods ............................................5
3.7. Passive Metric .............................................6
3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics .................................6
4. Discussion ......................................................8
4.1. Graphical Representation ...................................8
4.2. Discussion of PDM .........................................10
4.3. Discussion of "Coloring" Method ...........................11
4.4. Brief Discussion of OAM Methods ...........................11
5. Security Considerations ........................................12
6. References .....................................................12
6.1. Normative References ......................................12
6.2. Informative References ....................................13
Acknowledgements ..................................................14
Author's Address ..................................................14
1. Introduction
The adjectives "Active" and "Passive" have been used for many years
to distinguish between two different classes of Internet performance
assessment. The first Passive and Active Measurement (PAM)
Conference was held in 2000, but the earliest proceedings available
online are from the second PAM conference in 2001
<https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/pam-2001>.
The notions of "Active" and "Passive" are well-established. In
general:
o An Active Metric or Method depends on a dedicated measurement
packet stream and observations of the stream.
o A Passive Metric or Method depends *solely* on observation of one
or more existing packet streams. The streams only serve
measurement when they are observed for that purpose, and are
present whether or not measurements take place.
Morton Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
As new techniques for assessment emerge, it is helpful to have clear
definitions of these notions. This memo provides more-detailed
definitions, defines a new category for combinations of traditional
Active and Passive techniques, and discusses dimensions to evaluate
new techniques as they emerge.
This memo provides definitions for Active and Passive Metrics and
Methods based on long usage in the Internet measurement community,
and especially the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). This memo
also describes the combination of fundamental Active and Passive
categories that are called Hybrid Methods and Metrics.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Purpose and Scope
The scope of this memo is to define and describe Active and Passive
versions of metrics and methods that are consistent with the long-
time usage of these adjectives in the Internet measurement community
and especially the IETF. Since the science of measurement is
expanding, we provide a category for combinations of the traditional
extremes, treating Active and Passive as a continuum and designating
combinations of their attributes as Hybrid Methods.
Further, this memo's purpose includes describing multiple dimensions
to evaluate new methods as they emerge.
3. Terms and Definitions
This section defines the key terms of the memo. Some definitions use
the notion of "stream of interest", which is synonymous with
"population of interest" defined in clause 6.1.1 of ITU-T
Recommendation Y.1540 [Y.1540]. These definitions will be useful for
any work in progress, such as [PASSIVE] (with which there is already
good consistency).
3.1. Performance Metric
The standard definition of a quantity, produced in an assessment of
performance and/or reliability of the network, which has an intended
utility and is carefully specified to convey the exact meaning of a
measured value. (This definition is consistent with that of
Performance Metric in [RFC2330] and [RFC6390]).
Morton Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
3.2. Method of Measurement
The procedure or set of operations having the object of determining a
Measured Value or Measurement Result.
3.3. Observation Point
See Section 2 of [RFC7011] for the definition of Observation Point (a
location in the network where packets can be observed), and related
definitions. The comparable term defined in IETF literature on
Active measurement is "Measurement Point" (see Section 4.1 of
[RFC5835]). Both of these terms have come into use describing
similar actions at the identified point in the network path.
3.4. Active Methods
Active Methods of Measurement have the following attributes:
o Active Methods generate packet streams. Commonly, the packet
stream of interest is generated as the basis of measurement.
Sometimes, the adjective "synthetic" is used to categorize Active
measurement streams [Y.1731]. An accompanying packet stream or
streams may be generated to increase overall traffic load, though
the loading stream(s) may not be measured.
o The packets in the stream of interest have fields or field values
(or are augmented or modified to include fields or field values)
that are dedicated to measurement. Since measurement usually
requires determining the corresponding packets at multiple
measurement points, a sequence number is the most common
information dedicated to measurement, and it is often combined
with a timestamp.
o The Source and Destination of the packet stream of interest are
usually known a priori.
o The characteristics of the packet stream of interest are known at
the Source (at least), and may be communicated to the Destination
as part of the method. Note that some packet characteristics will
normally change during packet forwarding. Other changes along the
path are possible, see [STDFORM].
When adding traffic to the network for measurement, Active Methods
influence the quantities measured to some degree, and those
performing tests should take steps to quantify the effect(s) and/or
minimize such effects.
Morton Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
3.5. Active Metric
An Active Metric incorporates one or more of the aspects of Active
Methods in the metric definition.
For example, IETF metrics for IP performance (developed according to
the framework described in [RFC2330]) include the Source-packet
stream characteristics as metric-input parameters, and also specify
the packet characteristics (Type-P) and Source and Destination IP
addresses (with their implications on both stream treatment and
interfaces associated with measurement points).
3.6. Passive Methods
Passive Methods of Measurement are:
o based solely on observations of an undisturbed and unmodified
packet stream of interest (in other words, the method of
measurement MUST NOT add, change, or remove packets or fields or
change field values anywhere along the path).
o dependent on the existence of one or more packet streams to supply
the stream of interest.
o dependent on the presence of the packet stream of interest at one
or more designated Observation Points.
Some Passive Methods simply observe and collect information on all
packets that pass Observation Point(s), while others filter the
packets as a first step and only collect information on packets that
match the filter criteria, and thereby narrow the stream of interest.
It is common that Passive Methods are conducted at one or more
Observation Points. Passive Methods to assess Performance Metrics
often require multiple Observation Points, e.g., to assess the
latency of packet transfer across a network path between two
Observation Points. In this case, the observed packets must include
enough information to determine the corresponding packets at
different Observation Points.
Communication of the observations (in some form) to a collector is an
essential aspect of Passive Methods. In some configurations, the
traffic load generated when communicating (or exporting) the Passive
Method results to a collector may itself influence the measured
network's performance. However, the collection of results is not
unique to Passive Methods, and the load from management and
operations of measurement systems must always be considered for
potential effects on the measured values.
Morton Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
3.7. Passive Metric
Passive Metrics apply to observations of packet traffic (traffic
flows in [RFC7011]).
Passive performance metrics are assessed independently of the packets
or traffic flows, and solely through observation. Some refer to such
assessments as "out of band".
One example of Passive Performance Metrics for IP packet transfer can
be found in ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 [Y.1540], where the metrics
are defined on the basis of reference events generated as packets
pass reference points. The metrics are agnostic to the distinction
between Active and Passive when the necessary packet correspondence
can be derived from the observed stream of interest as required.
3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics
Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination of
Active Methods and Passive Methods, to assess Active Metrics, Passive
Metrics, or new metrics derived from the a priori knowledge and
observations of the stream of interest. ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540
[Y.1540] defines metrics that are also applicable to the hybrid
categories, since packet correspondence at different observation/
reference points could be derived from "fields or field values which
are dedicated to measurement", but otherwise the methods are Passive.
There are several types of Hybrid Methods, as categorized below.
With respect to a *single* stream of interest, Hybrid Type I methods
fit in the continuum as follows, in terms of what happens at the
Source (or Observation Point nearby):
o Generation of the stream of interest => Active
o Augmentation or modification of the stream of interest, or
employment of methods that modify the treatment of the stream =>
Hybrid Type I
o Observation of a stream of interest => Passive
As an example, consider the case where the method generates traffic
load stream(s), and observes an existing stream of interest according
to the criteria for Passive Methods. Since loading streams are an
aspect of Active Methods, the stream of interest is not "solely
observed", and the measurements involve a single stream of interest
whose treatment has been modified by the presence of the load.
Therefore, this is a Hybrid Type I method.
Morton Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
We define Hybrid Type II as follows: Methods that employ two or more
different streams of interest with some degree of mutual coordination
(e.g., one or more Active streams and one or more undisturbed and
unmodified packet streams) to collect both Active and Passive Metrics
and enable enhanced characterization from additional joint analysis.
[HYBRID] presents a problem statement for Hybrid Type II Methods and
Metrics. Note that one or more Hybrid Type I streams could be
substituted for the Active streams or undisturbed streams in the
mutually coordinated set. It is the Type II Methods where unique
Hybrid Metrics are anticipated to emerge.
Methods based on a combination of a single (generated) Active stream
and Passive observations applied to the stream of interest at
intermediate Observation Points are also Hybrid Methods. However,
[RFC5644] already defines these as Spatial Metrics and Methods. It
is possible to replace the Active stream of [RFC5644] with a Hybrid
Type I stream and measure Spatial Metrics (but this was unanticipated
when [RFC5644] was developed).
The table below illustrates the categorization of methods (where
"Synthesis" refers to a combination of Active and Passive Method
attributes).
| Single Stream | Multiple Simultaneous
| of Interest | Streams of Interest
| | from Different Methods
====================================================================
Single Fundamental | Active or Passive |
Method | |
Synthesis of | Hybrid Type I |
Fundamental Methods | |
Multiple Methods | Spatial Metrics | Hybrid Type II
| [RFC5644] |
There may be circumstances where results measured with Hybrid Methods
can be considered equivalent to those measured with Passive Methods.
This notion references the possibility of a "class C" where packets
of different Type-P are treated equally in network implementation, as
described in Section 13 of [RFC2330] and using the terminology for
paths from Section 5 of [RFC2330]:
Hybrid Methods of measurement that augment or modify packets of a
"class C" in a host should produce results equivalent to Passive
Methods of Measurement when hosts accessing and links transporting
these packets along the path (other than those performing
augmentation/modification) treat packets from both categories of
Morton Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
methods (with and without the augmentation/modification) as the
same "class C". The Passive Methods of Measurement represent the
Ground Truth when comparing results between Passive and Hybrid
Methods, and this comparison should be conducted to confirm the
"class C" treatment.
4. Discussion
This section illustrates the definitions and presents some examples.
4.1. Graphical Representation
If we compare the Active and Passive Methods, there are at least two
dimensions on which methods can be evaluated. This evaluation space
may be useful when a method is a combination of the two alternative
methods.
The two dimensions (initially chosen) are:
Y-Axis: "Effect of the measured stream on network conditions". The
degree to which the stream of interest biases overall network
conditions experienced by that stream and other streams. This is
a key dimension for Active measurement error analysis. (Comment:
There is also the notion of time averages -- a measurement stream
may have significant effect while it is present, but the stream is
only generated 0.1% of the time. On the other hand, observations
alone have no effect on network performance. To keep these
dimensions simple, we consider the stream effect only when it is
present, but note that reactive networks defined in [RFC7312] may
exhibit bias for some time beyond the life of a stream.)
X-Axis: "a priori Stream Knowledge". The degree to which stream
characteristics are known a priori. There are methodological
advantages of knowing the source stream characteristics, and
having complete control of the stream characteristics. For
example, knowing the number of packets in a stream allows more-
efficient operation of the measurement receiver, and so is an
asset for Active Methods of Measurement. Passive Methods (with no
sample filter) have few clues available to anticipate what
protocol the first packet observed will use or how many packets
will comprise the flow; once the standard protocol of a flow is
known, the possibilities narrow (for some compliant flows).
Therefore, this is a key dimension for Passive measurement error
analysis.
There are a few examples we can plot on a two-dimensional space. We
can anchor the dimensions with reference point descriptions.
Morton Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
Y-Axis:Effect of the measured stream on network conditions
^ Max
|* Active using max capacity stream
|
|
|
|
|* Active using stream with load of typical user
|
|
|
|* Active using extremely sparse, randomized stream
| * PDM Passive
| Min *
+----------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
Stream X-Axis: a priori Stream Knowledge No Stream
Characteristics Characteristics
Completely Known
Known
(In the graph above, "PDM" refers to [PDMOPTION], an IPv6 Option
Header for Performance and Diagnostic Measurements, described in
Section 4.2.)
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 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
might change routing, placing some flows on alternate paths to
mitigate the congestion.
Morton Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
We have combined 1 and 2 on the Y-axis, as examination of examples
indicates strong correlation of the effects in this pair, and network
adaptation is not addressed.
It is apparent that different methods of IP network measurement can
produce different results, even when measuring the same path at the
same time. The two dimensions of the graph help us to understand how
the results might change with the method chosen. For example, an
Active Method to assess throughput adds some amount of traffic to the
network, which might result in lower throughput for all streams.
However, a Passive Method to assess throughput can also err on the
low side due to unknown limitations of the hosts providing traffic,
competition for host resources, limitations of the network interface,
or private sub-networks that are not an intentional part of the path,
etc. Hybrid Methods could easily suffer from both forms of error.
Another example of potential errors stems from the pitfalls of using
an Active stream with known a bias, such as a periodic stream defined
in [RFC3432]. The strength of modeling periodic streams (like Voice
over IP (VoIP)) is a potential weakness when extending the measured
results to other application whose streams are non-periodic. The
solutions are to model the application streams more exactly with an
Active Method or to accept the risks and potential errors with the
Passive Method discussed above.
4.2. Discussion of PDM
In [PDMOPTION], an IPv6 Option Header for Performance and Diagnostic
Measurements (PDM) is described which, when added to the stream of
interest at strategic interfaces, supports performance measurements.
This method processes a user traffic stream and adds "fields which
are dedicated to measurement" (the measurement intent is made clear
in the title of this option). Thus:
o The method intends to have a minor effect on the measured stream
and other streams in the network. There are conditions where this
intent may not be realized.
o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is
processed to add the PDM Option header. Note that if the packet
MTU is exceeded after adding the header, the intent to have a
minor effect will not be realized.
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.
Morton Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
4.3. Discussion of "Coloring" Method
[OPSAWG], proposed to color packets by re-writing a field of the
stream at strategic interfaces to support performance measurements
(noting that this is a difficult operation at an intermediate point
on an encrypted Virtual Private Network). This method processes a
user traffic stream and inserts "fields or values which are dedicated
to measurement". Thus:
o The method intends to have a minor effect on the measured stream
and other streams in the network (less 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 [COLORING] proposes a method similar to [OPSAWG], as
discussion on the IPPM mailing list 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 that we would classify as follows:
o Loss Measurement (LM) occasionally injects frames with a count of
previous frames since the last LM message. We conclude LM is
Hybrid Type I, because this method processes a user traffic stream
and augments the stream of interest with frames having "fields
which are dedicated to measurement".
o Synthetic Loss Measurement (SLM) and Delay Measurement (DM)
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.
Morton Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
5. Security Considerations
When considering the 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. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>.
[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>.
[RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for
Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April
2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5835>.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.
Morton Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
6.2. Informative References
[COLORING]
Chen, M., Ed., Zheng, L., Ed., Mirsky, G., Ed., Fioccola,
G., Ed., and T. Mizrahi, Ed., "IP Flow Performance
Measurement Framework", Work in Progress, draft-chen-ippm-
coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-06, March 2016.
[HYBRID] Trammell, B., Zheng, L., Berenguer, S., and M. Bagnulo,
"Hybrid Measurement using IPPM Metrics", Work in Progress,
draft-trammell-ippm-hybrid-ps-01, February 2014.
[OPSAWG] Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., and A. Bonda,
"A packet based method for passive performance
monitoring", Work in Progress, draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04,
February 2014.
[PASSIVE] Zheng, L., Elkins, N., Lingli, D., Ackermann, M., and G.
Mirsky, "Framework for IP Passive Performance
Measurements", Work in Progress, draft-zheng-ippm-
framework-passive-03, February 2015.
[PDMOPTION]
Elkins, N. and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and
Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-02, April 2016.
Morton Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7799 Active, Passive and Hybrid May 2016
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[STDFORM] 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", Work in
Progress, draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-02,
December 2015.
[Y.1540] ITU-T, "Internet protocol data communication service - IP
packet transfer and availability performance parameters",
March 2011,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1540-201103-I/en>.
[Y.1731] ITU-T, "Operation, administration and management (OAM)
functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks",
August 2015,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8013-201508-I/en>.
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
expand the Hybrid description and types. Phil Eardley suggested some
hybrid scenarios for categorization as part of his review. Tiziano
Ionta reviewed the document and suggested the classification for the
"coloring" Method of Measurement. Nalini Elkins identified several
areas for clarification following her review. Bill Jouris, Stenio
Fernandes, and Spencer Dawkins suggested several editorial
improvements. Tal Mizrahi, Joachim Fabini, Greg Mirsky, and Mike
Ackermann raised many key considerations in their Working Group Last
Call (WGLC) reviews, based on their broad measurement experience.
Author's Address
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown, NJ
United States
Email: acmorton@att.com
Morton Informational [Page 14]