draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-01.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-02.txt 
Network Working Group G. Almes Network Working Group G. Almes
Internet-Draft Texas A&M Internet-Draft Texas A&M
Obsoletes: 2679 (if approved) S. Kalidindi Obsoletes: 2679 (if approved) S. Kalidindi
Intended status: Standards Track Ixia Intended status: Standards Track Ixia
Expires: July 30, 2015 M. Zekauskas Expires: December 22, 2015 M. Zekauskas
Internet2 Internet2
A. Morton, Ed. A. Morton, Ed.
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
January 26, 2015 June 20, 2015
A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM
draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-01 draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-02
Abstract Abstract
This memo (RFC 2679 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of This memo (RFC 2679 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of
packets across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and packets across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and
discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is
assumed to be familiar with that document. assumed to be familiar with that document. This memo makes RFC 2679
obsolete.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 30, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 4 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
5.1. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.1. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Median . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.2. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Median . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.3. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Inverse-Percentile . . . . . . . . . 21 5.4. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Inverse-Percentile . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. RFC 2679 bis 1. RFC 2679 bis
The following text constitutes RFC 2769 bis proposed for advancement The following text constitutes RFC 2769 bis proposed for advancement
on the IETF Standards Track. This section tracks the changes from on the IETF Standards Track. This section tracks the changes from
[RFC2679]. [RFC2679].
[RFC6808] provides the test plan and results supporting [RFC2679] [RFC6808] provides the test plan and results supporting [RFC2679]
advancement along the standards track, according to the process in advancement along the standards track, according to the process in
[RFC6576]. The conclusions of [RFC6808] list four minor [RFC6576]. The conclusions of [RFC6808] list four minor
skipping to change at page 19, line 40 skipping to change at page 19, line 40
4.8. Reporting the metric: 4.8. Reporting the metric:
You MUST report the calibration and context for the underlying You MUST report the calibration and context for the underlying
singletons along with the stream. (See "Reporting the metric" for singletons along with the stream. (See "Reporting the metric" for
Type-P-One-way-Delay.) Type-P-One-way-Delay.)
5. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Delay 5. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Delay
Given the sample metric Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, we now Given the sample metric Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, we now
offer several statistics of that sample. These statistics are offer several statistics of that sample. These statistics are
offered mostly to be illustrative of what could be done. See offered mostly to illustrate what could be done. See [RFC6703] for
[RFC6703] for additional discussion of statistics that are relevant additional discussion of statistics that are relevant to different
to different audiences. audiences.
5.1. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile 5.1. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile
Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream and a percent X between Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream and a percent X between
0% and 100%, the Xth percentile of all the dT values in the Stream. 0% and 100%, the Xth percentile of all the dT values in the Stream.
In computing this percentile, undefined values are treated as In computing this percentile, undefined values are treated as
infinitely large. Note that this means that the percentile could infinitely large. Note that this means that the percentile could
thus be undefined (informally, infinite). In addition, the Type-P- thus be undefined (informally, infinite). In addition, the Type-P-
One-way-Delay-Percentile is undefined if the sample is empty. One-way-Delay-Percentile is undefined if the sample is empty.
skipping to change at page 22, line 47 skipping to change at page 22, line 47
Elkins, and Barry Constantine for sharing their measurement Elkins, and Barry Constantine for sharing their measurement
experience as part of their careful reviews. experience as part of their careful reviews.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
1981. 1981.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
1998. 1998.
[RFC2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring [RFC2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999. Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.
skipping to change at page 23, line 30 skipping to change at page 23, line 26
37, RFC 2780, March 2000. 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002. November 2002.
[RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP [RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing", Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing",
BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012. BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012.
[RFC6703] Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting
IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View",
RFC 6703, August 2012.
[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
August 2014. August 2014.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, [RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
November 2006. November 2006.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
October 2011. October 2011.
[RFC6703] Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting
IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View",
RFC 6703, August 2012.
[RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test [RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test
Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the
Standards Track", RFC 6808, December 2012. Standards Track", RFC 6808, December 2012.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Guy Almes Guy Almes
Texas A&M Texas A&M
Email: almes@acm.org Email: almes@acm.org
Sunil Kalidindi Sunil Kalidindi
Ixia Ixia
Email: skalidindi@ixiacom.com Email: skalidindi@ixiacom.com
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
18 lines changed or deleted 14 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/