draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-15.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-16.txt 
Network Working Group M. Bagnulo Network Working Group M. Bagnulo
Internet-Draft UC3M Internet-Draft UC3M
Intended status: Best Current Practice B. Claise Intended status: Best Current Practice B. Claise
Expires: January 1, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: April 25, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc.
P. Eardley P. Eardley
BT BT
A. Morton A. Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
A. Akhter A. Akhter
Consultant Consultant
June 30, 2018 October 22, 2018
Registry for Performance Metrics Registry for Performance Metrics
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-15 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-16
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics registry This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics registry
and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This document and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This document
also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric
requesters and reviewers. requesters and reviewers.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 January 1, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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 16 skipping to change at page 3, line 16
8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . 23 8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . 23
8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics 8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 24 8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 24
8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 26 8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 26
9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.1. New Namespace Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10.1. New Namespace Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and
applications transported over its protocols. Performance metrics are applications transported over its protocols. Performance metrics are
such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that
skipping to change at page 23, line 48 skipping to change at page 23, line 48
7.6. Comments and Remarks 7.6. Comments and Remarks
Besides providing additional details which do not appear in other Besides providing additional details which do not appear in other
categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen
issues to be addressed by simply updating this informational entry. issues to be addressed by simply updating this informational entry.
8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics 8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics
Once a Performance Metric or set of Performance Metrics has been Once a Performance Metric or set of Performance Metrics has been
identified for a given application, candidate Performance Metrics identified for a given application, candidate Performance Metrics
Registry entry specifications in accordance with Section 7 are Registry entry specifications prepared in accordance with Section 7
submitted to IANA to follow the process for review by the Performance should be submitted to IANA to follow the process for review by the
Metric Experts, as defined below. This process is also used for Performance Metric Experts, as defined below. This process is also
other changes to the Performance Metric Registry, such as deprecation used for other changes to the Performance Metric Registry, such as
or revision, as described later in this section. deprecation or revision, as described later in this section.
It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Performance It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Performance
Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working
group, or offer the opportunity for review on the WG mailing list. group, or offer the opportunity for review on the working group
mailing list.
8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry 8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry
Requests to change Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance Requests to add Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance
Metric Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to Metric Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to
a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed
by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review
RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The
Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as
compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable
Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently
defined set of Registered Performance Metrics. defined set of Registered Performance Metrics.
Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in
skipping to change at page 25, line 30 skipping to change at page 25, line 30
The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing
changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of
interoperability problems; Performance Metric Experts must work to interoperability problems; Performance Metric Experts must work to
maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to Registered maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to Registered
Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way; Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way;
necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow
interoperability with unchanged implementations must result in the interoperability with unchanged implementations must result in the
creation of a new Registered Performance Metric and possibly the creation of a new Registered Performance Metric and possibly the
deprecation of the earlier metric. deprecation of the earlier metric.
A change to a Registered Performance Metric is held to be backward- A change to a Registered Performance Metric SHALL be determined to be
compatible only when: backward-compatible only when:
1. "it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only 1. it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only
editorial; or" editorial; or
2. "it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's 2. it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's
definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent
the Registered Performance Metric's usage as originally defined; the Registered Performance Metric's usage as originally defined;
or" or
3. "it corrects missing information in the metric definition without 3. it corrects missing information in the metric definition without
changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity' changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity'
semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics
value); or" value); or
4. "it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself 4. it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself
corrected." corrected.
If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the
Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document, Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document,
IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry. The IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry. The
requester of the change is appended to the requester in the requester of the change is appended to the requester in the
Performance Metrics Registry. Performance Metrics Registry.
Each Registered Performance Metric in the Performance Metrics Each Registered Performance Metric in the Performance Metrics
Registry has a revision number, starting at zero. Each change to a Registry has a revision number, starting at zero. Each change to a
Registered Performance Metric following this process increments the Registered Performance Metric following this process increments the
skipping to change at page 26, line 24 skipping to change at page 26, line 24
recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the
registry for that Registered Performance Metric. registry for that Registered Performance Metric.
Where applicable, additions to Registered Performance Metrics in the Where applicable, additions to Registered Performance Metrics in the
form of text Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such form of text Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such
additions may not constitute a revision according to this process. additions may not constitute a revision according to this process.
Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the
registry for archival purposes. The older entries are kept with all registry for archival purposes. The older entries are kept with all
fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status
field that is changed to "Deprecated". field that SHALL be changed to "Deprecated".
8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics 8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics
Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered
Performance Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A Performance Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A
Registered Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when: Registered Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when:
1. "the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or 1. the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or
shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in Section 8.2
Section Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or" Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or
2. "the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was 2. the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was
itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation
method; or" method.
A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the
Performance Metric Expert for review. When deprecating an Performance Metric Experts for review. When deprecating an
Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the
Performance Metric Registry must be updated to explain the Performance Metric Registry must be updated to explain the
deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics
created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric. created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric.
The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented
upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any
revision. revision.
The use of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics should result in The use of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics should result in
a log entry or human-readable warning by the respective application. a log entry or human-readable warning by the respective application.
Names and Metric ID of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics must Names and Metric IDs of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics
not be reused. must not be reused.
The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified, except The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified, except
the version, revision date, and the status field (changed to the version, revision date, and the status field (changed to
"Deprecated"). "Deprecated").
9. Security considerations 9. Security considerations
This draft doesn't introduce any new security considerations for the This draft defines a registry structure, and does not itself
Internet. However, the definition of Performance Metrics may introduce any new security considerations for the Internet. The
introduce some security concerns, and should be reviewed with definition of Performance Metrics for this registry may introduce
security in mind. some security concerns, but the mandatory references should have
their own considerations for secuity, and such definitions should be
reviewed with security in mind if the security considerations are not
covered by one or more reference standards.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This document requests the following IANA Actions. This document requests the following IANA Actions.
10.1. New Namespace Assignments 10.1. New Namespace Assignments
This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix
urn:ietf:metrics for the purpose of generating URIs for metrics in urn:ietf:metrics for the purpose of generating URIs for metrics in
general. The registration procedure for the new "metrics" URN sub- general. The registration procedure for the new "metrics" URN sub-
skipping to change at page 31, line 24 skipping to change at page 31, line 29
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]
Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza, Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza,
"Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf- "Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf-
ippm-initial-registry-06 (work in progress), March 2018. ippm-initial-registry-07 (work in progress), June 2018.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679, Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>. September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681, Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>. September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 40 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/