draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-16.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17.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: April 25, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: June 10, 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
October 22, 2018 December 7, 2018
Registry for Performance Metrics Registry for Performance Metrics
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-16 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17
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 April 25, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 10, 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 5, line 20 skipping to change at page 5, line 20
all the registry review criteria defined in this document in order all the registry review criteria defined in this document in order
to included in the registry. to included in the registry.
Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing
Registered Performance Metrics. Registered Performance Metrics.
Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a
proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry. proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry.
Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a
group of designated experts [RFC5226] selected by the IESG to group of designated experts [RFC8126] selected by the IESG to
validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance
Metrics Registry. The Performance Metrics Experts work closely Metrics Registry. The Performance Metrics Experts work closely
with IANA. with IANA.
Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition
of a Performance Metric. A numerical or other specified factor of a Performance Metric. A numerical or other specified factor
forming one of a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions forming one of a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions
of its operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a of its operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a
metric and interpret the results. There are two types of metric and interpret the results. There are two types of
Parameters, Fixed and Run-time parameters. For the Fixed Parameters, Fixed and Run-time parameters. For the Fixed
skipping to change at page 7, line 21 skipping to change at page 7, line 21
set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design
was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of
guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate
Registered Performance Metrics. Registered Performance Metrics.
This document makes no attempt to populate the Performance Metrics This document makes no attempt to populate the Performance Metrics
Registry with initial entries. It does provides a few examples that Registry with initial entries. It does provides a few examples that
are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry
at this point in time. at this point in time.
Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best Based on [RFC8126] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best
Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026]. Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026].
4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry 4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry
In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance
Metric Registry. Metric Registry.
4.1. Interoperability 4.1. Interoperability
As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a
skipping to change at page 24, line 18 skipping to change at page 24, line 18
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 working group group, or offer the opportunity for review on the working group
mailing list. 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 add 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 [RFC8126]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
this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA. this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA.
The Performance Metric Experts should endeavor to complete referred The Performance Metric Experts should endeavor to complete referred
reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, the reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, the
skipping to change at page 24, line 42 skipping to change at page 24, line 42
requester to change the request to be compliant. The Performance requester to change the request to be compliant. The Performance
Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject
clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright. clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright.
This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the
Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus. Specifically, Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus. Specifically,
any Registered Performance Metrics that were added with IETF any Registered Performance Metrics that were added with IETF
consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation. consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation.
Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in
Section 7 of RFC5226. Section 7 of [RFC8126].
8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics 8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics
A request for Revision is only permissible when the changes maintain A request for Revision is only permissible when the changes maintain
backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Performance backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Performance
Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric
(entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and (entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and
Name). Name).
The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metric Registry is The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metric Registry is
skipping to change at page 28, line 34 skipping to change at page 28, line 34
choose Name elements from among the registered elements. However, if choose Name elements from among the registered elements. However, if
the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, it may be the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, it may be
necessary to propose a new Name element to properly describe the necessary to propose a new Name element to properly describe the
metric, as described below. metric, as described below.
A candidate Metric Entry RFC or document for Expert Review would A candidate Metric Entry RFC or document for Expert Review would
propose one or more new element values required to describe the propose one or more new element values required to describe the
unique entry, and the new name element(s) would be reviewed along unique entry, and the new name element(s) would be reviewed along
with the metric entry. New assignments for IETF URN Sub-namespace with the metric entry. New assignments for IETF URN Sub-namespace
for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements will be administered for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements will be administered
by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a by IANA through Expert Review [RFC8126], i.e., review by one of a
group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed
by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors.
10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry 10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry
This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics
Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for
Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics". This Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics". This
Registry will contain the following Summary columns: Registry will contain the following Summary columns:
skipping to change at page 29, line 32 skipping to change at page 29, line 32
The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each
registry entry, and the linked text may be the URN itself. The registry entry, and the linked text may be the URN itself. The
template shall be HTML-ized to aid the reader, with links to template shall be HTML-ized to aid the reader, with links to
reference RFCs (similar to the way that Internet Drafts are HTML- reference RFCs (similar to the way that Internet Drafts are HTML-
ized, the same tool can perform the function). ized, the same tool can perform the function).
The "Reference" column will include an RFC, an approved specification The "Reference" column will include an RFC, an approved specification
from another standards body, or the contact person. from another standards body, or the contact person.
New assignments for Performance Metric Registry will be administered New assignments for Performance Metric Registry will be administered
by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a by IANA through Expert Review [RFC8126], i.e., review by one of a
group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed
by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. The by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. The
experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs, experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs,
document editors, and members of the Performance Metrics Directorate, document editors, and members of the Performance Metrics Directorate,
among other sources of experts. among other sources of experts.
Extensions of the Performance Metric Registry require IETF Standards Extensions of the Performance Metric Registry require IETF Standards
Action. Only one form of registry extension is envisaged: Action. Only one form of registry extension is envisaged:
1. Adding columns, or both categories and columns, to accommodate 1. Adding columns, or both categories and columns, to accommodate
skipping to change at page 30, line 45 skipping to change at page 30, line 45
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics [RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, DOI 10.17487/RFC4148, August Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, DOI 10.17487/RFC4148, August
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4148>. 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4148>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics [RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.
[RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, [RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,
"IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement
Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>. 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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-07 (work in progress), June 2018. ippm-initial-registry-08 (work in progress), October 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. 13 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 16 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/