draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-18.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: June 10, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: September 12, 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
December 7, 2018 March 11, 2019
Registry for Performance Metrics Registry for Performance Metrics
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-18
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics registry This document defines the format for the IANA Performance Metrics
and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This document Registry. This document also gives a set of guidelines for
also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric Registered Performance Metric requesters and reviewers.
requesters and reviewers.
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 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 June 10, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 3, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 51
7.4. Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.4. Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.4.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.4.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.4.2. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.4.2. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.4.4. Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.4.4. Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.5. Administrative information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.5. Administrative information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . 23
8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . 24
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 . . . . . . . . . 25
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
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
[RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development. [RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development.
The definition and use of Performance Metrics in the IETF happens in The definition and use of Performance Metrics in the IETF happens in
various working groups (WG), most notably: various working groups (WG), most notably:
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance
Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking
technologies. technologies.
The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) concluded WG specified an The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) concluded WG specified an
IANA process for new Information Elements. Some Performance IANA process for new Information Elements. Some Performance
Metrics related Information Elements are proposed on regular Metrics related Information Elements are proposed on regular
basis. basis.
The "Performance Metrics for Other Layers" (PMOL) concluded WG, The "Performance Metrics for Other Layers" (PMOL) a concluded WG,
defined some Performance Metrics related to Session Initiation defined some Performance Metrics related to Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035]. Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035].
It is expected that more Performance Metrics will be defined in the It is expected that more Performance Metrics will be defined in the
future, not only IP-based metrics, but also metrics which are future, not only IP-based metrics, but also metrics which are
protocol-specific and application-specific. protocol-specific and application-specific.
However, despite the importance of Performance Metrics, there are two However, despite the importance of Performance Metrics, there are two
related problems for the industry. First, how to ensure that when related problems for the industry. First, how to ensure that when
one party requests another party to measure (or report or in some way one party requests another party to measure (or report or in some way
act on) a particular Performance Metric, then both parties have act on) a particular Performance Metric, then both parties have
exactly the same understanding of what Performance Metric is being exactly the same understanding of what Performance Metric is being
referred to. Second, how to discover which Performance Metrics have referred to. Second, how to discover which Performance Metrics have
been specified, so as to avoid developing new Performance Metric that been specified, so as to avoid developing a new Performance Metric
is very similar, but not quite inter-operable. The problems can be that is very similar, but not quite inter-operable. The problems can
addressed by creating a registry of performance metrics. The usual be addressed by creating a registry of performance metrics. The
way in which IETF organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned usual way in which IETF organizes namespaces is with Internet
Numbers Authority (IANA) registries, and there is currently no Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) registries, and there is currently
Performance Metrics Registry maintained by the IANA. no Performance Metrics Registry maintained by the IANA.
This document therefore requests that IANA create and maintain a This document therefore requests that IANA create and maintain a
Performance Metrics Registry, according to the maintenance procedures Performance Metrics Registry, according to the maintenance procedures
and the Performance Metrics Registry format defined in this memo. and the Performance Metrics Registry format defined in this memo.
Although the Registry format is primarily for use by IANA, any other The resulting Performance Metrics Registry is for use by the IETF and
organization that wishes to create a Performance Metrics Registry MAY others. Although the Registry formatting specifications herein are
use the same format for their purposes. The authors make no primarily for registry creation by IANA, any other organization that
guarantee of the format's applicability to any possible set of wishes to create a Performance Metrics Registry MAY use the same
Performance Metrics envisaged by other organizations, but encourage formatting specifications for their purposes. The authors make no
others to apply it. In the remainder of this document, unless we guarantee of the registry format's applicability to any possible set
explicitly say so, we will refer to the IANA-maintained Performance of Performance Metrics envisaged by other organizations, but
Metrics Registry as simply the Performance Metrics Registry. encourage others to apply it. In the remainder of this document,
unless we explicitly say otherwise, we will refer to the IANA-
maintained Performance Metrics Registry as simply the Performance
Metrics Registry.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure
of performance, targeted to an IETF-specified protocol or targeted of performance, targeted to an IETF-specified protocol or targeted
to an application transported over an IETF-specified protocol. to an application transported over an IETF-specified protocol.
Examples of Performance Metrics are the FTP response time for a Examples of Performance Metrics are the FTP response time for a
complete file download, the DNS response time to resolve the IP complete file download, the DNS response time to resolve the IP
address, a database logging time, etc. This definition is address, a database logging time, etc. This definition is
consistent with the definition of metric in [RFC2330] and broader consistent with the definition of metric in [RFC2330] and broader
than the definition of performance metric in [RFC6390]. than the definition of performance metric in [RFC6390].
Registered Performance Metric: A Registered Performance Metric is a Registered Performance Metric: A Registered Performance Metric is a
Performance Metric expressed as an entry in the Performance Metric Performance Metric expressed as an entry in the Performance
Registry, administered by IANA. Such a performance metric has met Metrics Registry, administered by IANA. Such a performance metric
all the registry review criteria defined in this document in order has met all the registry review criteria defined in this document
to included in the registry. in order 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 [RFC8126] 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
skipping to change at page 6, line 45 skipping to change at page 6, line 47
This document is meant mainly for two different audiences. For those This document is meant mainly for two different audiences. For those
defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides
specifications and best practices to be used in deciding which specifications and best practices to be used in deciding which
Registered Performance Metrics are useful for a measurement study, Registered Performance Metrics are useful for a measurement study,
instructions for writing the text for each column of the Registered instructions for writing the text for each column of the Registered
Performance Metrics, and information on the supporting documentation Performance Metrics, and information on the supporting documentation
required for the new Performance Metrics Registry entry (up to and required for the new Performance Metrics Registry entry (up to and
including the publication of one or more RFCs or I-Ds describing it). including the publication of one or more RFCs or I-Ds describing it).
For the appointed Performance Metrics Experts and for IANA personnel For the appointed Performance Metrics Experts and for IANA personnel
administering the new IANA Performance Metric Registry, it defines a administering the new IANA Performance Metrics Registry, it defines a
set of acceptance criteria against which these proposed Registered set of acceptance criteria against which these proposed Registered
Performance Metrics should be evaluated. In addition, this document Performance Metrics should be evaluated. In addition, this document
may be useful for other organization who are defining a Performance may be useful for other organizations who are defining a Performance
Metric registry of its own, who can rely on the Performance Metric Metric registry of their own, and may re-use the features of the
registry defined in this document. Performance Metrics Registry defined in this document.
This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics This Performance Metrics Registry is applicable to Performance
issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other Metrics issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any
form of Performance Metric. This registry is designed to encompass other form of Performance Metric. This registry is designed to
Performance Metrics developed throughout the IETF and especially for encompass Performance Metrics developed throughout the IETF and
the technologies specified in the following working groups: IPPM, especially for the technologies specified in the following working
XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an prior attempt to groups: IPPM, XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an
set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design prior attempt to set up a Performance Metrics Registry, and the
was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of reasons why this design was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this
guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate document gives a set of guidelines for requesters and expert
Registered Performance Metrics. reviewers of candidate 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.
are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry
at this point in time.
Based on [RFC8126] 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. Metrics 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
namespace for its use within one or more protocols. In the namespace for its use within one or more protocols. In the
particular case of the Performance Metric Registry, there are two particular case of the Performance Metrics Registry, there are two
types of protocols that will use the Performance Metrics in the types of protocols that will use the Performance Metrics in the
Performance Metrics Registry during their operation (by referring to Performance Metrics Registry during their operation (by referring to
the Index values): the Index values):
o Control protocol: this type of protocols is used to allow one o Control protocol: this type of protocols is used to allow one
entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using a entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using a
specific metric defined by the Performance Metrics Registry. One specific metric defined by the Performance Metrics Registry. One
particular example is the LMAP framework [RFC7594]. Using the particular example is the LMAP framework [RFC7594]. Using the
LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is used in the LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is used in the
LMAP Control protocol to allow a Controller to request a LMAP Control protocol to allow a Controller to request a
measurement task to one or more Measurement Agents. In order to measurement task to one or more Measurement Agents. In order to
enable this use case, the entries of the Performance Metric enable this use case, the entries of the Performance Metrics
Registry must be well enough defined to allow a Measurement Agent Registry must be well enough defined to allow a Measurement Agent
implementation to trigger a specific measurement task upon the implementation to trigger a specific measurement task upon the
reception of a control protocol message. This requirement heavily reception of a control protocol message. This requirement heavily
constrains the type of entries that are acceptable for the constrains the type of entries that are acceptable for the
Performance Metric Registry. Performance Metrics Registry.
o Report protocol: This type of protocols is used to allow an entity o Report protocol: This type of protocols is used to allow an entity
to report measurement results to another entity. By referencing to report measurement results to another entity. By referencing
to a specific Performance Metric Registry, it is possible to to a specific Performance Metrics Registry, it is possible to
properly characterize the measurement result data being reported. properly characterize the measurement result data being reported.
Using the LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is Using the LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is
used in the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report used in the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report
measurement results to a Collector. measurement results to a Collector.
It should be noted that the LMAP framework explicitly allows for It should be noted that the LMAP framework explicitly allows for
using not only the IANA-maintained Performance Metrics Registry but using not only the IANA-maintained Performance Metrics Registry but
also other registries containing Performance Metrics, either defined also other registries containing Performance Metrics, either defined
by other organizations or private ones. However, others who are by other organizations or private ones. However, others who are
creating Registries to be used in the context of an LMAP framework creating Registries to be used in the context of an LMAP framework
skipping to change at page 10, line 42 skipping to change at page 10, line 42
assess if a Performance Metric is properly specified. assess if a Performance Metric is properly specified.
Another key difference between this attempt and the previous one is Another key difference between this attempt and the previous one is
that in this case there is at least one clear user for the that in this case there is at least one clear user for the
Performance Metrics Registry: the LMAP framework and protocol. Performance Metrics Registry: the LMAP framework and protocol.
Because the LMAP protocol will use the Performance Metrics Registry Because the LMAP protocol will use the Performance Metrics Registry
values in its operation, this actually helps to determine if a metric values in its operation, this actually helps to determine if a metric
is properly defined. In particular, since we expect that the LMAP is properly defined. In particular, since we expect that the LMAP
control protocol will enable a controller to request a measurement control protocol will enable a controller to request a measurement
agent to perform a measurement using a given metric by embedding the agent to perform a measurement using a given metric by embedding the
Performance Metric Registry value in the protocol, a metric is Performance Metrics Registry value in the protocol, a metric is
properly specified if it is defined well-enough so that it is properly specified if it is defined well-enough so that it is
possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the measurement possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the measurement
agent. This was the failure of the previous attempt: a registry agent. This was the failure of the previous attempt: a registry
entry with an undefined Type-P (section 13 of RFC 2330 [RFC2330]) entry with an undefined Type-P (section 13 of RFC 2330 [RFC2330])
allows implementation to be ambiguous. allows implementation to be ambiguous.
7. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry 7. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry
This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics This Performance Metrics Registry is applicable to Performance
used for Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other form Metrics used for Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any
of Performance Metric. Each category of measurement has unique other form of Performance Metric. Each category of measurement has
properties, so some of the columns defined below are not applicable unique properties, so some of the columns defined below are not
for a given metric category. In this case, the column(s) SHOULD be applicable for a given metric category. In this case, the column(s)
populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable). However, the "NA" SHOULD be populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable). However,
value MUST NOT be used by any metric in the following columns: the "NA" value MUST NOT be used by any metric in the following
Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester, Revision, Revision Date, columns: Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester, Revision, Revision
Description. In the future, a new category of metrics could require Date, Description. In the future, a new category of metrics could
additional columns, and adding new columns is a recognized form of require additional columns, and adding new columns is a recognized
registry extension. The specification defining the new column(s) form of registry extension. The specification defining the new
MUST give guidelines to populate the new column(s) for existing column(s) MUST give guidelines to populate the new column(s) for
entries (in general). existing entries (in general).
The columns of the Performance Metric Registry are defined below. The columns of the Performance Metrics Registry are defined below.
The columns are grouped into "Categories" to facilitate the use of The columns are grouped into "Categories" to facilitate the use of
the registry. Categories are described at the 7.x heading level, and the registry. Categories are described at the 7.x heading level, and
columns are at the 7.x.y heading level. The Figure below illustrates columns are at the 7.x.y heading level. The Figure below illustrates
this organization. An entry (row) therefore gives a complete this organization. An entry (row) therefore gives a complete
description of a Registered Performance Metric. description of a Registered Performance Metric.
Each column serves as a check-list item and helps to avoid omissions Each column serves as a check-list item and helps to avoid omissions
during registration and expert review. during registration and expert review.
Registry Categories and Columns, shown as Registry Categories and Columns, shown as
skipping to change at page 12, line 41 skipping to change at page 12, line 41
Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date | Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date |
Comments and Remarks Comments and Remarks
-------------------- --------------------
7.1. Summary Category 7.1. Summary Category
7.1.1. Identifier 7.1.1. Identifier
A numeric identifier for the Registered Performance Metric. This A numeric identifier for the Registered Performance Metric. This
identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry. identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metrics Registry.
The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is a 16-bit The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is a 16-bit
integer (range 0 to 65535). integer (range 0 to 65535).
The Identifier 0 should be Reserved. The Identifier values from The Identifier 0 should be Reserved. The Identifier values from
64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use. 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use.
When adding newly Registered Performance Metrics to the Performance When adding newly Registered Performance Metrics to the Performance
Metric Registry, IANA should assign the lowest available identifier Metrics Registry, IANA SHOULD assign the lowest available identifier
to the next Registered Performance Metric. to the new Registered Performance Metric.
If a Performance Metrics Expert providing review determines that
there is a reason to assign a specific numeric identifier, possibly
leaving a temporary gap in the numbering, then the Performance Expert
SHALL inform IANA of this decision.
7.1.2. Name 7.1.2. Name
As the name of a Registered Performance Metric is the first thing a As the name of a Registered Performance Metric is the first thing a
potential human implementor will use when determining whether it is potential human implementor will use when determining whether it is
suitable for their measurement study, it is important to be as suitable for their measurement study, it is important to be as
precise and descriptive as possible. In future, users will review precise and descriptive as possible. In future, users will review
the names to determine if the metric they want to measure has already the names to determine if the metric they want to measure has already
been registered, or if a similar entry is available as a basis for been registered, or if a similar entry is available as a basis for
creating a new entry. creating a new entry.
skipping to change at page 14, line 50 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
SendOnRcv (Sender keeps one packet in-transit by sending when SendOnRcv (Sender keeps one packet in-transit by sending when
previous packet arrives) previous packet arrives)
PayloadxxxxB (where xxxx is replaced by an integer, the number PayloadxxxxB (where xxxx is replaced by an integer, the number
of octets in the Payload)) of octets in the Payload))
SustainedBurst (Capacity test, worst case) SustainedBurst (Capacity test, worst case)
StandingQueue (test of bottleneck queue behavior) StandingQueue (test of bottleneck queue behavior)
@@@@<add others from MBM draft?>
SubTypeMethod values are separated by a hyphen "-" character, SubTypeMethod values are separated by a hyphen "-" character,
which indicates that they belong to this element, and that their which indicates that they belong to this element, and that their
order is unimportant when considering name uniqueness. order is unimportant when considering name uniqueness.
o Spec: RFC that specifies this entry in the form RFCXXXXsecY, such o Spec: RFC that specifies this entry in the form RFCXXXXsecY, such
as RFC7799sec3. Note: this is not the Primary Reference as RFC7799sec3. Note: this is not the Primary Reference
specification for the metric definition; it will contain the specification for the metric definition; it will contain the
placeholder "RFCXXXXsecY" until the RFC number is assigned to the placeholder "RFCXXXXsecY" until the RFC number is assigned to the
specifying document, and would remain blank in private registry specifying document, and would remain blank in private registry
entries without a corresponding RFC. entries without a corresponding RFC.
skipping to change at page 16, line 45 skipping to change at page 16, line 45
the metric. This URI is a URN [RFC2141]. The URI is automatically the metric. This URI is a URN [RFC2141]. The URI is automatically
generated by prepending the prefix generated by prepending the prefix
urn:ietf:metrics:perf: urn:ietf:metrics:perf:
to the metric name. The resulting URI is globally unique. to the metric name. The resulting URI is globally unique.
The URIs column MUST contain a second URI which is a URL [RFC3986] The URIs column MUST contain a second URI which is a URL [RFC3986]
and uniquely identifies and locates the metric entry so it is and uniquely identifies and locates the metric entry so it is
accessible through the Internet. The URL points to a file containing accessible through the Internet. The URL points to a file containing
the human-readable information of exactly one registry entry. all the human-readable information for one registry entry. The URL
Ideally, the file will be HTML-formated and contain URLs to SHALL reference a target file that is HTML-formated and contains URLs
referenced sections of HTML-ized RFCs. The separate files for to referenced sections of HTML-ized RFCs. These target files for
different entries can be more easily edited and re-used when different entries can be more easily edited and re-used when
preparing new entries. The exact composition of each metric URL will preparing new entries. The exact form of the URL for each target
be determined by IANA and reside on "iana.org", but there will be file will be determined by IANA and reside on "iana.org". The major
some overlap with the URN described above. The major sections of sections of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] provide an example of a
target file in HTML form (sections 4 and higher).
[I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] provide an example in HTML form
(sections 4 and higher).
7.1.4. Description 7.1.4. Description
A Registered Performance Metric description is a written A Registered Performance Metric description is a written
representation of a particular Performance Metrics Registry entry. representation of a particular Performance Metrics Registry entry.
It supplements the Registered Performance Metric name to help It supplements the Registered Performance Metric name to help
Performance Metrics Registry users select relevant Registered Performance Metrics Registry users select relevant Registered
Performance Metrics. Performance Metrics.
7.1.5. Reference 7.1.5. Reference
This entry gives the specification containing the candidate registry This entry gives the specification containing the candidate registry
entry which was reviewed and agreed, if such an RFC or other entry which was reviewed and agreed, if such an RFC or other
specification exists. specification exists.
7.1.6. Change Controller 7.1.6. Change Controller
This entry names the entity responsible for approving revsions to the This entry names the entity responsible for approving revisions to
regsitry entry, and provides contact information. the registry entry, and SHALL provide contact information (for an
individual, where appropriate).
7.1.7. Version (of Registry Format) 7.1.7. Version (of Registry Format)
This entry gives the version number for the registry format used. This entry gives the version number for the registry format used.
Formats complying with this memo MUST use 1.0. Formats complying with this memo MUST use 1.0. The version number
SHALL not change unless a new RFC is published that changes the
registry format.
7.2. Metric Definition Category 7.2. Metric Definition Category
This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details
related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and
values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open
in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance
metric. metric.
7.2.1. Reference Definition 7.2.1. Reference Definition
skipping to change at page 19, line 7 skipping to change at page 19, line 7
This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s) This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s)
describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental
information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for
implementations referring to the RFC text. implementations referring to the RFC text.
Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or
actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation. actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation.
7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation 7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation
This column applies to Performance Metrics that generate traffic for This column applies to Performance Metrics that generate traffic as
a part of their Measurement Method purposes including but not part of their Measurement Method, including but not necessarily
necessarily limited to Active metrics. The generated traffic is limited to Active metrics. The generated traffic is referred as a
referred as stream and this columns describe its characteristics. stream and this column describes its characteristics.
Each entry for this column contains the following information: Each entry for this column contains the following information:
o Value: The name of the packet stream scheduling discipline o Value: The name of the packet stream scheduling discipline
o Reference: the specification where the stream is defined o Reference: the specification where the parameters of the stream
are defined
The packet generation stream may require parameters such as the the The packet generation stream may require parameters such as the the
average packet rate and distribution truncation value for streams average packet rate and distribution truncation value for streams
with Poisson-distributed inter-packet sending times. In case such with Poisson-distributed inter-packet sending times. In case such
parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed
parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on
wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric. wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric.
The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling
(see [RFC2330]), where a single atomic measurement is conducted. (see [RFC2330]), where a single atomic measurement is conducted.
skipping to change at page 20, line 32 skipping to change at page 20, line 33
sampling strategies. It includes the following information: sampling strategies. It includes the following information:
Value: the name of the sampling distribution Value: the name of the sampling distribution
Reference definition: pointer to the specification where the Reference definition: pointer to the specification where the
sampling distribution is properly defined. sampling distribution is properly defined.
The sampling distribution may require parameters. In case such The sampling distribution may require parameters. In case such
parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed
parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on
wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric. whether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric.
Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection are Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection are
documented in the PSAMP (Packet Sampling) [RFC5475], while the documented in the PSAMP (Packet Sampling) [RFC5475], while the
Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting, [RFC5474] provides more Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting, [RFC5474] provides more
background information. The sampling distribution parameters might background information. The sampling distribution parameters might
be expressed in terms of the Information Model for Packet Sampling be expressed in terms of the Information Model for Packet Sampling
Exports, [RFC5477], and the Flow Selection Techniques, [RFC7014]. Exports, [RFC5477], and the Flow Selection Techniques, [RFC7014].
7.3.5. Run-time Parameters 7.3.5. Run-time Parameters
skipping to change at page 21, line 29 skipping to change at page 21, line 29
explicitly defined for each Run-time parameter. IPv6 addresses and explicitly defined for each Run-time parameter. IPv6 addresses and
options MUST be accomodated, allowing Registered Metrics to be used options MUST be accomodated, allowing Registered Metrics to be used
in either address family. in either address family.
Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement
point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and
other information essential to the method of measurement. other information essential to the method of measurement.
7.3.6. Role 7.3.6. Role
In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined In some methods of measurement, there may be several roles defined,
e.g. on a one-way packet delay active measurement, there is one e.g., for a one-way packet delay active measurement there is one
measurement agent that generates the packets and the other one that measurement agent that generates the packets and another agent that
receives the packets. This column contains the name of the role for receives the packets. This column contains the name of the Role(s)
this particular entry. In the previous example, there should be two for this particular entry. In the one-way delay example above, there
entries in the registry, one for each role, so that when a should be two entries in the Role registry column, one for each Role
measurement agent is instructed to perform the one way delay source (Source and Destination). When a measurement agent is instructed to
metric know that it is supposed to generate packets. The values for perform the "Source" Role for one-way delay metric, the agent knows
this field are defined in the reference method of measurement. that it is required to generate packets. The values for this field
are defined in the reference method of measurement (and this
frequently results in abbreviated role names such as "Src").
When the Role column of a registry entry defines more than one Role,
then the Role SHALL be treated as a Run-time Parameter and supplied
for execution. It should be noted that the LMAP framework [RFC7594]
distinguishes the Role from other Run-time Parameters, and defines a
special parameter "Roles" inside the registry-grouping function list
in the LMAP YANG model[RFC8194].
7.4. Output Category 7.4. Output Category
For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a
statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to
a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is
output, this will be specified here. output, this will be specified here.
Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric
definition, while others allow several output types or statistics. definition, while others allow several output types or statistics.
skipping to change at page 22, line 40 skipping to change at page 22, line 45
definitions of these terms) is collected, this entry will specify the definitions of these terms) is collected, this entry will specify the
units for each measured value. units for each measured value.
7.4.4. Calibration 7.4.4. Calibration
Some specifications for Methods of Measurement include the Some specifications for Methods of Measurement include the
possibility to perform an error calibration. Section 3.7.3 of possibility to perform an error calibration. Section 3.7.3 of
[RFC7679] is one example. In the registry entry, this field will [RFC7679] is one example. In the registry entry, this field will
identify a method of calibration for the metric, and when available, identify a method of calibration for the metric, and when available,
the measurement system SHOULD perform the calibration when requested the measurement system SHOULD perform the calibration when requested
and produce the output with an indication that it is the restult of a and produce the output with an indication that it is the result of a
calbration method. In-situ calibration could be enabled with an calbration method. In-situ calibration could be enabled with an
internal loopback that includes as much of the measurement system as internal loopback that includes as much of the measurement system as
possible, performs address manipulation as needed, and provides some possible, performs address manipulation as needed, and provides some
form of isolation (e.g., deterministic delay) to avoid send-receive form of isolation (e.g., deterministic delay) to avoid send-receive
interface contention. Some portion of the random and systematic interface contention. Some portion of the random and systematic
error can be characterized this way. error can be characterized this way.
For one-way delay measurements, the error calibration must include an For one-way delay measurements, the error calibration must include an
assessment of the internal clock synchronization with its external assessment of the internal clock synchronization with its external
reference (this internal clock is supplying timestamps for reference (this internal clock is supplying timestamps for
skipping to change at page 23, line 36 skipping to change at page 23, line 42
7.5.3. Revision 7.5.3. Revision
The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric, starting at 0 The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric, starting at 0
for Registered Performance Metrics at time of definition and for Registered Performance Metrics at time of definition and
incremented by one for each revision. incremented by one for each revision.
7.5.4. Revision Date 7.5.4. Revision Date
The date of acceptance or the most recent revision for the Registered The date of acceptance or the most recent revision for the Registered
Performance Metric. Performance Metric. The date SHALL be determined by the reviewing
Performance Metrics Expert in the case of Expert Review, or by IANA
in the case of Standards Action.
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 prepared in accordance with Section 7 Registry entry specifications prepared in accordance with Section 7
should be submitted to IANA to follow the process for review by the should be submitted to IANA to follow the process for review by the
Performance Metric Experts, as defined below. This process is also Performance Metric Experts, as defined below. This process is also
used for other changes to the Performance Metric Registry, such as used for other changes to the Performance Metrics Registry, such as
deprecation 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 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 Metrics 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
[RFC8126]policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The [RFC8126]policy defined for the Performance Metrics 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 At least one Performance Metric Expert should endeavor to complete
reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, the referred reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable,
Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, which the Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, and
updates the Performance Metric Registry. If the request is not IANA updates the Performance Metrics Registry. If the request is not
acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts can coordinate with the acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts MAY coordinate with the
requester to change the request to be compliant. The Performance requester to change the request to be compliant, otherwise IANA SHALL
Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject coordinate resolution of issues on behalf of the expert. The
clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright. Performance Metric Experts MAY choose to reject clearly frivolous or
inappropriate change requests outright, but such exceptional
circumstances should be rare.
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 to the Performance
consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation. Metrics Registry with IETF 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 [RFC8126]. 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 Metrics Registry
to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Performance Metric is is to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Performance Metric
'current' or 'deprecated'. is 'current' or 'deprecated'.
In addition, no policy is defined for revising the Performance Metric In addition, no policy is defined for revising the Performance Metric
entries in the IANA Regsirty or addressing errors therein. To be entries in the IANA Regsirty or addressing errors therein. To be
certain, changes and deprecations within the Performance Metric certain, changes and deprecations within the Performance Metrics
Registry are not encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent Registry are not encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent
possible. However, in recognition that change is inevitable, the possible. However, in recognition that change is inevitable, the
provisions of this section address the need for revisions. provisions of this section address the need for revisions.
Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance
Metric definition to IANA, as in Section 8, identifying the existing Metric definition to IANA, as in Section 8, identifying the existing
Performance Metrics Registry entry. Performance Metrics Registry entry.
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
skipping to change at page 25, line 51 skipping to change at page 26, line 15
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 Metrics 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
revision number by one. revision number by one.
When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the
Performance Metric Registry, the date of acceptance of the most Performance Metrics Registry, the date of acceptance of the most
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
skipping to change at page 26, line 43 skipping to change at page 27, line 8
shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in Section 8.2 shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in Section 8.2
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. 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 Experts 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 Metrics 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.
skipping to change at page 28, line 15 skipping to change at page 28, line 26
Method: Method:
SubTypeMethod: SubTypeMethod:
Spec: Spec:
Units: Units:
Output: Output:
will contain the current set of possibilities for Performance Metric will contain the current set of possibilities for Performance Metrics
Registry Entry Names. Registry Entry Names.
To populate the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Performance To populate the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Performance
Metric Name Elements at creation, the IANA is asked to use the lists Metric Name Elements at creation, the IANA is asked to use the lists
of values for each name element listed in Section 7.1.2. The Name of values for each name element listed in Section 7.1.2. The Name
Elements in each registry are case-sensitive. Elements in each registry are case-sensitive.
When preparing a Metric entry for Registration, the developer SHOULD When preparing a Metric entry for Registration, the developer SHOULD
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
skipping to change at page 28, line 42 skipping to change at page 29, line 9
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 [RFC8126], 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 "Performance Metrics Registry". This
Registry will contain the following Summary columns: Registry will contain the following Summary columns:
Identifier: Identifier:
Name: Name:
URIs: URIs:
Description: Description:
skipping to change at page 29, line 31 skipping to change at page 29, line 46
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 Metrics Registry will be administered
by IANA through Expert Review [RFC8126], 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, or
experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs, by Standards Action. The experts can be initially drawn from the
document editors, and members of the Performance Metrics Directorate, Working Group Chairs, document editors, and members of the
among other sources of experts. Performance Metrics Directorate, among other sources of experts.
Extensions of the Performance Metric Registry require IETF Standards Extensions of the Performance Metrics 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
unanticipated aspects of new measurements and metric categories. unanticipated aspects of new measurements and metric categories.
If the Performance Metrics Registry is extended in this way, the If the Performance Metrics Registry is extended in this way, the
Version number of future entries complying with the extension SHALL Version number of future entries complying with the extension SHALL
be incremented (either in the unit or tenths digit, depending on the be incremented (either in the unit or tenths digit, depending on the
degree of extension. degree of extension.
skipping to change at page 31, line 29 skipping to change at page 31, line 38
[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-08 (work in progress), October 2018. ippm-initial-registry-09 (work in progress), December
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
skipping to change at page 33, line 38 skipping to change at page 33, line 49
[RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton, [RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January (IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>. May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8194] Schoenwaelder, J. and V. Bajpai, "A YANG Data Model for
LMAP Measurement Agents", RFC 8194, DOI 10.17487/RFC8194,
August 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8194>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Marcelo Bagnulo Marcelo Bagnulo
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad 30 Av. Universidad 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911 Leganes, Madrid 28911
SPAIN SPAIN
Phone: 34 91 6249500 Phone: 34 91 6249500
Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
 End of changes. 57 change blocks. 
134 lines changed or deleted 158 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/