draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-01.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02.txt 
Network Working Group L. Ciavattone Network Working Group L. Ciavattone
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Intended status: Informational R. Geib Intended status: Informational R. Geib
Expires: July 5, 2013 Deutsche Telekom Expires: August 21, 2013 Deutsche Telekom
A. Morton A. Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
M. Wieser M. Wieser
Technical University Darmstadt Technical University Darmstadt
January 1, 2013 February 17, 2013
Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-01 draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02
Abstract Abstract
This memo proposes to advance a performance metric RFC along the This memo proposes to advance a performance metric RFC along the
standards track, specifically RFC 2680 on One-way Loss Metrics. standards track, specifically RFC 2680 on One-way Loss Metrics.
Observing that the metric definitions themselves should be the Observing that the metric definitions themselves should be the
primary focus rather than the implementations of metrics, this memo primary focus rather than the implementations of metrics, this memo
describes the test procedures to evaluate specific metric requirement describes the test procedures to evaluate specific metric requirement
clauses to determine if the requirement has been interpreted and clauses to determine if the requirement has been interpreted and
implemented as intended. Two completely independent implementations implemented as intended. Two completely independent implementations
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 5, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 23, line 34 skipping to change at page 23, line 34
at the 5% significance (1-alpha = 0.05, or 95% confidence level). at the 5% significance (1-alpha = 0.05, or 95% confidence level).
6.5. Implementation of Statistics for One-way Delay 6.5. Implementation of Statistics for One-way Delay
We check which statistics were implemented, and report on those We check which statistics were implemented, and report on those
facts, noting that Section 4 of [RFC2680] does not specify the facts, noting that Section 4 of [RFC2680] does not specify the
calculations exactly, and gives only some illustrative examples. calculations exactly, and gives only some illustrative examples.
NetProbe Perfas NetProbe Perfas
4.1. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Packet-Loss-Ave yes yes 4.1. Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Average yes yes
(this is more commonly referred to as loss ratio) (this is more commonly referred to as loss ratio)
Implementation of Section 4 Statistics Implementation of Section 4 Statistics
We note that implementations refer to this metric as a loss ratio, We note that implementations refer to this metric as a loss ratio,
and this is an area for likely revision of the text to make it more and this is an area for likely revision of the text to make it more
consistent with wide-spread usage. consistent with wide-spread usage.
7. Conclusions for RFC 2680bis 7. Conclusions for RFC 2680bis
This memo concludes that [RFC2680] should be advanced on the This memo concludes that [RFC2680] should be advanced on the
standards track, and recommends the following edits to improve the standards track, and recommends the following edits to improve the
text (which are not deemed significant enough to affect maturity). text (which are not deemed significant enough to affect maturity).
o Revise Type-P-One-way-Delay-Packet-Loss-Ave to Type-P-One-way- o Revise Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Ave to Type-P-One-way-Delay-
Delay-Packet-Loss-Ratio Packet-Loss-Ratio
o Regarding implementation of the loss delay threshold (section o Regarding implementation of the loss delay threshold (section
6.2), the assumption of post-processing is compliant, and the text 6.2), the assumption of post-processing is compliant, and the text
of RFC 2680bis should be revised slightly to include this point. of RFC 2680bis should be revised slightly to include this point.
o The IETF has reached consensus on guidance for reporting metrics
in [RFC6703], and this memo should be referenced in RFC2680bis to
incorporate recent experience where appropriate.
We note that there are at least two Eratta on [RFC2680] and these We note that there are at least two Eratta on [RFC2680] and these
should be processed as part of the editing process. should be processed as part of the editing process.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of
live networks are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and live networks are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and
[RFC5357]. [RFC5357].
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 25, line 47 skipping to change at page 25, line 50
RFC 5357, October 2008. RFC 5357, October 2008.
[RFC5657] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation [RFC5657] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009. Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.
[RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP [RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing", Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing",
BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012. BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012.
[RFC6703] Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting
IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View",
RFC 6703, August 2012.
[RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test [RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test
Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the
Standards Track", RFC 6808, December 2012. Standards Track", RFC 6808, December 2012.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[ADK] Scholz, F. and M. Stephens, "K-sample Anderson-Darling [ADK] Scholz, F. and M. Stephens, "K-sample Anderson-Darling
Tests of fit, for continuous and discrete cases", Tests of fit, for continuous and discrete cases",
University of Washington, Technical Report No. 81, University of Washington, Technical Report No. 81,
May 1986. May 1986.
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 15 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/