< draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-01.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02.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: March 14, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: August 20, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc.
P. Eardley P. Eardley
BT BT
A. Morton A. Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
A. Akhter A. Akhter
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
September 10, 2014 February 16, 2015
Registry for Performance Metrics Registry for Performance Metrics
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-01 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This document defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics.
This document also gives a set of guidelines for Registered This document also gives a set of guidelines for Registered
Performance Metric requesters and reviewers. Performance Metric 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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 March 14, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Design Considerations for the Registry and Registered Metrics 7 5. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Criteria for Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics . . . . 7
5.3. Single point of reference for Performance metrics . . . . 8 5.3. Side benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Side benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration . . . . . . . . 8
6. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Defintion of the Performance Metric Registry . . . . . . . . 10 8. Defintion of the Performance Metric Registry . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Summary Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1. Summary Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1.1. Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1.1. Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1.2. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1.2. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.3. URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1.3. URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.4. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.1.4. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Metric Definition Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.2. Metric Definition Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. Method of Measurement Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.3. Method of Measurement Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.1. Reference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.3.1. Reference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.2. Packet Generation Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.3.2. Packet Generation Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.3. Traffic Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.3.3. Traffic Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.4. Sampling distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.3.4. Sampling distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.5. Run-time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.3.5. Run-time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.6. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.3.6. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.4. Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.4. Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.4.1. Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.4.1. Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.4.2. Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.4.2. Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.4.3. Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.4.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.5. Administrative information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.5. Admisnitratvie information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. The Life-Cycle of Registered Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Registry . . . . . 17
8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Registry . . . . . 19 9.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 20 9.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 20
8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 21 10. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. Performance Metric Registry and other Registries . . . . . . 22 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Open Issues 1. Open Issues
1. Many aspects of the Naming convention are TBD, and need 1. Define the Filter column subcolumns, i.e. how filters are
discussion. For example, we have distinguished RTCP-XR metrics expressed.
as End-Point (neither active nor passive in the traditional
sense, so not Act_ or Pas_). Even though we may not cast all
naming conventions in stone at the start, it will be helpful to
look at several examples of passive metric names now.
2. We should expand on the different roles and responsibilities of
the Performance Metrics Experts versus the Performance Metric
Directorate. At least, the Performance Metric Directorate one
should be expanded. --- (v7) If these are different entities, our
only concern is the role of the "PM Experts".
3. Revised Registry Entries: Keep for history (deprecated) or
Delete?
4. Need to include an example for a name for a passive metric
5. Definition of Parameter needs more work?
6. Whether the name of the metric should contain the version of the
metric
7. reserve some values for examples and private use? 2. Need to include an example for a name for a passive metric
8. should we define a "type" column with the possible values 3. Shall we remove the definitions of active and passive? If we
"active" "passive" "hybrid" "endpoint"? if we go for all 4 of remove it, shall we keep all the related comments in the draft?
them, we should define the corresponding prefixes for the metric
name (at this point only the pas and act are defined)
9. URL: should we include a URL link in each registry entry with a 4. URL: should we include a URL link in each registry entry with a
URL specific to the entry that links to a different text page URL specific to the entry that links to a different text page
that contains all the details of the registry entry as in that contains all the details of the registry entry as in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml- http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-
registry.xhtml#ns registry.xhtml#ns
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and
applications transported over its protocols. Performance metrics are applications transported over its protocols. Performance metrics are
such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that
skipping to change at page 5, line 6 skipping to change at page 4, line 34
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 new Performance Metric that
is very similar. The problems can be addressed by creating a is very similar. The problems can be addressed by creating a
registry of performance metrics. The usual way in which IETF registry of performance metrics. The usual way in which IETF
organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned Numbers Authority organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA) registries, and there is currently no Performance Metrics (IANA) registries, and there is currently no Performance Metrics
Registry maintained by the IANA. Registry maintained by the IANA.
This document therefore creates a Performance Metrics Registry. It This document therefore creates a Performance Metrics Registry. It
also provides best practices on how to define new or updated entries also provides best practices on how to specify new entries or update
in the Performance Metrics Registry. ones in the Performance Metrics Registry.
3. Terminology 3. 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 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
The terms Performance Metric and Performance Metrics Directorate are
defined in [RFC6390], and copied over in this document for the
readers convenience.
Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure
of performance, specific to an IETF-specified protocol or specific 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. address, a database logging time, etc. This definition is
consistent with the definition of metric in [RFC2330] and broader
than the definition of performance metric in [RFC6390].
Registered Performance Metric: A Registered Performance Metric (or Registered Performance Metric: A Registered Performance Metric (or
Registered Metric) is a Performance Metric expressed as an entry Registered Metric) is a Performance Metric expressed as an entry
in the Performance Metric Registry, and comprised of a in the Performance Metric Registry, administered by IANA. Such a
specifically named metric which has met all the registry review performance metric has met all the registry review criteria
criteria, is under the curation of IETF Performance Metrics defined in this document in order to included in the registry.
Experts, and whose changes are controlled by IANA.
Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing
Registered Performance Metrics. In this document, it is also Registered Performance Metrics. In this document, it is also
called simply "Registry". called simply "Registry".
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 experts selected by the IESG to validate the Performance group of experts selected by the IESG to validate the Performance
Metrics before updating the Performance Metrics Registry. The Metrics before updating the Performance Metrics Registry. The
Performance Metrics Experts work closely with IANA. Performance Metrics Experts work closely with IANA.
Performance Metrics Directorate: The Performance Metrics Directorate
is a directorate that provides guidance for Performance Metrics
development in the IETF. The Performance Metrics Directorate
should be composed of experts in the performance community,
potentially selected from the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),
Benchmarking Methodology (BMWG), and Performance Metrics for Other
Layers (PMOL) WGs.
Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition
of a metric. A numerical or other specified factor forming one of of a metric. A numerical or other specified factor forming one of
a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions of its a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions of its
operation. All Input Parameters must be known to measure using a operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a metric
metric and interpret the results. Although Input Parameters do and interpret the results. Although Parameters do not change the
not change the fundamental nature of the metric's definition, some fundamental nature of the metric's definition, some have
have substantial influence on the network property being assessed substantial influence on the network property being assessed and
and interpretation of the results. interpretation of the results.
Consider the case of packet loss in the following two cases. Consider the case of packet loss in the following two active
The first case is packet loss as background loss where the measurement cases. The first case is packet loss as background
parameter set includes a very sparse Poisson stream, and only loss where the parameter set includes a very sparse Poisson
characterizes the times when packets were lost. Actual user stream, and only characterizes the times when packets were
streams likely see much higher loss at these times, due to tail lost. Actual user streams likely see much higher loss at these
drop or radio errors. The second case is packet loss as times, due to tail drop or radio errors. The second case is
inverse of Throughput where the parameter set includes a very packet loss as inverse of Throughput where the parameter set
dense, bursty stream, and characterizes the loss experienced by includes a very dense, bursty stream, and characterizes the
a stream that approximates a user stream. These are both "loss loss experienced by a stream that approximates a user stream.
metrics", but the difference in interpretation of the results These are both "loss metrics", but the difference in
is highly dependent on the Parameters (at least), to the interpretation of the results is highly dependent on the
extreme where we are actually using loss to infer its Parameters (at least), to the extreme where we are actually
compliment: delivered throughput. using loss to infer its compliment: delivered throughput.
Active Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on Active Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on
traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is
generated for that reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics generated for that reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics
are known a priori. An Internet user's host can generate active are known a priori. Examples of Active Measurement Methods are
measurement traffic (virtually all typical user-generated traffic the the measurement methods for the One way delay metric defined
is not dedicated to active measurement, but it can produce such in [RFC2679] and the one for round trip delay defined in
traffic with the necessary application operating). [RFC2681].
Passive Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on Passive Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on
network traffic, generated either from the end users or from network traffic, generated either from the end users or from
network elements. One characteristic of Passive Measurement network elements. One characteristic of Passive Measurement
Methods is that sensitive information may be observed, and as a Methods is that sensitive information may be observed, and as a
consequence, stored in the measurement system. consequence, stored in the measurement system.
Hybrid Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement which use a Hybrid Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement which use a
combination of Active Measurement and Passive Measurement methods. combination of Active Measurement and Passive Measurement methods.
4. Scope 4. Scope
The intended audience of this document includes those who prepare and This document is meant for two different audiences. For those
submit a request for a Registered Performance Metric, and for the defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides
Performance Metric Experts who review a request. specifications and best practices to be used in deciding which
Registered Metrics are useful for a measurement study, instructions
for writing the text for each column of the Registered Metrics, and
information on the supporting documentation required for the new
Registry entry (up to and including the publication of one or more
RFCs or I-Ds describing it). For the appointed Performance Metrics
Experts and for IANA personnel administering the new IANA Performance
Metric Registry, it defines a set of acceptance criteria against
which these proposed Registry Entries should be evaluated.
This document specifies a Performance Metrics Registry in IANA. This This document specifies a Performance Metrics Registry in IANA. This
Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics
issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, from end-point issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, from end-point
calculation or any other form of Performance Metric. This registry calculation or any other form of Performance Metric. This registry
is designed to encompass Performance Metrics developed throughout the is designed to encompass Performance Metrics developed throughout the
IETF and especially for the following existing working groups: IPPM, IETF and especially for the following existing working groups: IPPM,
XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an prior attempt to XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an prior attempt to
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
skipping to change at page 7, line 22 skipping to change at page 6, line 48
Registered Performance Metrics. Registered Performance Metrics.
This document makes no attempt to populate the Registry with initial This document makes no attempt to populate the Registry with initial
entries. It does provides a few examples that are merely entries. It does provides a few examples that are merely
illustrations and should not be included in the registry at this illustrations and should not be included in the registry at this
point in time. point in time.
Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best
Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026]. Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026].
5. Design Considerations for the Registry and Registered Metrics 5. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry
In this section, we detail several design considerations that are In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance
relevant for understanding the motivations and expected use of the Metric Registry.
Performance Metric Registry.
5.1. Interoperability 5.1. 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 this 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 Metric Registry, there are two
types of protocols that will use the values defined in the Registry types of protocols that will use the Performance Metrics in the
for their operation: Registry during their operation (by referring to 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 Registry. One particular example specific metric defined by the Registry. One particular example
is the LMAP framework [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]. Using the LMAP is the LMAP framework [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]. Using the LMAP
terminology, the Registry is used in the LMAP Control protocol to terminology, the Registry is used in the LMAP Control protocol to
allow a Controller to request a measurement task to one or more allow a Controller to request a measurement task to one or more
Measurement Agents. In order to enable this use case, the entries Measurement Agents. In order to enable this use case, the entries
of the Performance Metric Registry must be well enough defined to of the Performance Metric Registry must be well enough defined to
allow a Measurement Agent implementation to trigger a specific allow a Measurement Agent implementation to trigger a specific
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 34
acceptable for the Performance Metric Registry. acceptable for the Performance Metric 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 Metric Registry, it is possible to
properly characterize the measurement result data being properly characterize the measurement result data being
transferred. Using the LMAP terminology, the Registry is used in transferred. Using the LMAP terminology, the Registry is used in
the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report
measurement results to a Collector. measurement results to a Collector.
5.2. Criteria for Registered Performance Metrics 5.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics
It is neither possible nor desirable to populate the Registry with
all combinations of input parameters of all Performance Metrics. The
Registered Performance Metrics should be:
1. interpretable by the user.
2. implementable by the software designer,
3. deployable by network operators, without major impact on the
networks,
4. accurate, for interoperability and deployment across vendors,
5. Operational useful, so that it has significant industry interest
and/or has seen deployment,
6. Sufficiently tightly defined, so that changing Parameters does
not change the fundamental nature of the measurement, nor change
the practicality of its implementation.
In essence, there needs to be evidence that a candidate Registry
entry has significant industry interest, or has seen deployment, and
there is agreement that the candidate Registered Metric serves its
intended purpose.
5.3. Single point of reference for Performance metrics
A Registry for Performance metrics serves as a single point of A Registry for Performance Metrics serves as a single point of
reference for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups reference for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups
in the IETF. As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that in the IETF. As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that
define Performance Metrics in the IETF and it is hard to keep track define Performance Metrics in the IETF and it is hard to keep track
of all them. This results in multiple definitions of similar metrics of all them. This results in multiple definitions of similar metrics
that attempt to measure the same phenomena but in slightly different that attempt to measure the same phenomena but in slightly different
(and incompatible) ways. Having a Registry would allow both the IETF (and incompatible) ways. Having a Registry would allow both the IETF
community and external people to have a single list of relevant community and external people to have a single list of relevant
Performance Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where Performance Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where
appropriate). The single list is also an essential aspect of appropriate). The single list is also an essential aspect of
communication about metrics, where different entities that request communication about metrics, where different entities that request
measurements, execute measurements, and report the results can measurements, execute measurements, and report the results can
benefit from a common understanding of the referenced metric. benefit from a common understanding of the referenced metric.
5.4. Side benefits 5.3. Side benefits
There are a couple of side benefits of having such a Registry. There are a couple of side benefits of having such a Registry.
First, the Registry could serve as an inventory of useful and used First, the Registry could serve as an inventory of useful and used
metrics, that are normally supported by different implementations of metrics, that are normally supported by different implementations of
measurement agents. Second, the results of the metrics would be measurement agents. Second, the results of measurements using the
comparable even if they are performed by different implementations metrics would be comparable even if they are performed by different
and in different networks, as the metric is properly defined. BCP implementations and in different networks, as the metric is properly
176 [RFC6576] examines whether the results produced by independent defined. BCP 176 [RFC6576] examines whether the results produced by
implementations are equivalent in the context of evaluating the independent implementations are equivalent in the context of
completeness and clarity of metric specifications. This BCP defines evaluating the completeness and clarity of metric specifications.
the standards track advancement testing for (active) IPPM metrics, This BCP defines the standards track advancement testing for (active)
and the same process will likely suffice to determine whether IPPM metrics, and the same process will likely suffice to determine
Registry entries are sufficiently well specified to result in whether Registry entries are sufficiently well specified to result in
comparable (or equivalent) results. Registry entries which have comparable (or equivalent) results. Registry entries which have
undergone such testing SHOULD be noted, with a reference to the test undergone such testing SHOULD be noted, with a reference to the test
results. results.
6. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt 6. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration
It is neither possible nor desirable to populate the Registry with
all combinations of input parameters of all Performance Metrics. The
Registered Performance Metrics should be:
1. interpretable by the user.
2. implementable by the software designer,
3. deployable by network operators, without major impact on the
networks,
4. accurate, for interoperability and deployment across vendors,
5. Operationally useful, so that it has significant industry
interest and/or has seen deployment,
6. Sufficiently tightly defined, so that different values for the
Run-time Parameters does not change the fundamental nature of the
measurement, nor change the practicality of its implementation.
In essence, there needs to be evidence that a candidate Registry
entry has significant industry interest, or has seen deployment, and
there is agreement that the candidate Registered Metric serves its
intended purpose.
7. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt
There was a previous attempt to define a metric registry RFC 4148 There was a previous attempt to define a metric registry RFC 4148
[RFC4148]. However, it was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because [RFC4148]. However, it was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because
it was "found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM it was "found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM
metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when
characterizing a metric exactly" which led to the RFC4148 registry characterizing a metric exactly" which led to the RFC4148 registry
having "very few users, if any". having "very few users, if any".
A couple of interesting additional quotes from RFC 6248 might help A couple of interesting additional quotes from RFC 6248 might help
understand the issues related to that registry. understand the issues related to that registry.
skipping to change at page 9, line 48 skipping to change at page 9, line 30
Registry." Registry."
2. "The registry structure has been found to be insufficiently 2. "The registry structure has been found to be insufficiently
detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics." detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics."
3. "Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, 3. "Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users,
no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148
registry during the second half of 2010." registry during the second half of 2010."
The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each entry The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each entry
in the registry with only a few variable Parameters to be specified in the registry with only a few variable (Run-time) Parameters to be
by the measurement designer, if any. The idea is that entries in the specified by the measurement designer, if any. The idea is that
Registry represent different measurement methods which require input entries in the Registry stem from different measurement methods which
parameters to set factors like source and destination addresses require input (Run-time) parameters to set factors like source and
(which do not change the fundamental nature of the measurement). The destination addresses (which do not change the fundamental nature of
downside of this approach is that it could result in a large number the measurement). The downside of this approach is that it could
of entries in the Registry. We believe that less is more in this result in a large number of entries in the Registry. There is
context - it is better to have a reduced set of useful metrics rather agreement that less is more in this context - it is better to have a
than a large set of metrics with questionable usefulness. Therefore reduced set of useful metrics rather than a large set of metrics,
this document defines that the Registry only includes metrics that some with with questionable usefulness. Therefore this document
are well defined and that have proven to be operationally useful. In defines that the Registry only includes metrics that are well defined
order to guarantee these two characteristics we require that a set of and that have proven to be operationally useful. In order to assure
experts review the allocation request to verify that the metric is these two characteristics, a set of experts are required to review
well defined and it is operationally useful. the allocation request to verify that the metric is well defined and
it is operationally useful.
6.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed? 7.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed
The Registry defined in this document addresses the main issues The Registry defined in this document addresses the main issues
identified in the previous attempt. As we mention in the previous identified in the previous attempt. As we mention in the previous
section, one of the main issues with the previous registry was that section, one of the main issues with the previous registry was that
the metrics contained in the registry were too generic to be useful. the metrics contained in the registry were too generic to be useful.
In this Registry, the Registry requests are evaluated by an expert In this Registry, the Registry requests are evaluated by an expert
group, the Performance Metrics Experts, who will make sure that the group, the Performance Metrics Experts, who will make sure that the
metric is properly defined. This document provides guidelines to metric is properly defined. This document provides guidelines to
assess if a metric is properly defined. assess if a metric is properly defined.
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 Registry: that in this case there is at least one clear user for the Registry:
the LMAP framework and protocol. Because the LMAP protocol will use the LMAP framework and protocol. Because the LMAP protocol will use
the Registry values in its operation, this actually helps to the Registry values in its operation, this actually helps to
determine if a metric is properly defined. In particular, since we determine if a metric is properly defined. In particular, since we
expect that the LMAP control protocol will enable a controller to expect that the LMAP control protocol will enable a controller to
request a measurement agent to perform a measurement using a given request a measurement agent to perform a measurement using a given
metric by embedding the Performance Metric Registry value in the metric by embedding the Performance Metric Registry value in the
protocol, a metric is properly specified if it is defined well-enough protocol, a metric is properly specified if it is defined well-enough
so that it is possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the so that it is possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the
measurement agent. This was clearly not the case for the previous measurement agent. This was the failure of the previous attempt: a
attempt: defining a metric with an undefined P-Type makes its registry entry with an undefined Type-P (section 13 of RFC 2330
implementation unpractical. [RFC2330]) allows implementation to be ambiguous.
7. Defintion of the Performance Metric Registry 8. Defintion of the Performance Metric Registry
In this section we define the columns of the Performance Metric In this section we define the columns of the Performance Metric
Registry. This registry will contain all Registered Performance Registry. This registry will contain all Registered Performance
Metrics including active, passive, hybrid, endpoint metrics and any Metrics including active, passive, hybrid, endpoint metrics and any
other type of performance metric that can be envisioned. Because of other type of performance metric that can be envisioned. Because of
that, it may be the case that some of the columns defined are not that, it may be the case that some of the columns defined are not
applicable for a given type of metric. If this is the case, the applicable for a given type of metric. If this is the case, the
column(s) SHOULD be populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable). column(s) SHOULD be populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable).
However, the "NA" value MUST NOT be used any any metric in the However, the "NA" value MUST NOT be used by any metric in the
following columns: Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester, following columns: Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester,
Revision, Revision Date, Description and Reference Specification. Revision, Revision Date, Description and Reference Specification.
Moreover, In addition, it may be possible that in the future, a new Moreover, In addition, it may be possible that in the future, a new
type of metric requires additional columns. Should that be the case, type of metric requires additional columns. Should that be the case,
it is possible to add new columns to the registry. The specification it is possible to add new columns to the registry. The specification
defining the new column(s) MUST define how to populate the new defining the new column(s) must define how to populate the new
column(s) for existing entries. column(s) for existing entries.
The columns of the Performance Metric Registry are defined next. The The columns of the Performance Metric Registry are defined next. 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 3.x heading level, and registry. Categories are described at the 8.x heading level, and
columns are at the 3.x.y heading level. The Figure below illustrates columns are at the 8.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 Metric. description of a Registered 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. In some cases an entry (row) during registration and expert review.
may have some columns without specific entries, marked Not Applicable
(NA).
Registry Categories and Columns, shown as
Category
------------------
Column | Column |
Summary Registry Categories and Columns, shown as
------------------------------- Category
ID | Name | URI | Description | ------------------
Column | Column |
Metric Definition Summary
----------------------------------------- -------------------------------
Reference Definition | Fixed Parameters | ID | Name | URI | Description |
Method of Measurement Metric Definition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
Reference Method | Packet Generation | Traffic | Sampling | Run-time | Role | Reference Definition | Fixed Parameters |
| Stream | Filter | distribution | Param | |
Output Method of Measurement
----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
| Type | Reference | Data | Units | Reference | Packet | Traffic | Sampling | Run-time | Role |
| | Definition | Format | | Method | Generation | Filter | dist. | Param | |
| Stream |
Output
-----------------------------
| Type | Reference | Units |
| | Definition | |
Administrative information Administrative information
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date | Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date |
Comments and Remarks Comments and Remarks
-------------------- --------------------
7.1. Summary Category 8.1. Summary Category
7.1.1. Identifier 8.1.1. 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 Metric 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). When adding newly Registered Performance integer (range 0 to 65535). When adding newly Registered Performance
Metrics to the Performance Metric Registry, IANA SHOULD assign the Metrics to the Performance Metric Registry, IANA should assign the
lowest available identifier to the next Registered Performance lowest available identifier to the next Registered Performance
Metric. Metric.
7.1.2. Name 8.1.2. 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 implementor will use when determining whether it is potential implementor will use when determining whether it is
suitable for a given application, it is important to be as precise suitable for a given application, it is important to be as precise
and descriptive as possible. New names of Registered Performance and descriptive as possible.
Metrics:
New names of Registered Performance Metrics:
1. "MUST be chosen carefully to describe the Registered Performance 1. "MUST be chosen carefully to describe the Registered Performance
Metric and the context in which it will be used." Metric and the context in which it will be used."
2. "MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry." 2. "MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry."
3. "MUST use capital letters for the first letter of each component 3. "MUST use capital letters for the first letter of each component
. All other letters MUST be lowercase, even for acronyms. . All other letters MUST be lowercase, even for acronyms.
Exceptions are made for acronyms containing a mixture of Exceptions are made for acronyms containing a mixture of
lowercase and capital letters, such as 'IPv4' and 'IPv6'." lowercase and capital letters, such as 'IPv4' and 'IPv6'."
4. "MUST use '_' between each component composing the Registered 4. MUST use '_' between each component of the Registered Performance
Performance Metric name." Metric name.
5. "MUST start with prefix Act_ for active measurement Registered 5. MUST start with prefix Act_ for active measurement Registered
Performance Metric." Performance Metric.
6. "MUST start with prefix Pas_ for passive monitoring Registered 6. MUST start with prefix Pas_ for passive monitoring Registered
Performance Metric." Performance Metric.
7. Other types of metrics should define a proper prefix for 7. Other types of metrics should define a proper prefix for
identifying the type. identifying the type.
8. The remaining rules for naming are left to the Performance 8. The remaining rules for naming are left for the Performance
Experts to determine as they gather experience, so this is an Experts to determine as they gather experience, so this is an
area of planned update by a future RFC. area of planned update by a future RFC.
An example is "Act_UDP_Latency_Poisson_99mean" for a active An example is "Act_UDP_Latency_Poisson_99mean" for a active
monitoring UDP latency metric using a Poisson stream of packets and monitoring UDP latency metric using a Poisson stream of packets and
producing the 99th percentile mean as output. producing the 99th percentile mean as output.
7.1.3. URI 8.1.3. URI
The URI column MUST contain a URI [RFC 3986] that uniquely identified The URI column MUST contain a URI [RFC 3986] that uniquely identified
the metric. The URI is a URN [RFC 2141]. The URI is automatically the metric. The URI is a URN [RFC 2141]. The URI is automatically
generated by prepending the prefix urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric: to generated by prepending the prefix urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric: to
the metric name. The resulting URI is globally unique. the metric name. The resulting URI is globally unique.
7.1.4. Description 8.1.4. Description
A Registered Performance Metric Description is a written A Registered Performance Metric Description is a written
representation of a particular Registry entry. It supplements the representation of a particular Registry entry. It supplements the
metric name to help Registry users select relevant Registered metric name to help Registry users select relevant Registered
Performance Metrics. Performance Metrics.
7.2. Metric Definition Category 8.2. 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 8.2.1. Reference Definition
This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant
section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any
supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition
for implementations. The reference needs to be an immutable for implementations. The reference needs to be an immutable
document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is likely to document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is likely to
be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a
specification. specification.
7.2.2. Fixed Parameters 8.2.2. Fixed Parameters
Fixed Parameters are input factors whose value must be specified in Fixed Parameters are input factors whose value must be specified in
the Registry. The measurement system uses these values. the Registry. The measurement system uses these values.
Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated
as Fixed Parameters. For example, for active metrics, Fixed as Fixed Parameters. For example, for active metrics, Fixed
Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention
"packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport "packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport
protocol, payload length, TTL, etc. An example for passive metrics protocol, payload length, TTL, etc. An example for passive metrics
is for RTP packet loss calculation that relies on the validation of a is for RTP packet loss calculation that relies on the validation of a
packet as RTP which is a multi-packet validation controlled by packet as RTP which is a multi-packet validation controlled by
MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550]. Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550]. Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL
values can alter the loss report and this value could be set as a values can alter the loss report and this value could be set as a
fixed parameter Fixed Parameter
A Parameter which is Fixed for one Registry entry may be designated A Parameter which is a Fixed Parameter for one Registry entry may be
as a Run-time Parameter for another Registry entry. designated as a Run-time Parameter for another Registry entry.
7.3. Method of Measurement Category 8.3. Method of Measurement Category
This category includes columns for references to relevant sections of This category includes columns for references to relevant sections of
the RFC(s) and any supplemental information needed to ensure an the RFC(s) and any supplemental information needed to ensure an
unambiguous method for implementations. unambiguous method for implementations.
7.3.1. Reference Method 8.3.1. Reference Method
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 Generation Stream 8.3.2. Packet Generation Stream
This column applies to metrics that generate traffic for measurement This column applies to metrics that generate traffic for a part of
purposes including but not necessarily limited to Active metrics. their Measurement Method purposes including but not necessarily
The generated traffic is referred as stream and this columns describe limited to Active metrics. The generated traffic is referred as
its characteristics. Principally, two different streams are used in stream and this columns describe its characteristics.
IPPM metrics, Poisson distributed as described in [RFC2330] and
Periodic as described in [RFC3432]. Both Poisson and Periodic have
their own unique parameters, and the relevant set of values is
specified in this column.
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 Stream Parameters: The values and formats of input factors for o Stream Parameters: The values and formats of input factors for
each type of stream. For example, the average packet rate and each type of stream. For example, the average packet rate and
distribution truncation value for streams with Poisson-distributed distribution truncation value for streams with Poisson-distributed
inter-packet sending times. inter-packet sending times.
o Reference: the specification where the stream is defined o Reference: the specification where the stream is defined
The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling, The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling
where a single atomic measurement is conducted. Each atomic (see [RFC2330]), where a single atomic measurement is conducted.
measurement could consist of sending a single packet (such as a DNS Each atomic measurement could consist of sending a single packet
request) or sending several packets (for example, to request a (such as a DNS request) or sending several packets (for example, to
webpage). Other streams support a series of atomic measurements in a request a webpage). Other streams support a series of atomic
"sample", with a schedule defining the timing between each measurements in a "sample", with a schedule defining the timing
transmitted packet and subsequent measurement. between each transmitted packet and subsequent measurement.
Principally, two different streams are used in IPPM metrics, Poisson
7.3.3. Traffic Filter distributed as described in [RFC2330] and Periodic as described in
[RFC3432]. Both Poisson and Periodic have their own unique
parameters, and the relevant set of values is specified in this
column.
This column applies to metrics that observe packets flowing in the 8.3.3. Traffic Filter
wire i.e. that is not specifically addressed to the measurement
agent. This includes but is not limited to Passive Metrics. The
filter specifies the traffic constraints that the passive measurement
method used is valid (or invalid) for. This includes valid packet
sampling ranges, width of valid traffic matches (eg. all traffic on
interface, UDP packets packets in a flow (eg. same RTP session).
It is possible that the measurement method may not have a specific This column applies to metrics that observe packets flowing through
limitation. However, this specific registry entry with it's (the device with) the measurement agent i.e. that is not necessarily
combination of fixed parameters implies restrictions. These addressed to the measurement agent. This includes but is not limited
restrictions would be listed in this field. to Passive Metrics. The filter specifies the traffic that is
measured. This includes protocol field values/ranges, such as
address ranges, and flow or session identifiers.
7.3.4. Sampling distribution 8.3.4. Sampling distribution
The sampling distribution defines out of all the packets that match The sampling distribution defines out of all the packets that match
the traffic filter, which one of those are actually used for the the traffic filter, which one of those are actually used for the
measurement. One possibility is "all" which implies that all packets measurement. One possibility is "all" which implies that all packets
matching the Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other matching the Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other
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
Parameters: if any. Parameters: if any.
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.
7.3.5. Run-time Parameters 8.3.5. Run-time Parameters
Run-Time Parameters are input factors that must be determined, Run-Time Parameters are input factors that must be determined,
configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results
for the context to be complete. However, the values of these for the context to be complete. However, the values of these
parameters is not specified in the Registry, rather these parameters parameters is not specified in the Registry, rather these parameters
are listed as an aid to the measurement system implementor or user are listed as an aid to the measurement system implementor or user
(they must be left as variables, and supplied on execution). (they must be left as variables, and supplied on execution).
Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated
as Run-Time Parameters. as Run-Time Parameters.
A Data Format of each Run-time Parameter SHALL be specified in this
column, to simplify the control and implementation of measurement
devices.
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 8.3.6. Role
In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined
e.g. on a one-way packet delay active measurement, there is one e.g. on 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 the other one that
receives the packets. This column contains the name of the role for receives the packets. This column contains the name of the role for
this particular entry. In the previous example, there should be two this particular entry. In the previous example, there should be two
entries int he registry, one for each role, so that when a entries int he registry, one for each role, so that when a
measurement agent is instructed to perform the one way delay source measurement agent is instructed to perform the one way delay source
metric know that it is supposed to generate packets. The values for metric know that it is supposed to generate packets. The values for
this field are defined in the reference method of measurement. this field are defined in the reference method of measurement.
7.4. Output Category 8.4. 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.
7.4.1. Value 8.4.1. Value
This column contain the name of the output type. The output type This column contain the name of the output type. The output type
defines the type of result that the metric produces. It can be the defines the type of result that the metric produces. It can be the
raw results or it can be some form of statistic. The specification raw results or it can be some form of statistic. The specification
of the output type must define the format of the output. In some of the output type must define the format of the output. In some
systems, format specifications will simplify both measurement systems, format specifications will simplify both measurement
implementation and collection/storage tasks. Note that if two implementation and collection/storage tasks. Note that if two
different statistics are required from a single measurement (for different statistics are required from a single measurement (for
example, both "Xth percentile mean" and "Raw"), then a new output example, both "Xth percentile mean" and "Raw"), then a new output
type must be defined ("Xth percentile mean AND Raw"). type must be defined ("Xth percentile mean AND Raw").
7.4.2. Data Format 8.4.2. Reference
This column provides the data format for the output. It is provided
to simplify the communication with collection systems and
implementation of measurement devices.
7.4.3. Reference
This column contains a pointer to the specification where the output This column contains a pointer to the specification where the output
type is defined type is defined
7.4.4. Metric Units 8.4.3. Metric Units
The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension
or units of measure. This column provides the units. or units of measure. This column provides the units.
When a sample of singletons (see [RFC2330] for definitions of these When a sample of singletons (see [RFC2330] for definitions of these
terms) is collected, this entry will specify the units for each terms) is collected, this entry will specify the units for each
measured value. measured value.
7.5. Admisnitratvie information 8.5. Administrative information
7.5.1. Status 8.5.1. Status
The status of the specification of this Registered Performance The status of the specification of this Registered Performance
Metric. Allowed values are 'current' and 'deprecated'. All newly Metric. Allowed values are 'current' and 'deprecated'. All newly
defined Information Elements have 'current' status. defined Information Elements have 'current' status.
7.5.2. Requester 8.5.2. Requester
The requester for the Registered Performance Metric. The requester The requester for the Registered Performance Metric. The requester
MAY be a document, such as RFC, or person. MAY be a document, such as RFC, or person.
7.5.3. Revision 8.5.3. 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 8.5.4. 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.
7.6. Comments and Remarks 8.6. 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 Metrics 9. The Life-Cycle of Registered 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 Registry entry identified for a given application, candidate Registry entry
specifications in accordance with Section 7 are submitted to IANA to specifications in accordance with Section 8 are submitted to IANA to
follow the process for review by the Performance Metric Experts, as follow the process for review by the Performance Metric Experts, as
defined below. This process is also used for other changes to the defined below. This process is also used for other changes to the
Performance Metric Registry, such as deprecation or revision, as Performance Metric Registry, such as deprecation or revision, as
described later in this section. described later in this section.
It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Registry entry It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Registry entry
seek review in the relevant IETF working group, or offer the seek review in the relevant IETF working group, or offer the
opportunity for review on the WG mailing list. opportunity for review on the WG mailing list.
8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Registry 9.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Registry
Requests to change Registered Metrics in the Performance Metric Requests to change Registered Metrics in the Performance Metric
Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to a Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to a
designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed by designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed by
the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review
RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The
Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as
compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable
Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently
defined set of Registered Performance Metrics. defined set of Registered Performance Metrics.
Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in
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
Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, which Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, which
changes the Performance Metric Registry. If the request is not updates the Performance Metric Registry. If the request is not
acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts can coordinate with the acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts can coordinate with the
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 Metrics that were added with IETF consensus require any Registered Metrics that were added with IETF consensus require
IETF consensus for revision or deprecation. 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 RFC5226.
8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics 9.2. 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 Registry backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Registry
entry describing a Registered Metric (entries with lower revision entry describing a Registered Metric (entries with lower revision
numbers, but the same Identifier and Name). numbers, but the same Identifier and 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
to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Metric is 'current' or to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Metric is 'current' or
'deprecated'. 'deprecated'.
In addition, no policy is defined for revising IANA Performance In addition, no policy is defined for revising IANA Performance
Metric entries or addressing errors therein. To be certain, changes Metric entries or addressing errors therein. To be certain, changes
skipping to change at page 21, line 8 skipping to change at page 19, line 27
or" or"
3. "it corrects missing information in the metric definition without 3. "it corrects missing information in the metric definition without
changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity' changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity'
semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics
value); or" value); or"
4. "it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself 4. "it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself
corrected." corrected."
5. "BENOIT: NOTE THAT THERE ARE MORE RULES IN RFC 7013 SECTION 5 BUT If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the
THEY WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE ACTIVE/PASSIVE DRAFTS. TO BE Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document,
DISCUSSED."
If a change is deemed permissible by the Performance Metric Experts,
IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry. The IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry. The
requester of the change is appended to the requester in the Registry. requester of the change is appended to the requester in the Registry.
Each Registered Performance Metric in the Registry has a revision Each Registered Performance Metric in the Registry has a revision
number, starting at zero. Each change to a Registered Performance number, starting at zero. Each change to a Registered Performance
Metric following this process increments the revision number by one. Metric following this process increments the revision number by one.
COMMENT: Al (and Phil) think we should keep old/revised entries as- COMMENT: Al (and Phil) think we should keep old/revised entries as-
is, marked as deprecated >>>> Since any revision must be inter- is, marked as deprecated >>>> Since any revision must be inter-
operable according to the criteria above, there is no need for the operable according to the criteria above, there is no need for the
skipping to change at page 21, line 34 skipping to change at page 19, line 50
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 Metric 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 Registry entries in the form of text Where applicable, additions to Registry entries in the form of text
Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such additions may Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such additions may
not constitute a revision according to this process. not constitute a revision according to this process.
8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the
registry for archival purposes. The older entries are kept with all
fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status
field that is changed to "Deprecated".
9.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics
Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered
Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A Registered Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A Registered
Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when: Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when:
1. "the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or 1. "the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or
shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in
Section Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or" Section 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
skipping to change at page 22, line 17 skipping to change at page 20, line 39
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 Metrics should result in a log entry The use of deprecated Registered Metrics should result in a log entry
or human-readable warning by the respective application. or human-readable warning by the respective application.
Names and Metric ID of deprecated Registered Metrics must not be Names and Metric ID of deprecated Registered Metrics must not be
reused. reused.
9. Performance Metric Registry and other Registries Deprecated metric entries are kept in the registry for archival
purposes. The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified
BENOIT: TBD. (version, revision date) except for the status field that is changed
to "Deprecated".
THE BASIC IDEA IS THAT PEOPLE COULD DIRECTLY DEFINE PERF. METRICS IN
OTHER EXISTING REGISTRIES, FOR SPECIFIC PROTOCOL/ENCODING. EXAMPLE:
IPFIX. IDEALLY, ALL PERF. METRICS SHOULD BE DEFINED IN THIS
REGISTRY AND REFERS TO FROM OTHER REGISTRIES.
10. Security considerations 10. Security considerations
This draft doesn't introduce any new security considerations for the This draft doesn't introduce any new security considerations for the
Internet. However, the definition of Performance Metrics may Internet. However, the definition of Performance Metrics may
introduce some security concerns, and should be reviewed with introduce some security concerns, and should be reviewed with
security in mind. security in mind.
11. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
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" with the Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics" with the
columns defined in Section 7. columns defined in Section 8.
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 [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a
group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, appointed by the group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, appointed by the
IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. The IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. The
experts will initially be drawn from the Working Group Chairs and experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs and
document editors of the Performance Metrics Directorate [performance- document editors of the Performance Metrics Directorate among other
metrics-directorate]. sources of experts.
The Identifier values from 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private
use. The name starting with the prefix Priv- are reserved for
private use.
This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix
urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric for the purpose of generating URIs for urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric for the purpose of generating URIs for
registered metrics. registered metrics.
12. Acknowledgments 12. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading
some brainstorming sessions on this topic. some brainstorming sessions on this topic.
skipping to change at page 24, line 23 skipping to change at page 22, line 41
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich, [RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich,
"Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice
Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010. Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010.
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework] [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for large-scale Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for large-scale
measurement platforms (LMAP)", draft-ietf-lmap- measurement platforms (LMAP)", draft-ietf-lmap-
framework-08 (work in progress), August 2014. framework-10 (work in progress), January 2015.
[RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G. [RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports", Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
RFC 5477, March 2009. RFC 5477, March 2009.
[RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J. [RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J.
Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export", Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export",
RFC 5102, January 2008. RFC 5102, January 2008.
[RFC6792] Wu, Q., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use of the [RFC6792] Wu, Q., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use of the
skipping to change at page 25, line 15 skipping to change at page 23, line 31
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002. November 2002.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006. Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation [RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009. Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.
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. 96 change blocks. 
323 lines changed or deleted 288 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/