< draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-16.txt		draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17.txt >
	Network Working Group M. Bagnulo		Network Working Group M. Bagnulo
	Internet-Draft UC3M		Internet-Draft UC3M
	Intended status: Best Current Practice B. Claise		Intended status: Best Current Practice B. Claise
	Expires: April 25, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc.		Expires: June 10, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc.
	P. Eardley		P. Eardley
	BT		BT
	A. Morton		A. Morton
	AT&T Labs		AT&T Labs
	A. Akhter		A. Akhter
	Consultant		Consultant
	October 22, 2018		December 7, 2018
	Registry for Performance Metrics		Registry for Performance Metrics
	draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-16		draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics registry		This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics registry
	and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This document		and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This document
	also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric		also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric
	requesters and reviewers.		requesters and reviewers.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 40 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 10, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 5, line 20 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 20 ¶
	all the registry review criteria defined in this document in order		all the registry review criteria defined in this document in order
	to included in the registry.		to included in the registry.
	Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing		Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing
	Registered Performance Metrics.		Registered Performance Metrics.
	Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a		Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a
	proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry.		proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry.
	Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a		Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a
	group of designated experts [RFC5226] selected by the IESG to		group of designated experts [RFC8126] selected by the IESG to
	validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance		validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance
	Metrics Registry. The Performance Metrics Experts work closely		Metrics Registry. The Performance Metrics Experts work closely
	with IANA.		with IANA.
	Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition		Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition
	of a Performance Metric. A numerical or other specified factor		of a Performance Metric. A numerical or other specified factor
	forming one of a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions		forming one of a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions
	of its operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a		of its operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a
	metric and interpret the results. There are two types of		metric and interpret the results. There are two types of
	Parameters, Fixed and Run-time parameters. For the Fixed		Parameters, Fixed and Run-time parameters. For the Fixed
	skipping to change at page 7, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 21 ¶
	set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design		set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design
	was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of		was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of
	guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate		guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate
	Registered Performance Metrics.		Registered Performance Metrics.
	This document makes no attempt to populate the Performance Metrics		This document makes no attempt to populate the Performance Metrics
	Registry with initial entries. It does provides a few examples that		Registry with initial entries. It does provides a few examples that
	are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry		are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry
	at this point in time.		at this point in time.
	Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best		Based on [RFC8126] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best
	Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026].		Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026].
	4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry		4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry
	In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance		In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance
	Metric Registry.		Metric Registry.
	4.1. Interoperability		4.1. Interoperability
	As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a		As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a
	skipping to change at page 24, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 24, line 18 ¶
	Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working		Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working
	group, or offer the opportunity for review on the working group		group, or offer the opportunity for review on the working group
	mailing list.		mailing list.
	8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry		8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry
	Requests to add Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance		Requests to add Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance
	Metric Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to		Metric Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to
	a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed		a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed
	by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review		by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review
	RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The		[RFC8126]policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The
	Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as		Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as
	compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable		compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable
	Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently		Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently
	defined set of Registered Performance Metrics.		defined set of Registered Performance Metrics.
	Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in		Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in
	this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA.		this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA.
	The Performance Metric Experts should endeavor to complete referred		The Performance Metric Experts should endeavor to complete referred
	reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, the		reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, the
	skipping to change at page 24, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 24, line 42 ¶
	requester to change the request to be compliant. The Performance		requester to change the request to be compliant. The Performance
	Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject		Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject
	clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright.		clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright.
	This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the		This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the
	Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus. Specifically,		Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus. Specifically,
	any Registered Performance Metrics that were added with IETF		any Registered Performance Metrics that were added with IETF
	consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation.		consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation.
	Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in		Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in
	Section 7 of RFC5226.		Section 7 of [RFC8126].
	8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics		8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics
	A request for Revision is only permissible when the changes maintain		A request for Revision is only permissible when the changes maintain
	backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Performance		backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Performance
	Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric		Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric
	(entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and		(entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and
	Name).		Name).
	The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metric Registry is		The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metric Registry is
	skipping to change at page 28, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 28, line 34 ¶
	choose Name elements from among the registered elements. However, if		choose Name elements from among the registered elements. However, if
	the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, it may be		the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, it may be
	necessary to propose a new Name element to properly describe the		necessary to propose a new Name element to properly describe the
	metric, as described below.		metric, as described below.
	A candidate Metric Entry RFC or document for Expert Review would		A candidate Metric Entry RFC or document for Expert Review would
	propose one or more new element values required to describe the		propose one or more new element values required to describe the
	unique entry, and the new name element(s) would be reviewed along		unique entry, and the new name element(s) would be reviewed along
	with the metric entry. New assignments for IETF URN Sub-namespace		with the metric entry. New assignments for IETF URN Sub-namespace
	for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements will be administered		for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements will be administered
	by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a		by IANA through Expert Review [RFC8126], i.e., review by one of a
	group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed		group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed
	by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors.		by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors.
	10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry		10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry
	This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics		This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics
	Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for		Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for
	Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics". This		Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics". This
	Registry will contain the following Summary columns:		Registry will contain the following Summary columns:
	skipping to change at page 29, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 29, line 32 ¶
	The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each		The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each
	registry entry, and the linked text may be the URN itself. The		registry entry, and the linked text may be the URN itself. The
	template shall be HTML-ized to aid the reader, with links to		template shall be HTML-ized to aid the reader, with links to
	reference RFCs (similar to the way that Internet Drafts are HTML-		reference RFCs (similar to the way that Internet Drafts are HTML-
	ized, the same tool can perform the function).		ized, the same tool can perform the function).
	The "Reference" column will include an RFC, an approved specification		The "Reference" column will include an RFC, an approved specification
	from another standards body, or the contact person.		from another standards body, or the contact person.
	New assignments for Performance Metric Registry will be administered		New assignments for Performance Metric Registry will be administered
	by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a		by IANA through Expert Review [RFC8126], i.e., review by one of a
	group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed		group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed
	by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. The		by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. The
	experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs,		experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs,
	document editors, and members of the Performance Metrics Directorate,		document editors, and members of the Performance Metrics Directorate,
	among other sources of experts.		among other sources of experts.
	Extensions of the Performance Metric Registry require IETF Standards		Extensions of the Performance Metric Registry require IETF Standards
	Action. Only one form of registry extension is envisaged:		Action. Only one form of registry extension is envisaged:
	1. Adding columns, or both categories and columns, to accommodate		1. Adding columns, or both categories and columns, to accommodate
	skipping to change at page 30, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 30, line 45 ¶
	[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform		[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
	Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,		Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
	RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,		RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
	[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics		[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
	Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, DOI 10.17487/RFC4148, August		Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, DOI 10.17487/RFC4148, August
	2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4148>.		2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4148>.
	[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
	[RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics		[RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics
	(IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248,		(IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248>.
	[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New		[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
	Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,		Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.
	[RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,		[RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,
	"IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement		"IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement
	Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March		Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March
	2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.		2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.
			[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
			Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
			RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	12.2. Informative References		12.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]
	Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza,		Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza,
	"Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf-		"Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf-
	ippm-initial-registry-07 (work in progress), June 2018.		ippm-initial-registry-08 (work in progress), October 2018.
	[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way		[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
	Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,		Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
	September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.		September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.
	[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip		[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
	Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,		Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
	September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.		September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.
	[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation		[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
End of changes. 13 change blocks.
	16 lines changed or deleted		16 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/