< draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-11.txt		draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-12.txt >
	Network Working Group A. Clark		Network Working Group A. Clark
	Internet-Draft Telchemy Incorporated		Internet-Draft Telchemy Incorporated
	Intended status: BCP B. Claise		Intended status: BCP B. Claise
	Expires: January 26, 2012 Cisco Systems, Inc.		Expires: January 29, 2012 Cisco Systems, Inc.
	July 25, 2011		July 28, 2011
	Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development		Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development
	draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-11		draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-12
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes a framework and a process for developing		This document describes a framework and a process for developing
	Performance Metrics of protocols and applications transported over		Performance Metrics of protocols and applications transported over
	IETF-specified protocols, and that can be used to characterize		IETF-specified protocols, and that can be used to characterize
	traffic on live networks and services.		traffic on live networks and services.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 34 ¶
	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 January 26, 2012.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 2012.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 5, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 33 ¶
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	Requirements Language		Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	2.1. Performance Metrics Directorate		2.1. Performance Metrics Directorate
	The Performance Metrics Directorate is a directorate that coordinates		The Performance Metrics Directorate is a directorate provides
	the Performance Metric development in the IETF.		guidance for Performance Metrics development in the IETF.
	The Performance Metrics Directorate should be composed of experts in		The Performance Metrics Directorate should be composed of experts in
	the performance community, potentially selected from the IPPM, BMWG,		the performance community, potentially selected from the IPPM, BMWG,
	and PMOL WGs.		and PMOL WGs.
	2.2. Quality of Service		2.2. Quality of Service
	Quality of Service (QoS) is defined similarly to the ITU "QoS		Quality of Service (QoS) is defined similarly to the ITU "QoS
	experienced/perceived by customer/user (QoE)" E.800 [E.800], i.e.:		experienced/perceived by customer/user (QoE)" E.800 [E.800], i.e.:
	"Totality of characteristics of a telecommunications service that		"Totality of characteristics of a telecommunications service that
	skipping to change at page 18, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 18, line 49 ¶
	o Relationship to metrics defined elsewhere within IETF or within		o Relationship to metrics defined elsewhere within IETF or within
	other SDO's		other SDO's
	o Do the Security Considerations adequately address denial of		o Do the Security Considerations adequately address denial of
	service attacks, unwanted interference with the metric/		service attacks, unwanted interference with the metric/
	measurement, and user data confidentiality (when measuring live		measurement, and user data confidentiality (when measuring live
	traffic)?		traffic)?
	6.3. Performance Metrics Directorate Interaction with other WGs		6.3. Performance Metrics Directorate Interaction with other WGs
	The Performance Metrics Directorate SHALL work in partnership with		The Performance Metrics Directorate SHALL provide guidance to the related
	the related protocol development WG when considering an Internet		protocol development WG when considering an Internet Draft that
	Draft that specifies Performance Metrics for a protocol. A		specifies Performance Metrics for a protocol. A sufficient number of
	sufficient number of individuals with expertise must be willing to		individuals with expertise must be willing to consult on the draft.
	consult on the draft. If the related WG has concluded, comments on		If the related WG has concluded, comments on the proposal should
	the proposal should still be sought from key RFC authors and former		still be sought from key RFC authors and former chairs.
	chairs.
	A formal review is RECOMMENDED by the time the document is reviewed		A formal review is recommended by the time the document is reviewed
	by the Area Directors, or an IETF Last Call is being conducted - same		by the Area Directors, or an IETF Last Call is being conducted - same
	as expert reviews are being performed by other directorates.		as expert reviews are being performed by other directorates.
	Existing mailing lists SHOULD be used, however a dedicated mailing		Existing mailing lists SHOULD be used, however a dedicated mailing
	list MAY be initiated if necessary to facilitate work on a draft.		list MAY be initiated if necessary to facilitate work on a draft.
	In some cases, it will be appropriate to have the IETF session		In some cases, it will be appropriate to have the IETF session
	discussion during the related protocol WG session, to maximize		discussion during the related protocol WG session, to maximize
	visibility of the effort to that WG and expand the review.		visibility of the effort to that WG and expand the review.
	6.4. Standards Track Performance Metrics		6.4. Standards Track Performance Metrics
	The Performance Metrics Directorate will manage the progression of		The Performance Metrics Directorate will assist with the progression
	RFCs along the Standards Track. See [I-D.bradner-metricstest]. This		of RFCs along the Standards Track. See [I-D.bradner-metricstest].
	may include the preparation of test plans to examine different		This may include the preparation of test plans to examine different
	implementations of the metrics to ensure that the metric definitions		implementations of the metrics to ensure that the metric definitions
	are clear and unambiguous (depending on the final form of the draft		are clear and unambiguous (depending on the final form of the draft
	above).		above).
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	This document makes no request of IANA.		This document makes no request of IANA.
	Note to RFC EDITOR: this section may be removed on publication as an		Note to RFC EDITOR: this section may be removed on publication as an
	RFC.		RFC.
End of changes. 7 change blocks.
	17 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/