idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses. Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too? Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 30, 2016) is 2703 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2679' is defined on line 1334, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3393' is defined on line 1347, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4566' is defined on line 1367, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5481' is defined on line 1386, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5905' is defined on line 1390, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6776' is defined on line 1400, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6792' is defined on line 1406, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7003' is defined on line 1411, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2141 (Obsoleted by RFC 8141) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4148 (Obsoleted by RFC 6248) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6248 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2679 (Obsoleted by RFC 7679) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4566 (Obsoleted by RFC 8866) == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-02 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Bagnulo 3 Internet-Draft UC3M 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice B. Claise 5 Expires: June 3, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 P. Eardley 7 BT 8 A. Morton 9 AT&T Labs 10 A. Akhter 11 Consultant 12 November 30, 2016 14 Registry for Performance Metrics 15 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-10 17 Abstract 19 This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics registry 20 and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This document 21 also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric 22 requesters and reviewers. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 3, 2017. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . 7 62 4.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 4.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics . . . . 8 64 4.3. Side benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 5. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration . . . . . . . . 9 66 6. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt . . . . . . . . . 9 67 6.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 7. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry . . . . . . . . 10 69 7.1. Summary Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 7.1.1. Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 7.1.2. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 72 7.1.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 73 7.1.4. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 74 7.1.5. Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 75 7.1.6. Change Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 76 7.1.7. Version (of Registry Format) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 77 7.2. Metric Definition Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 78 7.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 79 7.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 80 7.3. Method of Measurement Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 81 7.3.1. Reference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 82 7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 83 7.3.3. Traffic Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 84 7.3.4. Sampling Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 85 7.3.5. Run-time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 86 7.3.6. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 87 7.4. Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 88 7.4.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 89 7.4.2. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 90 7.4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 91 7.4.4. Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 92 7.5. Administrative information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 93 7.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 94 7.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 95 7.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 96 7.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 98 7.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 99 8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . 23 100 8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics 101 Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 102 8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 24 103 8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 25 104 9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 105 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 106 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 107 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 108 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 109 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 110 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 112 1. Introduction 114 The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and 115 applications transported over its protocols. Performance metrics are 116 such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that 117 [RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development. 119 The definition and use of Performance Metrics in the IETF happens in 120 various working groups (WG), most notably: 122 The "IP Performance Metrics" (IPPM) WG is the WG primarily 123 focusing on Performance Metrics definition at the IETF. 125 The "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework" 126 (XRBLOCK) WG recently specified many Performance Metrics related 127 to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611], 128 which establishes a framework to allow new information to be 129 conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined 130 in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", 131 [RFC3550]. 133 The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance 134 Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking 135 technologies. 137 The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) concluded WG specified an 138 IANA process for new Information Elements. Some Performance 139 Metrics related Information Elements are proposed on regular 140 basis. 142 The "Performance Metrics for Other Layers" (PMOL) concluded WG, 143 defined some Performance Metrics related to Session Initiation 144 Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035]. 146 It is expected that more Performance Metrics will be defined in the 147 future, not only IP-based metrics, but also metrics which are 148 protocol-specific and application-specific. 150 However, despite the importance of Performance Metrics, there are two 151 related problems for the industry. First, how to ensure that when 152 one party requests another party to measure (or report or in some way 153 act on) a particular Performance Metric, then both parties have 154 exactly the same understanding of what Performance Metric is being 155 referred to. Second, how to discover which Performance Metrics have 156 been specified, so as to avoid developing new Performance Metric that 157 is very similar, but not quite inter-operable. The problems can be 158 addressed by creating a registry of performance metrics. The usual 159 way in which IETF organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned 160 Numbers Authority (IANA) registries, and there is currently no 161 Performance Metrics Registry maintained by the IANA. 163 This document therefore requests that IANA create and maintain a 164 Performance Metrics Registry, according to the maintenance procedures 165 and the Performance Metrics Registry format defined in this memo. 166 Although the Registry format is primarily for use by IANA, any other 167 organization that wishes to create a Performance Metrics Registry MAY 168 use the same format for their purposes. The authors make no 169 guarantee of the format's applicability to any possible set of 170 Performance Metrics envisaged by other organizations, but encourage 171 others to apply it. In the remainder of this document, unless we 172 explicitly say so, we will refer to the IANA-maintained Performance 173 Metrics Registry as simply the Performance Metrics Registry. 175 2. Terminology 177 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 178 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 179 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 180 [RFC2119]. 182 Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure 183 of performance, targeted to an IETF-specified protocol or targeted 184 to an application transported over an IETF-specified protocol. 185 Examples of Performance Metrics are the FTP response time for a 186 complete file download, the DNS response time to resolve the IP 187 address, a database logging time, etc. This definition is 188 consistent with the definition of metric in [RFC2330] and broader 189 than the definition of performance metric in [RFC6390]. 191 Registered Performance Metric: A Registered Performance Metric is a 192 Performance Metric expressed as an entry in the Performance Metric 193 Registry, administered by IANA. Such a performance metric has met 194 all the registry review criteria defined in this document in order 195 to included in the registry. 197 Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing 198 Registered Performance Metrics. 200 Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a 201 proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry. 203 Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a 204 group of designated experts [RFC5226] selected by the IESG to 205 validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance 206 Metrics Registry. The Performance Metrics Experts work closely 207 with IANA. 209 Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition 210 of a Performance Metric. A numerical or other specified factor 211 forming one of a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions 212 of its operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a 213 metric and interpret the results. There are two types of 214 Parameters, Fixed and Run-time parameters. For the Fixed 215 Parameters, the value of the variable is specified in the 216 Performance Metrics Registry entry and different Fixed Parameter 217 values results in different Registered Performance Metrics. For 218 the Run-time Parameters, the value of the variable is defined when 219 the metric measurement method is executed and a given Registered 220 Performance Metric supports multiple values for the parameter. 221 Although Run-time Parameters do not change the fundamental nature 222 of the Performance Metric's definition, some have substantial 223 influence on the network property being assessed and 224 interpretation of the results. 226 Note: Consider the case of packet loss in the following two 227 Active Measurement Method cases. The first case is packet loss 228 as background loss where the Run-time Parameter set includes a 229 very sparse Poisson stream, and only characterizes the times 230 when packets were lost. Actual user streams likely see much 231 higher loss at these times, due to tail drop or radio errors. 232 The second case is packet loss as inverse of throughput where 233 the Run-time Parameter set includes a very dense, bursty 234 stream, and characterizes the loss experienced by a stream that 235 approximates a user stream. These are both "loss metrics", but 236 the difference in interpretation of the results is highly 237 dependent on the Run-time Parameters (at least), to the extreme 238 where we are actually using loss to infer its compliment: 239 delivered throughput. 241 Active Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on 242 traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is 243 generated for that reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics 244 are known a priori. The complete definition of Active Methods is 245 specified in section 3.4 of[RFC7799]. Examples of Active 246 Measurement Methods are the measurement methods for the One way 247 delay metric defined in [RFC7679] and the one for round trip delay 248 defined in [RFC2681]. 250 Passive Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on 251 network traffic, generated either from the end users or from 252 network elements that would exist regardless whether the 253 measurement was being conducted or not. The complete definition 254 of Passive Methods is specified in section 3.6 of [RFC7799]. One 255 characteristic of Passive Measurement Methods is that sensitive 256 information may be observed, and as a consequence, stored in the 257 measurement system. 259 Hybrid Measurement Method: Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement 260 that use a combination of Active Methods and Passive Methods, to 261 assess Active Metrics, Passive Metrics, or new metrics derived 262 from the a priori knowledge and observations of the stream of 263 interest. The complete definition of Hybrid Methods is specified 264 in section 3.8 of [RFC7799]. 266 3. Scope 268 This document is meant mainly for two different audiences. For those 269 defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides 270 specifications and best practices to be used in deciding which 271 Registered Performance Metrics are useful for a measurement study, 272 instructions for writing the text for each column of the Registered 273 Performance Metrics, and information on the supporting documentation 274 required for the new Performance Metrics Registry entry (up to and 275 including the publication of one or more RFCs or I-Ds describing it). 276 For the appointed Performance Metrics Experts and for IANA personnel 277 administering the new IANA Performance Metric Registry, it defines a 278 set of acceptance criteria against which these proposed Registered 279 Performance Metrics should be evaluated. In addition, this document 280 may be useful for other organization who are defining a Performance 281 Metric registry of its own, who can rely on the Performance Metric 282 registry defined in this document. 284 This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics 285 issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other 286 form of Performance Metric. This registry is designed to encompass 287 Performance Metrics developed throughout the IETF and especially for 288 the technologies specified in the following working groups: IPPM, 289 XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an prior attempt to 290 set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design 291 was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of 292 guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate 293 Registered Performance Metrics. 295 This document makes no attempt to populate the Performance Metrics 296 Registry with initial entries. It does provides a few examples that 297 are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry 298 at this point in time. 300 Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best 301 Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026]. 303 4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry 305 In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance 306 Metric Registry. 308 4.1. Interoperability 310 As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a 311 namespace for its use within one or more protocols. In the 312 particular case of the Performance Metric Registry, there are two 313 types of protocols that will use the Performance Metrics in the 314 Performance Metrics Registry during their operation (by referring to 315 the Index values): 317 o Control protocol: this type of protocols is used to allow one 318 entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using a 319 specific metric defined by the Performance Metrics Registry. One 320 particular example is the LMAP framework [RFC7594]. Using the 321 LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is used in the 322 LMAP Control protocol to allow a Controller to request a 323 measurement task to one or more Measurement Agents. In order to 324 enable this use case, the entries of the Performance Metric 325 Registry must be well enough defined to allow a Measurement Agent 326 implementation to trigger a specific measurement task upon the 327 reception of a control protocol message. This requirement heavily 328 constrains the type of entries that are acceptable for the 329 Performance Metric Registry. 331 o Report protocol: This type of protocols is used to allow an entity 332 to report measurement results to another entity. By referencing 333 to a specific Performance Metric Registry, it is possible to 334 properly characterize the measurement result data being reported. 335 Using the LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is 336 used in the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report 337 measurement results to a Collector. 339 It should be noted that the LMAP framework explicitly allows for 340 using not only the IANA-maintained Performance Metrics Registry but 341 also other registries containing Performance Metrics, either defined 342 by other organizations or private ones. However, others who are 343 creating Registries to be used in the context of an LMAP framework 344 are encouraged to use the Registry format defined in this document, 345 because this makes it easier for developers of LMAP Measurement 346 Agents (MAs) to programmatically use information found in those other 347 Registries' entries. 349 4.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics 351 A Performance Metrics Registry serves as a single point of reference 352 for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups in the 353 IETF. As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that define 354 Performance Metrics in the IETF and it is hard to keep track of all 355 them. This results in multiple definitions of similar Performance 356 Metrics that attempt to measure the same phenomena but in slightly 357 different (and incompatible) ways. Having a registry would allow 358 both the IETF community and external people to have a single list of 359 relevant Performance Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where 360 appropriate). The single list is also an essential aspect of 361 communication about Performance Metrics, where different entities 362 that request measurements, execute measurements, and report the 363 results can benefit from a common understanding of the referenced 364 Performance Metric. 366 4.3. Side benefits 368 There are a couple of side benefits of having such a registry. 369 First, the Performance Metrics Registry could serve as an inventory 370 of useful and used Performance Metrics, that are normally supported 371 by different implementations of measurement agents. Second, the 372 results of measurements using the Performance Metrics would be 373 comparable even if they are performed by different implementations 374 and in different networks, as the Performance Metric is properly 375 defined. BCP 176 [RFC6576] examines whether the results produced by 376 independent implementations are equivalent in the context of 377 evaluating the completeness and clarity of metric specifications. 378 This BCP defines the standards track advancement testing for (active) 379 IPPM metrics, and the same process will likely suffice to determine 380 whether Registered Performance Metrics are sufficiently well 381 specified to result in comparable (or equivalent) results. 382 Registered Performance Metrics which have undergone such testing 383 SHOULD be noted, with a reference to the test results. 385 5. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration 387 It is neither possible nor desirable to populate the Performance 388 Metrics Registry with all combinations of Parameters of all 389 Performance Metrics. The Registered Performance Metrics should be: 391 1. interpretable by the user. 393 2. implementable by the software designer, 395 3. deployable by network operators, 397 4. accurate, for interoperability and deployment across vendors, 399 5. Operationally useful, so that it has significant industry 400 interest and/or has seen deployment, 402 6. Sufficiently tightly defined, so that different values for the 403 Run-time Parameters does not change the fundamental nature of the 404 measurement, nor change the practicality of its implementation. 406 In essence, there needs to be evidence that a candidate Registered 407 Performance Metric has significant industry interest, or has seen 408 deployment, and there is agreement that the candidate Registered 409 Performance Metric serves its intended purpose. 411 6. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt 413 There was a previous attempt to define a metric registry RFC 4148 414 [RFC4148]. However, it was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because 415 it was "found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM 416 metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when 417 characterizing a metric exactly" which led to the RFC4148 registry 418 having "very few users, if any". 420 A couple of interesting additional quotes from RFC 6248 might help 421 understand the issues related to that registry. 423 1. "It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register 424 every possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and 425 Stream parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metrics 426 Registry." 428 2. "The registry structure has been found to be insufficiently 429 detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics." 431 3. "Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, 432 no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 433 registry during the second half of 2010." 435 The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each 436 Registered Performance Metric with only a few variable (Run-time) 437 Parameters to be specified by the measurement designer, if any. The 438 idea is that entries in the Performance Metrics Registry stem from 439 different measurement methods which require input (Run-time) 440 parameters to set factors like source and destination addresses 441 (which do not change the fundamental nature of the measurement). The 442 downside of this approach is that it could result in a large number 443 of entries in the Performance Metrics Registry. There is agreement 444 that less is more in this context - it is better to have a reduced 445 set of useful metrics rather than a large set of metrics, some with 446 with questionable usefulness. 448 6.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed 450 As mentioned in the previous section, one of the main issues with the 451 previous registry was that the metrics contained in the registry were 452 too generic to be useful. This document specifies stricter criteria 453 for performance metric registration (see section 6), and imposes a 454 group of Performance Metrics Experts that will provide guidelines to 455 assess if a Performance Metric is properly specified. 457 Another key difference between this attempt and the previous one is 458 that in this case there is at least one clear user for the 459 Performance Metrics Registry: the LMAP framework and protocol. 460 Because the LMAP protocol will use the Performance Metrics Registry 461 values in its operation, this actually helps to determine if a metric 462 is properly defined. In particular, since we expect that the LMAP 463 control protocol will enable a controller to request a measurement 464 agent to perform a measurement using a given metric by embedding the 465 Performance Metric Registry value in the protocol, a metric is 466 properly specified if it is defined well-enough so that it is 467 possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the measurement 468 agent. This was the failure of the previous attempt: a registry 469 entry with an undefined Type-P (section 13 of RFC 2330 [RFC2330]) 470 allows implementation to be ambiguous. 472 7. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry 474 This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics 475 used for Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other form 476 of Performance Metric. Each category of measurement has unique 477 properties, so some of the columns defined below are not applicable 478 for a given metric category. In this case, the column(s) SHOULD be 479 populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable). However, the "NA" 480 value MUST NOT be used by any metric in the following columns: 481 Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester, Revision, Revision Date, 482 Description. In the future, a new category of metrics could require 483 additional columns, and adding new columns is a recognized form of 484 registry extension. The specification defining the new column(s) 485 MUST give guidelines to populate the new column(s) for existing 486 entries (in general). 488 The columns of the Performance Metric Registry are defined below. 489 The columns are grouped into "Categories" to facilitate the use of 490 the registry. Categories are described at the 7.x heading level, and 491 columns are at the 7.x.y heading level. The Figure below illustrates 492 this organization. An entry (row) therefore gives a complete 493 description of a Registered Performance Metric. 495 Each column serves as a check-list item and helps to avoid omissions 496 during registration and expert review. 498 Registry Categories and Columns, shown as 500 Category 501 ------------------ 502 Column | Column | 504 Summary 505 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 506 Identifier | Name | URIs | Desc. | Reference | Change Controller | Ver | 508 Metric Definition 509 ----------------------------------------- 510 Reference Definition | Fixed Parameters | 512 Method of Measurement 513 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 514 Reference | Packet | Traffic | Sampling | Run-time | Role | 515 Method | Stream | Filter | Distribution | Parameters | | 516 | Generation | 517 Output 518 ----------------------------------------- 519 Type | Reference | Units | Calibration | 520 | Definition | | | 522 Administrative Information 523 ---------------------------------- 524 Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date | 526 Comments and Remarks 527 -------------------- 529 7.1. Summary Category 531 7.1.1. Identifier 533 A numeric identifier for the Registered Performance Metric. This 534 identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry. 536 The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is a 16-bit 537 integer (range 0 to 65535). 539 The Identifier 0 should be Reserved. The Identifier values from 540 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use. 542 When adding newly Registered Performance Metrics to the Performance 543 Metric Registry, IANA should assign the lowest available identifier 544 to the next Registered Performance Metric. 546 7.1.2. Name 548 As the name of a Registered Performance Metric is the first thing a 549 potential human implementor will use when determining whether it is 550 suitable for their measurement study, it is important to be as 551 precise and descriptive as possible. In future, users will review 552 the names to determine if the metric they want to measure has already 553 been registered, or if a similar entry is available as a basis for 554 creating a new entry. 556 Names are composed of the following elements, separated by an 557 underscore character "_": 559 MetricType_Method_SubTypeMethod_... Spec_Units_Output 561 o MetricType: a combination of the directional properties and the 562 metric measured, such as: 564 RTDelay (Round Trip Delay) 566 RTDNS (Response Time Domain Name Service) 568 OWDelay (One Way Delay) 570 RTLoss (Round Trip Loss) 572 OWLoss (One Way Loss) 574 OWPDV (One Way Packet Delay Variation) 576 OWIPDV (One Way Inter-Packet Delay Variation) 578 OWReorder (One Way Packet Reordering) 580 OWDuplic (One Way Packet Duplication) 582 OWBTC (One Way Bulk Transport Capacity) 584 OWMBM (One Way Model Based Metric) 586 SPMonitor (Single Point Monitor) 588 MPMonitor (Multi-Point Monitor) 590 o Method: One of the methods defined in [RFC7799], such as: 592 Active (depends on a dedicated measurement packet stream and 593 observations of the stream) 594 Passive (depends *solely* on observation of one or more 595 existing packet streams) 597 HybridType1 (obervations on one stream that combine both active 598 and passive methods) 600 HybridType2 (obervations on two or more streams that combine 601 both active and passive methods) 603 Spatial (Spatial Metric of RFC5644) 605 o SubTypeMethod: One or more sub-types to further describe the 606 features of the entry, such as: 608 ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) 610 IP (Internet Protocol) 612 DSCPxx (where xx is replaced by a Diffserv code point) 614 UDP (User Datagram Protocol) 616 TCP (Transport Control Protocol) 618 Poisson (Packet generation using Poisson distribution) 620 Periodic (Periodic packet generation) 622 PayloadxxxxB (where xxxx is replaced by an integer, the number 623 of octets in the Payload)) 625 SustainedBurst (Capacity test, worst case) 627 StandingQueue (test of bottleneck queue behavior) 629 @@@@ 631 SubTypeMethod values are separated by a hyphen "-" character, 632 which indicates that they belong to this element, and that their 633 order is unimportant when considering name uniqueness. 635 o Spec: RFC that specifies this entry in the form RFCXXXXsecY, such 636 as RFC7799sec3. Note: this is not the Primary Reference 637 specification for the metric; it will be blank until the RFC 638 number is assigned, and would remain blank in private registry 639 entries without an RFC. 641 o Units: The units of measurement for the output, such as: 643 Seconds 645 RatioPercent (value multiplied by 100) 647 BPS (Bits per Second) 649 EventTotal (for unit-less counts) 651 Multiple (more than one type of unit) 653 Enumerated (a list of outcomes) 655 Unit-less 657 o Output: The type of output resulting from measurement, such as: 659 Singleton (sometimes called raw data) 661 Minimum 663 Maximum 665 Median 667 Mean 669 95Percentile (95th Percentile) 671 99Percentile (99th Percentile) 673 StdDev (Standard Deviation) 675 Variance 677 PFI (Pass, Fail, Inconclusive) 679 FlowRecords (descriptions of flows observed) 681 An example is: 683 RTDelay_Active_IP-UDP-Poisson_RFCXXXXsecY_Seconds_95percentile 685 as described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]. 687 Note that private registries following the format described here 688 SHOULD use the prefix "Priv_" on any name to avoid unintended 689 conflicts (further considerations are described in section 10). 691 Private registry entries usually have no specifying RFC, thus the 692 Spec: element has no clear interpretation. 694 7.1.3. URIs 696 The URIs column MUST contain a URI [RFC3986] that uniquely identifies 697 the metric. This URI is a URN [RFC2141]. The URI is automatically 698 generated by prepending the prefix 700 urn:ietf:metric:perf: 702 to the metric name. The resulting URI is globally unique. 704 The URIs column MUST contain a second URI which is a URL [RFC3986] 705 and uniquely identifies and locates the metric entry so it is 706 accessible through the Internet. The URL points to a file containing 707 the human-readable information of exactly one registry entry. 708 Ideally, the file will be HTML-formated and contain URLs to 709 referenced sections of HTML-ized RFCs. The separate files for 710 different entries can be more easily edited and re-used when 711 preparing new entries. The exact composition of each metric URL will 712 be determined by IANA and reside on "iana.org", but there will be 713 some overlap with the URN described above. The major sections of 714 [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] provide an example in HTML form 715 (sections 4 and above). 717 7.1.4. Description 719 A Registered Performance Metric description is a written 720 representation of a particular Performance Metrics Registry entry. 721 It supplements the Registered Performance Metric name to help 722 Performance Metrics Registry users select relevant Registered 723 Performance Metrics. 725 7.1.5. Reference 727 This entry gives the specification containing the candidate registry 728 entry which was reviewed and agreed, if such an RFC or other 729 specification exists. 731 7.1.6. Change Controller 733 This entry names the entity responsible for approving revsions to the 734 regsitry entry, and provides contact information. 736 7.1.7. Version (of Registry Format) 738 This entry gives the version number for the registry format used. 739 Formats complying with this memo MUST use 1.0. 741 7.2. Metric Definition Category 743 This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details 744 related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and 745 values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open 746 in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance 747 metric. 749 7.2.1. Reference Definition 751 This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant 752 section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any 753 supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition 754 for implementations. The reference needs to be an immutable 755 document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is likely to 756 be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a 757 specification. 759 7.2.2. Fixed Parameters 761 Fixed Parameters are Parameters whose value must be specified in the 762 Performance Metrics Registry. The measurement system uses these 763 values. 765 Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their 766 descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated 767 as Fixed Parameters. For example, for active metrics, Fixed 768 Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention 769 "packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport 770 protocol, payload length, TTL, etc. An example for passive metrics 771 is for RTP packet loss calculation that relies on the validation of a 772 packet as RTP which is a multi-packet validation controlled by 773 MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550]. Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL 774 values can alter the loss report and this value could be set as a 775 Fixed Parameter. 777 Parameters MUST have well defined names. For human readers, the 778 hanging indent style is preferred, and the names and definitions that 779 do not appear in the Reference Method Specification MUST appear in 780 this column. 782 Parameters MUST have a well-specified data format. 784 A Parameter which is a Fixed Parameter for one Performance Metrics 785 Registry entry may be designated as a Run-time Parameter for another 786 Performance Metrics Registry entry. 788 7.3. Method of Measurement Category 790 This category includes columns for references to relevant sections of 791 the RFC(s) and any supplemental information needed to ensure an 792 unambiguous method for implementations. 794 7.3.1. Reference Method 796 This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s) 797 describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental 798 information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for 799 implementations referring to the RFC text. 801 Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or 802 actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation. 804 7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation 806 This column applies to Performance Metrics that generate traffic for 807 a part of their Measurement Method purposes including but not 808 necessarily limited to Active metrics. The generated traffic is 809 referred as stream and this columns describe its characteristics. 811 Each entry for this column contains the following information: 813 o Value: The name of the packet stream scheduling discipline 815 o Reference: the specification where the stream is defined 817 The packet generation stream may require parameters such as the the 818 average packet rate and distribution truncation value for streams 819 with Poisson-distributed inter-packet sending times. In case such 820 parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed 821 parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on 822 wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric. 824 The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling 825 (see [RFC2330]), where a single atomic measurement is conducted. 826 Each atomic measurement could consist of sending a single packet 827 (such as a DNS request) or sending several packets (for example, to 828 request a webpage). Other streams support a series of atomic 829 measurements in a "sample", with a schedule defining the timing 830 between each transmitted packet and subsequent measurement. 831 Principally, two different streams are used in IPPM metrics, Poisson 832 distributed as described in [RFC2330] and Periodic as described in 833 [RFC3432]. Both Poisson and Periodic have their own unique 834 parameters, and the relevant set of parameters names and values 835 should be included either in the Fixed Parameters column or in the 836 Run-time parameter column. 838 7.3.3. Traffic Filter 840 This column applies to Performance Metrics that observe packets 841 flowing through (the device with) the measurement agent i.e. that is 842 not necessarily addressed to the measurement agent. This includes 843 but is not limited to Passive Metrics. The filter specifies the 844 traffic that is measured. This includes protocol field values/ 845 ranges, such as address ranges, and flow or session identifiers. 847 The traffic filter itself depends on needs of the metric itself and a 848 balance of operators measurement needs and user's need for privacy. 849 Mechanics for conveying the filter criteria might be the BPF (Berkley 850 Packet Filter) or PSAMP [RFC5475] Property Match Filtering which 851 reuses IPFIX [RFC7012]. An example BPF string for matching TCP/80 852 traffic to remote destination net 192.0.2.0/24 would be "dst net 853 192.0.2.0/24 and tcp dst port 80". More complex filter engines might 854 be supported by the implementation that might allow for matching 855 using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology. 857 The traffic filter includes the following information: 859 Type: the type of traffic filter used, e.g. BPF, PSAMP, OpenFlow 860 rule, etc. as defined by a normative reference 862 Value: the actual set of rules expressed 864 7.3.4. Sampling Distribution 866 The sampling distribution defines out of all the packets that match 867 the traffic filter, which one of those are actually used for the 868 measurement. One possibility is "all" which implies that all packets 869 matching the Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other 870 sampling strategies. It includes the following information: 872 Value: the name of the sampling distribution 874 Reference definition: pointer to the specification where the 875 sampling distribution is properly defined. 877 The sampling distribution may require parameters. In case such 878 parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed 879 parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on 880 wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric. 882 Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection are 883 documented in the PSAMP (Packet Sampling) [RFC5475], while the 884 Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting, [RFC5474] provides more 885 background information. The sampling distribution parameters might 886 be expressed in terms of the Information Model for Packet Sampling 887 Exports, [RFC5477], and the Flow Selection Techniques, [RFC7014]. 889 7.3.5. Run-time Parameters 891 Run-Time Parameters are Parameters that must be determined, 892 configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results 893 for the context to be complete. However, the values of these 894 parameters is not specified in the Performance Metrics Registry (like 895 the Fixed Parameters), rather these parameters are listed as an aid 896 to the measurement system implementer or user (they must be left as 897 variables, and supplied on execution). 899 Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their 900 descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated 901 as Run-Time Parameters. 903 Parameters MUST have well defined names. For human readers, the 904 hanging indent style is preferred, and the names and definitions that 905 do not appear in the Reference Method Specification MUST appear in 906 this column. 908 A Data Format for each Run-time Parameter MUST be specified in this 909 column, to simplify the control and implementation of measurement 910 devices. For example, parameters that include an IPv4 address can be 911 encoded as a 32 bit integer (i.e. binary base64 encoded value) or ip- 912 address as defined in [RFC6991]. The actual encoding(s) used must be 913 explicitly defined for each Run-time parameter. IPv6 addresses and 914 options MUST be accomodated, allowing Registered Metrics to be used 915 in either address family. 917 Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement 918 point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and 919 other information essential to the method of measurement. 921 7.3.6. Role 923 In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined 924 e.g. on a one-way packet delay active measurement, there is one 925 measurement agent that generates the packets and the other one that 926 receives the packets. This column contains the name of the role for 927 this particular entry. In the previous example, there should be two 928 entries in the registry, one for each role, so that when a 929 measurement agent is instructed to perform the one way delay source 930 metric know that it is supposed to generate packets. The values for 931 this field are defined in the reference method of measurement. 933 7.4. Output Category 935 For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a 936 statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to 937 a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is 938 output, this will be specified here. 940 Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric 941 definition, while others allow several output types or statistics. 943 7.4.1. Type 945 This column contains the name of the output type. The output type 946 defines a single type of result that the metric produces. It can be 947 the raw results (packet send times and singleton metrics), or it can 948 be a summary statistic. The specification of the output type MUST 949 define the format of the output. In some systems, format 950 specifications will simplify both measurement implementation and 951 collection/storage tasks. Note that if two different statistics are 952 required from a single measurement (for example, both "Xth percentile 953 mean" and "Raw"), then a new output type must be defined ("Xth 954 percentile mean AND Raw"). See the Naming section above for a list 955 of Output Types. 957 7.4.2. Reference Definition 959 This column contains a pointer to the specification(s) where the 960 output type and format are defined. 962 7.4.3. Metric Units 964 The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension 965 or units of measure. This column provides the units. 967 When a sample of singletons (see Section 11 of[RFC2330] for 968 definitions of these terms) is collected, this entry will specify the 969 units for each measured value. 971 7.4.4. Calibration 973 Some specifications for Methods of Measurement include the 974 possibility to perform an error calibration. Section 3.7.3 of 975 [RFC7679] is one example. In the registry entry, this field will 976 identify a method of calibration for the metric, and when available, 977 the measurement system SHOULD perform the calibration when requested 978 and produce the output with an indication that it is the restult of a 979 calbration method. In-situ calibration could be enabled with an 980 internal loopback that includes as much of the measurement system as 981 possible, performs address manipulation as needed, and provides some 982 form of isolation (e.g., deterministic delay) to avoid send-receive 983 interface contention. Some portion of the random and systematic 984 error can be characterized this way. 986 For one-way delay measurements, the error calibration must include an 987 assessment of the internal clock synchronization with its external 988 reference (this internal clock is supplying timestamps for 989 measurement). In practice, the time offsets of clocks at both the 990 source and destination are needed to estimate the systematic error 991 due to imperfect clock synchronization (the time offsets are 992 smoothed, thus the random variation is not usually represented in the 993 results). 995 Both internal loopback calibration and clock synchronization can be 996 used to estimate the *available accuracy* of the Output Metric Units. 997 For example, repeated loopback delay measurements will reveal the 998 portion of the Output result resolution which is the result of system 999 noise, and thus inaccurate. 1001 7.5. Administrative information 1003 7.5.1. Status 1005 The status of the specification of this Registered Performance 1006 Metric. Allowed values are 'current' and 'deprecated'. All newly 1007 defined Information Elements have 'current' status. 1009 7.5.2. Requester 1011 The requester for the Registered Performance Metric. The requester 1012 MAY be a document, such as RFC, or person. 1014 7.5.3. Revision 1016 The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric, starting at 0 1017 for Registered Performance Metrics at time of definition and 1018 incremented by one for each revision. 1020 7.5.4. Revision Date 1022 The date of acceptance or the most recent revision for the Registered 1023 Performance Metric. 1025 7.6. Comments and Remarks 1027 Besides providing additional details which do not appear in other 1028 categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen 1029 issues to be addressed by simply updating this informational entry. 1031 8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics 1033 Once a Performance Metric or set of Performance Metrics has been 1034 identified for a given application, candidate Performance Metrics 1035 Registry entry specifications in accordance with Section 7 are 1036 submitted to IANA to follow the process for review by the Performance 1037 Metric Experts, as defined below. This process is also used for 1038 other changes to the Performance Metric Registry, such as deprecation 1039 or revision, as described later in this section. 1041 It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Performance 1042 Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working 1043 group, or offer the opportunity for review on the WG mailing list. 1045 8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry 1047 Requests to change Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance 1048 Metric Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to 1049 a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed 1050 by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review 1051 RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The 1052 Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as 1053 compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable 1054 Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently 1055 defined set of Registered Performance Metrics. 1057 Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in 1058 this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA. 1060 The Performance Metric Experts should endeavor to complete referred 1061 reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, the 1062 Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, which 1063 updates the Performance Metric Registry. If the request is not 1064 acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts can coordinate with the 1065 requester to change the request to be compliant. The Performance 1066 Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject 1067 clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright. 1069 This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the 1070 Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus. Specifically, 1071 any Registered Performance Metrics that were added with IETF 1072 consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation. 1074 Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in 1075 Section 7 of RFC5226. 1077 8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics 1079 A request for Revision is only permissible when the changes maintain 1080 backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Performance 1081 Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric 1082 (entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and 1083 Name). 1085 The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metric Registry is 1086 to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Performance Metric is 1087 'current' or 'deprecated'. 1089 In addition, no policy is defined for revising the Performance Metric 1090 entries in the IANA Regsirty or addressing errors therein. To be 1091 certain, changes and deprecations within the Performance Metric 1092 Registry are not encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent 1093 possible. However, in recognition that change is inevitable, the 1094 provisions of this section address the need for revisions. 1096 Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance 1097 Metric definition to IANA, as in Section 8, identifying the existing 1098 Performance Metrics Registry entry. 1100 The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing 1101 changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of 1102 interoperability problems; Performance Metric Experts must work to 1103 maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to Registered 1104 Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way; 1105 necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow 1106 interoperability with unchanged implementations must result in the 1107 creation of a new Registered Performance Metric and possibly the 1108 deprecation of the earlier metric. 1110 A change to a Registered Performance Metric is held to be backward- 1111 compatible only when: 1113 1. "it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only 1114 editorial; or" 1116 2. "it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's 1117 definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent 1118 the Registered Performance Metric's usage as originally defined; 1119 or" 1121 3. "it corrects missing information in the metric definition without 1122 changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity' 1123 semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics 1124 value); or" 1126 4. "it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself 1127 corrected." 1129 If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the 1130 Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document, 1131 IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry. The 1132 requester of the change is appended to the requester in the 1133 Performance Metrics Registry. 1135 Each Registered Performance Metric in the Performance Metrics 1136 Registry has a revision number, starting at zero. Each change to a 1137 Registered Performance Metric following this process increments the 1138 revision number by one. 1140 When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the 1141 Performance Metric Registry, the date of acceptance of the most 1142 recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the 1143 registry for that Registered Performance Metric. 1145 Where applicable, additions to Registered Performance Metrics in the 1146 form of text Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such 1147 additions may not constitute a revision according to this process. 1149 Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the 1150 registry for archival purposes. The older entries are kept with all 1151 fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status 1152 field that is changed to "Deprecated". 1154 8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics 1156 Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered 1157 Performance Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A 1158 Registered Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when: 1160 1. "the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or 1161 shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in 1162 Section Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or" 1164 2. "the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was 1165 itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation 1166 method; or" 1168 A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the 1169 Performance Metric Expert for review. When deprecating an 1170 Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the 1171 Performance Metric Registry must be updated to explain the 1172 deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics 1173 created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric. 1175 The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented 1176 upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any 1177 revision. 1179 The use of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics should result in 1180 a log entry or human-readable warning by the respective application. 1182 Names and Metric ID of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics must 1183 not be reused. 1185 The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified, except 1186 the version, revision date, and the status field (changed to 1187 "Deprecated"). 1189 9. Security considerations 1191 This draft doesn't introduce any new security considerations for the 1192 Internet. However, the definition of Performance Metrics may 1193 introduce some security concerns, and should be reviewed with 1194 security in mind. 1196 10. IANA Considerations 1198 This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics 1199 Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for 1200 Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics". This 1201 Registry will contain the following Summary columns: 1203 Identifier: 1205 Name: 1207 URIs: 1209 Description: 1211 Reference: 1213 Change Controller: 1215 Version: 1217 Descriptions of these columns and additional information found in the 1218 template for registry entries (categories and columns) are further 1219 defined in section Section 7. 1221 The "Identifier" 0 should be Reserved. "The Identifier" values from 1222 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use. 1224 Names starting with the prefix Priv_ are reserved for private use, 1225 and are not considered for registration. The "Name" column entries 1226 are further defined in section Section 7. 1228 The "URIs" column will have a link to the full template. 1230 The "Reference" column will include an RFC, an approved specification 1231 from another standards body, or the contact person. 1233 New assignments for Performance Metric Registry will be administered 1234 by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a 1235 group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed 1236 by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. The 1237 experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs and 1238 document editors of the Performance Metrics Directorate among other 1239 sources of experts. 1241 This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix 1242 urn:ietf:metric: for the purpose of generating URIs for Registered 1243 Performance Metrics. 1245 Extensions of the Registry require IETF Standards Action. Two forms 1246 of registry extension are envisaged: 1248 1. Adding columns or both categories and columns, to accommodate 1249 unanticipated aspects of new measurements and metric categories. 1251 2. Additional values for the various elements used in the Metric 1252 "Name" column. A candidate Metric Entry RFC would propose one or 1253 more new element values required to describe the entry, and the 1254 values would be reviewed along with the metric entry. 1256 To address this second point above, the IANA is asked to take the 1257 sets of values for each name element in Section 7.1.2, and create a 1258 sub-registry with the following columns: 1260 MetricType: 1262 Method: 1264 SubTypeMethod: 1266 Spec: 1268 Units: 1270 Output: 1272 11. Acknowledgments 1274 Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading 1275 some brainstorming sessions on this topic. Thanks to Barbara Stark 1276 and Juergen Schoenwaelder for the detailed feedback and suggestions. 1277 Thanks to Andrew McGregor for suggestions on metric naming. Thanks 1278 to Michelle Cotton for her early IANA review, and to Amanda Barber 1279 for answering questions related to the presentation of the registry 1280 and accessibility of the complete template via URL. 1282 12. References 1284 12.1. Normative References 1286 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 1287 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 1288 . 1290 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1291 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1292 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1293 . 1295 [RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, DOI 10.17487/RFC2141, 1296 May 1997, . 1298 [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, 1299 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, 1300 DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, 1301 . 1303 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1304 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1305 RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 1306 . 1308 [RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics 1309 Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, DOI 10.17487/RFC4148, August 1310 2005, . 1312 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 1313 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 1314 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 1315 . 1317 [RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics 1318 (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, 1319 DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011, 1320 . 1322 [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New 1323 Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, 1324 DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, 1325 . 1327 [RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, 1328 "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement 1329 Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March 1330 2012, . 1332 12.2. Informative References 1334 [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way 1335 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679, 1336 September 1999, . 1338 [RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton, 1339 Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics 1340 (IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January 1341 2016, . 1343 [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip 1344 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681, 1345 September 1999, . 1347 [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation 1348 Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, 1349 DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, 1350 . 1352 [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network 1353 performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, 1354 DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, 1355 . 1357 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. 1358 Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time 1359 Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, 1360 July 2003, . 1362 [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed., 1363 "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", 1364 RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003, 1365 . 1367 [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session 1368 Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566, 1369 July 2006, . 1371 [RFC5474] Duffield, N., Ed., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A., 1372 Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for Packet 1373 Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474, DOI 10.17487/RFC5474, 1374 March 2009, . 1376 [RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F. 1377 Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet 1378 Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009, 1379 . 1381 [RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G. 1382 Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports", 1383 RFC 5477, DOI 10.17487/RFC5477, March 2009, 1384 . 1386 [RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation 1387 Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481, 1388 March 2009, . 1390 [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, 1391 "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms 1392 Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, 1393 . 1395 [RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich, 1396 "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice 1397 Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, DOI 10.17487/RFC6035, 1398 November 2010, . 1400 [RFC6776] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information 1401 Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an 1402 RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776, 1403 DOI 10.17487/RFC6776, October 2012, 1404 . 1406 [RFC6792] Wu, Q., Ed., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use 1407 of the RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792, 1408 DOI 10.17487/RFC6792, November 2012, 1409 . 1411 [RFC7003] Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP Control 1412 Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap 1413 Discard Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, DOI 10.17487/RFC7003, 1414 September 2013, . 1416 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 1417 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 1418 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 1419 . 1421 [RFC7014] D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow 1422 Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014, 1423 September 2013, . 1425 [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., 1426 Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale 1427 Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, 1428 DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, 1429 . 1431 [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with 1432 Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, 1433 May 2016, . 1435 [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] 1436 Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza, 1437 "Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf- 1438 ippm-initial-registry-02 (work in progress), October 2016. 1440 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", 1441 RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, 1442 . 1444 Authors' Addresses 1445 Marcelo Bagnulo 1446 Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 1447 Av. Universidad 30 1448 Leganes, Madrid 28911 1449 SPAIN 1451 Phone: 34 91 6249500 1452 Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es 1453 URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es 1455 Benoit Claise 1456 Cisco Systems, Inc. 1457 De Kleetlaan 6a b1 1458 1831 Diegem 1459 Belgium 1461 Email: bclaise@cisco.com 1463 Philip Eardley 1464 BT 1465 Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath 1466 Ipswich 1467 ENGLAND 1469 Email: philip.eardley@bt.com 1471 Al Morton 1472 AT&T Labs 1473 200 Laurel Avenue South 1474 Middletown, NJ 1475 USA 1477 Email: acmorton@att.com 1479 Aamer Akhter 1480 Consultant 1481 118 Timber Hitch 1482 Cary, NC 1483 USA 1485 Email: aakhter@gmail.com