idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-13.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 (October 29, 2017) is 2371 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 1406, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3393' is defined on line 1414, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4566' is defined on line 1434, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5481' is defined on line 1453, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5905' is defined on line 1457, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6776' is defined on line 1467, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6792' is defined on line 1473, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7003' is defined on line 1482, 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reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6248 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-04 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2679 (Obsoleted by RFC 7679) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4566 (Obsoleted by RFC 8866) 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: May 2, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 P. Eardley 7 BT 8 A. Morton 9 AT&T Labs 10 A. Akhter 11 Consultant 12 October 29, 2017 14 Registry for Performance Metrics 15 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-13 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 https://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 May 2, 2018. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2017 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 (https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 74 7.1.5. Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 75 7.1.6. Change Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 85 7.3.5. Run-time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 86 7.3.6. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 87 7.4. Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 88 7.4.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 89 7.4.2. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 90 7.4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 91 7.4.4. Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 92 7.5. Administrative information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 93 7.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 94 7.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 95 7.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 102 8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 24 103 8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 26 104 9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 105 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 106 10.1. New Namespace Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 107 10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 108 10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 109 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 110 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 111 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 112 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 113 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 115 1. Introduction 117 The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and 118 applications transported over its protocols. Performance metrics are 119 such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that 120 [RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development. 122 The definition and use of Performance Metrics in the IETF happens in 123 various working groups (WG), most notably: 125 The "IP Performance Metrics" (IPPM) WG is the WG primarily 126 focusing on Performance Metrics definition at the IETF. 128 The "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework" 129 (XRBLOCK) WG recently specified many Performance Metrics related 130 to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611], 131 which establishes a framework to allow new information to be 132 conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined 133 in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", 134 [RFC3550]. 136 The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance 137 Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking 138 technologies. 140 The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) concluded WG specified an 141 IANA process for new Information Elements. Some Performance 142 Metrics related Information Elements are proposed on regular 143 basis. 145 The "Performance Metrics for Other Layers" (PMOL) concluded WG, 146 defined some Performance Metrics related to Session Initiation 147 Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035]. 149 It is expected that more Performance Metrics will be defined in the 150 future, not only IP-based metrics, but also metrics which are 151 protocol-specific and application-specific. 153 However, despite the importance of Performance Metrics, there are two 154 related problems for the industry. First, how to ensure that when 155 one party requests another party to measure (or report or in some way 156 act on) a particular Performance Metric, then both parties have 157 exactly the same understanding of what Performance Metric is being 158 referred to. Second, how to discover which Performance Metrics have 159 been specified, so as to avoid developing new Performance Metric that 160 is very similar, but not quite inter-operable. The problems can be 161 addressed by creating a registry of performance metrics. The usual 162 way in which IETF organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned 163 Numbers Authority (IANA) registries, and there is currently no 164 Performance Metrics Registry maintained by the IANA. 166 This document therefore requests that IANA create and maintain a 167 Performance Metrics Registry, according to the maintenance procedures 168 and the Performance Metrics Registry format defined in this memo. 169 Although the Registry format is primarily for use by IANA, any other 170 organization that wishes to create a Performance Metrics Registry MAY 171 use the same format for their purposes. The authors make no 172 guarantee of the format's applicability to any possible set of 173 Performance Metrics envisaged by other organizations, but encourage 174 others to apply it. In the remainder of this document, unless we 175 explicitly say so, we will refer to the IANA-maintained Performance 176 Metrics Registry as simply the Performance Metrics Registry. 178 2. Terminology 180 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 181 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 182 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 183 [RFC2119]. 185 Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure 186 of performance, targeted to an IETF-specified protocol or targeted 187 to an application transported over an IETF-specified protocol. 188 Examples of Performance Metrics are the FTP response time for a 189 complete file download, the DNS response time to resolve the IP 190 address, a database logging time, etc. This definition is 191 consistent with the definition of metric in [RFC2330] and broader 192 than the definition of performance metric in [RFC6390]. 194 Registered Performance Metric: A Registered Performance Metric is a 195 Performance Metric expressed as an entry in the Performance Metric 196 Registry, administered by IANA. Such a performance metric has met 197 all the registry review criteria defined in this document in order 198 to included in the registry. 200 Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing 201 Registered Performance Metrics. 203 Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a 204 proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry. 206 Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a 207 group of designated experts [RFC5226] selected by the IESG to 208 validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance 209 Metrics Registry. The Performance Metrics Experts work closely 210 with IANA. 212 Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition 213 of a Performance Metric. A numerical or other specified factor 214 forming one of a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions 215 of its operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a 216 metric and interpret the results. There are two types of 217 Parameters, Fixed and Run-time parameters. For the Fixed 218 Parameters, the value of the variable is specified in the 219 Performance Metrics Registry entry and different Fixed Parameter 220 values results in different Registered Performance Metrics. For 221 the Run-time Parameters, the value of the variable is defined when 222 the metric measurement method is executed and a given Registered 223 Performance Metric supports multiple values for the parameter. 224 Although Run-time Parameters do not change the fundamental nature 225 of the Performance Metric's definition, some have substantial 226 influence on the network property being assessed and 227 interpretation of the results. 229 Note: Consider the case of packet loss in the following two 230 Active Measurement Method cases. The first case is packet loss 231 as background loss where the Run-time Parameter set includes a 232 very sparse Poisson stream, and only characterizes the times 233 when packets were lost. Actual user streams likely see much 234 higher loss at these times, due to tail drop or radio errors. 235 The second case is packet loss as inverse of throughput where 236 the Run-time Parameter set includes a very dense, bursty 237 stream, and characterizes the loss experienced by a stream that 238 approximates a user stream. These are both "loss metrics", but 239 the difference in interpretation of the results is highly 240 dependent on the Run-time Parameters (at least), to the extreme 241 where we are actually using loss to infer its compliment: 242 delivered throughput. 244 Active Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on 245 traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is 246 generated for that reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics 247 are known a priori. The complete definition of Active Methods is 248 specified in section 3.4 of[RFC7799]. Examples of Active 249 Measurement Methods are the measurement methods for the One way 250 delay metric defined in [RFC7679] and the one for round trip delay 251 defined in [RFC2681]. 253 Passive Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on 254 network traffic, generated either from the end users or from 255 network elements that would exist regardless whether the 256 measurement was being conducted or not. The complete definition 257 of Passive Methods is specified in section 3.6 of [RFC7799]. One 258 characteristic of Passive Measurement Methods is that sensitive 259 information may be observed, and as a consequence, stored in the 260 measurement system. 262 Hybrid Measurement Method: Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement 263 that use a combination of Active Methods and Passive Methods, to 264 assess Active Metrics, Passive Metrics, or new metrics derived 265 from the a priori knowledge and observations of the stream of 266 interest. The complete definition of Hybrid Methods is specified 267 in section 3.8 of [RFC7799]. 269 3. Scope 271 This document is meant mainly for two different audiences. For those 272 defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides 273 specifications and best practices to be used in deciding which 274 Registered Performance Metrics are useful for a measurement study, 275 instructions for writing the text for each column of the Registered 276 Performance Metrics, and information on the supporting documentation 277 required for the new Performance Metrics Registry entry (up to and 278 including the publication of one or more RFCs or I-Ds describing it). 279 For the appointed Performance Metrics Experts and for IANA personnel 280 administering the new IANA Performance Metric Registry, it defines a 281 set of acceptance criteria against which these proposed Registered 282 Performance Metrics should be evaluated. In addition, this document 283 may be useful for other organization who are defining a Performance 284 Metric registry of its own, who can rely on the Performance Metric 285 registry defined in this document. 287 This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics 288 issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other 289 form of Performance Metric. This registry is designed to encompass 290 Performance Metrics developed throughout the IETF and especially for 291 the technologies specified in the following working groups: IPPM, 292 XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an prior attempt to 293 set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design 294 was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of 295 guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate 296 Registered Performance Metrics. 298 This document makes no attempt to populate the Performance Metrics 299 Registry with initial entries. It does provides a few examples that 300 are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry 301 at this point in time. 303 Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best 304 Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026]. 306 4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry 308 In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance 309 Metric Registry. 311 4.1. Interoperability 313 As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a 314 namespace for its use within one or more protocols. In the 315 particular case of the Performance Metric Registry, there are two 316 types of protocols that will use the Performance Metrics in the 317 Performance Metrics Registry during their operation (by referring to 318 the Index values): 320 o Control protocol: this type of protocols is used to allow one 321 entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using a 322 specific metric defined by the Performance Metrics Registry. One 323 particular example is the LMAP framework [RFC7594]. Using the 324 LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is used in the 325 LMAP Control protocol to allow a Controller to request a 326 measurement task to one or more Measurement Agents. In order to 327 enable this use case, the entries of the Performance Metric 328 Registry must be well enough defined to allow a Measurement Agent 329 implementation to trigger a specific measurement task upon the 330 reception of a control protocol message. This requirement heavily 331 constrains the type of entries that are acceptable for the 332 Performance Metric Registry. 334 o Report protocol: This type of protocols is used to allow an entity 335 to report measurement results to another entity. By referencing 336 to a specific Performance Metric Registry, it is possible to 337 properly characterize the measurement result data being reported. 338 Using the LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is 339 used in the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report 340 measurement results to a Collector. 342 It should be noted that the LMAP framework explicitly allows for 343 using not only the IANA-maintained Performance Metrics Registry but 344 also other registries containing Performance Metrics, either defined 345 by other organizations or private ones. However, others who are 346 creating Registries to be used in the context of an LMAP framework 347 are encouraged to use the Registry format defined in this document, 348 because this makes it easier for developers of LMAP Measurement 349 Agents (MAs) to programmatically use information found in those other 350 Registries' entries. 352 4.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics 354 A Performance Metrics Registry serves as a single point of reference 355 for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups in the 356 IETF. As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that define 357 Performance Metrics in the IETF and it is hard to keep track of all 358 them. This results in multiple definitions of similar Performance 359 Metrics that attempt to measure the same phenomena but in slightly 360 different (and incompatible) ways. Having a registry would allow 361 both the IETF community and external people to have a single list of 362 relevant Performance Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where 363 appropriate). The single list is also an essential aspect of 364 communication about Performance Metrics, where different entities 365 that request measurements, execute measurements, and report the 366 results can benefit from a common understanding of the referenced 367 Performance Metric. 369 4.3. Side benefits 371 There are a couple of side benefits of having such a registry. 372 First, the Performance Metrics Registry could serve as an inventory 373 of useful and used Performance Metrics, that are normally supported 374 by different implementations of measurement agents. Second, the 375 results of measurements using the Performance Metrics would be 376 comparable even if they are performed by different implementations 377 and in different networks, as the Performance Metric is properly 378 defined. BCP 176 [RFC6576] examines whether the results produced by 379 independent implementations are equivalent in the context of 380 evaluating the completeness and clarity of metric specifications. 381 This BCP defines the standards track advancement testing for (active) 382 IPPM metrics, and the same process will likely suffice to determine 383 whether Registered Performance Metrics are sufficiently well 384 specified to result in comparable (or equivalent) results. 386 Registered Performance Metrics which have undergone such testing 387 SHOULD be noted, with a reference to the test results. 389 5. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration 391 It is neither possible nor desirable to populate the Performance 392 Metrics Registry with all combinations of Parameters of all 393 Performance Metrics. The Registered Performance Metrics should be: 395 1. interpretable by the user. 397 2. implementable by the software designer, 399 3. deployable by network operators, 401 4. accurate, for interoperability and deployment across vendors, 403 5. Operationally useful, so that it has significant industry 404 interest and/or has seen deployment, 406 6. Sufficiently tightly defined, so that different values for the 407 Run-time Parameters does not change the fundamental nature of the 408 measurement, nor change the practicality of its implementation. 410 In essence, there needs to be evidence that a candidate Registered 411 Performance Metric has significant industry interest, or has seen 412 deployment, and there is agreement that the candidate Registered 413 Performance Metric serves its intended purpose. 415 6. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt 417 There was a previous attempt to define a metric registry RFC 4148 418 [RFC4148]. However, it was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because 419 it was "found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM 420 metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when 421 characterizing a metric exactly" which led to the RFC4148 registry 422 having "very few users, if any". 424 A couple of interesting additional quotes from RFC 6248 might help 425 understand the issues related to that registry. 427 1. "It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register 428 every possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and 429 Stream parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metrics 430 Registry." 432 2. "The registry structure has been found to be insufficiently 433 detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics." 435 3. "Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, 436 no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 437 registry during the second half of 2010." 439 The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each 440 Registered Performance Metric with only a few variable (Run-time) 441 Parameters to be specified by the measurement designer, if any. The 442 idea is that entries in the Performance Metrics Registry stem from 443 different measurement methods which require input (Run-time) 444 parameters to set factors like source and destination addresses 445 (which do not change the fundamental nature of the measurement). The 446 downside of this approach is that it could result in a large number 447 of entries in the Performance Metrics Registry. There is agreement 448 that less is more in this context - it is better to have a reduced 449 set of useful metrics rather than a large set of metrics, some with 450 with questionable usefulness. 452 6.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed 454 As mentioned in the previous section, one of the main issues with the 455 previous registry was that the metrics contained in the registry were 456 too generic to be useful. This document specifies stricter criteria 457 for performance metric registration (see section 6), and imposes a 458 group of Performance Metrics Experts that will provide guidelines to 459 assess if a Performance Metric is properly specified. 461 Another key difference between this attempt and the previous one is 462 that in this case there is at least one clear user for the 463 Performance Metrics Registry: the LMAP framework and protocol. 464 Because the LMAP protocol will use the Performance Metrics Registry 465 values in its operation, this actually helps to determine if a metric 466 is properly defined. In particular, since we expect that the LMAP 467 control protocol will enable a controller to request a measurement 468 agent to perform a measurement using a given metric by embedding the 469 Performance Metric Registry value in the protocol, a metric is 470 properly specified if it is defined well-enough so that it is 471 possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the measurement 472 agent. This was the failure of the previous attempt: a registry 473 entry with an undefined Type-P (section 13 of RFC 2330 [RFC2330]) 474 allows implementation to be ambiguous. 476 7. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry 478 This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics 479 used for Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other form 480 of Performance Metric. Each category of measurement has unique 481 properties, so some of the columns defined below are not applicable 482 for a given metric category. In this case, the column(s) SHOULD be 483 populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable). However, the "NA" 484 value MUST NOT be used by any metric in the following columns: 485 Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester, Revision, Revision Date, 486 Description. In the future, a new category of metrics could require 487 additional columns, and adding new columns is a recognized form of 488 registry extension. The specification defining the new column(s) 489 MUST give guidelines to populate the new column(s) for existing 490 entries (in general). 492 The columns of the Performance Metric Registry are defined below. 493 The columns are grouped into "Categories" to facilitate the use of 494 the registry. Categories are described at the 7.x heading level, and 495 columns are at the 7.x.y heading level. The Figure below illustrates 496 this organization. An entry (row) therefore gives a complete 497 description of a Registered Performance Metric. 499 Each column serves as a check-list item and helps to avoid omissions 500 during registration and expert review. 502 Registry Categories and Columns, shown as 504 Category 505 ------------------ 506 Column | Column | 508 Summary 509 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 510 Identifier | Name | URIs | Desc. | Reference | Change Controller | Ver | 512 Metric Definition 513 ----------------------------------------- 514 Reference Definition | Fixed Parameters | 516 Method of Measurement 517 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 518 Reference | Packet | Traffic | Sampling | Run-time | Role | 519 Method | Stream | Filter | Distribution | Parameters | | 520 | Generation | 521 Output 522 ----------------------------------------- 523 Type | Reference | Units | Calibration | 524 | Definition | | | 526 Administrative Information 527 ---------------------------------- 528 Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date | 530 Comments and Remarks 531 -------------------- 533 7.1. Summary Category 535 7.1.1. Identifier 537 A numeric identifier for the Registered Performance Metric. This 538 identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry. 540 The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is a 16-bit 541 integer (range 0 to 65535). 543 The Identifier 0 should be Reserved. The Identifier values from 544 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use. 546 When adding newly Registered Performance Metrics to the Performance 547 Metric Registry, IANA should assign the lowest available identifier 548 to the next Registered Performance Metric. 550 7.1.2. Name 552 As the name of a Registered Performance Metric is the first thing a 553 potential human implementor will use when determining whether it is 554 suitable for their measurement study, it is important to be as 555 precise and descriptive as possible. In future, users will review 556 the names to determine if the metric they want to measure has already 557 been registered, or if a similar entry is available as a basis for 558 creating a new entry. 560 Names are composed of the following elements, separated by an 561 underscore character "_": 563 MetricType_Method_SubTypeMethod_... Spec_Units_Output 565 o MetricType: a combination of the directional properties and the 566 metric measured, such as: 568 RTDelay (Round Trip Delay) 570 RTDNS (Response Time Domain Name Service) 572 RLDNS (Response Loss Domain Name Service) 574 OWDelay (One Way Delay) 576 RTLoss (Round Trip Loss) 578 OWLoss (One Way Loss) 580 OWPDV (One Way Packet Delay Variation) 582 OWIPDV (One Way Inter-Packet Delay Variation) 584 OWReorder (One Way Packet Reordering) 586 OWDuplic (One Way Packet Duplication) 588 OWBTC (One Way Bulk Transport Capacity) 590 OWMBM (One Way Model Based Metric) 592 SPMonitor (Single Point Monitor) 594 MPMonitor (Multi-Point Monitor) 596 o Method: One of the methods defined in [RFC7799], such as: 598 Active (depends on a dedicated measurement packet stream and 599 observations of the stream) 601 Passive (depends *solely* on observation of one or more 602 existing packet streams) 604 HybridType1 (obervations on one stream that combine both active 605 and passive methods) 607 HybridType2 (obervations on two or more streams that combine 608 both active and passive methods) 610 Spatial (Spatial Metric of RFC5644) 612 o SubTypeMethod: One or more sub-types to further describe the 613 features of the entry, such as: 615 ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) 617 IP (Internet Protocol) 619 DSCPxx (where xx is replaced by a Diffserv code point) 621 UDP (User Datagram Protocol) 623 TCP (Transport Control Protocol) 625 Poisson (Packet generation using Poisson distribution) 627 Periodic (Periodic packet generation) 629 SendOnRcv (Sender keeps one packet in-transit by sending when 630 previous packet arrives) 632 PayloadxxxxB (where xxxx is replaced by an integer, the number 633 of octets in the Payload)) 635 SustainedBurst (Capacity test, worst case) 637 StandingQueue (test of bottleneck queue behavior) 639 @@@@ 641 SubTypeMethod values are separated by a hyphen "-" character, 642 which indicates that they belong to this element, and that their 643 order is unimportant when considering name uniqueness. 645 o Spec: RFC that specifies this entry in the form RFCXXXXsecY, such 646 as RFC7799sec3. Note: this is not the Primary Reference 647 specification for the metric definition; it will contain the 648 placeholder "RFCXXXXsecY" until the RFC number is assigned to the 649 specifying document, and would remain blank in private registry 650 entries without a corresponding RFC. 652 o Units: The units of measurement for the output, such as: 654 Seconds 656 Ratio (unitless) 658 Percent (value multiplied by 100) 660 Logical (1 or 0) 662 Packets 664 BPS (Bits per Second) 666 PPS (Packets per Second) 668 EventTotal (for unit-less counts) 670 Multiple (more than one type of unit) 672 Enumerated (a list of outcomes) 674 Unitless 676 o Output: The type of output resulting from measurement, such as: 678 Singleton 680 Raw (multiple Singletons) 682 Count 684 Minimum 686 Maximum 688 Median 690 Mean 692 95Percentile (95th Percentile) 693 99Percentile (99th Percentile) 695 StdDev (Standard Deviation) 697 Variance 699 PFI (Pass, Fail, Inconclusive) 701 FlowRecords (descriptions of flows observed) 703 LossRatio (lost packets to total packets, <=1) 705 An example is: 707 RTDelay_Active_IP-UDP-Periodic_RFCXXXXsecY_Seconds_95Percentile 709 as described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]. 711 Note that private registries following the format described here 712 SHOULD use the prefix "Priv_" on any name to avoid unintended 713 conflicts (further considerations are described in section 10). 714 Private registry entries usually have no specifying RFC, thus the 715 Spec: element has no clear interpretation. 717 7.1.3. URIs 719 The URIs column MUST contain a URI [RFC3986] that uniquely identifies 720 the metric. This URI is a URN [RFC2141]. The URI is automatically 721 generated by prepending the prefix 723 urn:ietf:metrics:perf: 725 to the metric name. The resulting URI is globally unique. 727 The URIs column MUST contain a second URI which is a URL [RFC3986] 728 and uniquely identifies and locates the metric entry so it is 729 accessible through the Internet. The URL points to a file containing 730 the human-readable information of exactly one registry entry. 731 Ideally, the file will be HTML-formated and contain URLs to 732 referenced sections of HTML-ized RFCs. The separate files for 733 different entries can be more easily edited and re-used when 734 preparing new entries. The exact composition of each metric URL will 735 be determined by IANA and reside on "iana.org", but there will be 736 some overlap with the URN described above. The major sections of 737 [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] provide an example in HTML form 738 (sections 4 and higher). 740 7.1.4. Description 742 A Registered Performance Metric description is a written 743 representation of a particular Performance Metrics Registry entry. 744 It supplements the Registered Performance Metric name to help 745 Performance Metrics Registry users select relevant Registered 746 Performance Metrics. 748 7.1.5. Reference 750 This entry gives the specification containing the candidate registry 751 entry which was reviewed and agreed, if such an RFC or other 752 specification exists. 754 7.1.6. Change Controller 756 This entry names the entity responsible for approving revsions to the 757 regsitry entry, and provides contact information. 759 7.1.7. Version (of Registry Format) 761 This entry gives the version number for the registry format used. 762 Formats complying with this memo MUST use 1.0. 764 7.2. Metric Definition Category 766 This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details 767 related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and 768 values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open 769 in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance 770 metric. 772 7.2.1. Reference Definition 774 This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant 775 section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any 776 supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition 777 for implementations. The reference needs to be an immutable 778 document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is likely to 779 be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a 780 specification. 782 7.2.2. Fixed Parameters 784 Fixed Parameters are Parameters whose value must be specified in the 785 Performance Metrics Registry. The measurement system uses these 786 values. 788 Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their 789 descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated 790 as Fixed Parameters. As an example for active metrics, Fixed 791 Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention 792 "packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport 793 protocol, payload length, TTL, etc. An example for passive metrics 794 is for RTP packet loss calculation that relies on the validation of a 795 packet as RTP which is a multi-packet validation controlled by 796 MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550]. Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL 797 values can alter the loss report and this value could be set as a 798 Fixed Parameter. 800 Parameters MUST have well-defined names. For human readers, the 801 hanging indent style is preferred, and any Parameter names and 802 definitions that do not appear in the Reference Method Specification 803 MUST appear in this column (or Run-time Parameters column). 805 Parameters MUST have a well-specified data format. 807 A Parameter which is a Fixed Parameter for one Performance Metrics 808 Registry entry may be designated as a Run-time Parameter for another 809 Performance Metrics Registry entry. 811 7.3. Method of Measurement Category 813 This category includes columns for references to relevant sections of 814 the RFC(s) and any supplemental information needed to ensure an 815 unambiguous method for implementations. 817 7.3.1. Reference Method 819 This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s) 820 describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental 821 information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for 822 implementations referring to the RFC text. 824 Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or 825 actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation. 827 7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation 829 This column applies to Performance Metrics that generate traffic for 830 a part of their Measurement Method purposes including but not 831 necessarily limited to Active metrics. The generated traffic is 832 referred as stream and this columns describe its characteristics. 834 Each entry for this column contains the following information: 836 o Value: The name of the packet stream scheduling discipline 838 o Reference: the specification where the stream is defined 840 The packet generation stream may require parameters such as the the 841 average packet rate and distribution truncation value for streams 842 with Poisson-distributed inter-packet sending times. In case such 843 parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed 844 parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on 845 wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric. 847 The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling 848 (see [RFC2330]), where a single atomic measurement is conducted. 849 Each atomic measurement could consist of sending a single packet 850 (such as a DNS request) or sending several packets (for example, to 851 request a webpage). Other streams support a series of atomic 852 measurements in a "sample", with a schedule defining the timing 853 between each transmitted packet and subsequent measurement. 854 Principally, two different streams are used in IPPM metrics, Poisson 855 distributed as described in [RFC2330] and Periodic as described in 856 [RFC3432]. Both Poisson and Periodic have their own unique 857 parameters, and the relevant set of parameters names and values 858 should be included either in the Fixed Parameters column or in the 859 Run-time parameter column. 861 7.3.3. Traffic Filter 863 This column applies to Performance Metrics that observe packets 864 flowing through (the device with) the measurement agent i.e. that is 865 not necessarily addressed to the measurement agent. This includes 866 but is not limited to Passive Metrics. The filter specifies the 867 traffic that is measured. This includes protocol field values/ 868 ranges, such as address ranges, and flow or session identifiers. 870 The traffic filter itself depends on needs of the metric itself and a 871 balance of operators measurement needs and user's need for privacy. 872 Mechanics for conveying the filter criteria might be the BPF (Berkley 873 Packet Filter) or PSAMP [RFC5475] Property Match Filtering which 874 reuses IPFIX [RFC7012]. An example BPF string for matching TCP/80 875 traffic to remote destination net 192.0.2.0/24 would be "dst net 876 192.0.2.0/24 and tcp dst port 80". More complex filter engines might 877 be supported by the implementation that might allow for matching 878 using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology. 880 The traffic filter includes the following information: 882 Type: the type of traffic filter used, e.g. BPF, PSAMP, OpenFlow 883 rule, etc. as defined by a normative reference 884 Value: the actual set of rules expressed 886 7.3.4. Sampling Distribution 888 The sampling distribution defines out of all the packets that match 889 the traffic filter, which one of those are actually used for the 890 measurement. One possibility is "all" which implies that all packets 891 matching the Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other 892 sampling strategies. It includes the following information: 894 Value: the name of the sampling distribution 896 Reference definition: pointer to the specification where the 897 sampling distribution is properly defined. 899 The sampling distribution may require parameters. In case such 900 parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed 901 parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on 902 wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric. 904 Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection are 905 documented in the PSAMP (Packet Sampling) [RFC5475], while the 906 Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting, [RFC5474] provides more 907 background information. The sampling distribution parameters might 908 be expressed in terms of the Information Model for Packet Sampling 909 Exports, [RFC5477], and the Flow Selection Techniques, [RFC7014]. 911 7.3.5. Run-time Parameters 913 Run-Time Parameters are Parameters that must be determined, 914 configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results 915 for the context to be complete. However, the values of these 916 parameters is not specified in the Performance Metrics Registry (like 917 the Fixed Parameters), rather these parameters are listed as an aid 918 to the measurement system implementer or user (they must be left as 919 variables, and supplied on execution). 921 Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their 922 descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated 923 as Run-Time Parameters. 925 Parameters MUST have well defined names. For human readers, the 926 hanging indent style is preferred, and the names and definitions that 927 do not appear in the Reference Method Specification MUST appear in 928 this column. 930 A Data Format for each Run-time Parameter MUST be specified in this 931 column, to simplify the control and implementation of measurement 932 devices. For example, parameters that include an IPv4 address can be 933 encoded as a 32 bit integer (i.e. binary base64 encoded value) or ip- 934 address as defined in [RFC6991]. The actual encoding(s) used must be 935 explicitly defined for each Run-time parameter. IPv6 addresses and 936 options MUST be accomodated, allowing Registered Metrics to be used 937 in either address family. 939 Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement 940 point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and 941 other information essential to the method of measurement. 943 7.3.6. Role 945 In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined 946 e.g. on a one-way packet delay active measurement, there is one 947 measurement agent that generates the packets and the other one that 948 receives the packets. This column contains the name of the role for 949 this particular entry. In the previous example, there should be two 950 entries in the registry, one for each role, so that when a 951 measurement agent is instructed to perform the one way delay source 952 metric know that it is supposed to generate packets. The values for 953 this field are defined in the reference method of measurement. 955 7.4. Output Category 957 For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a 958 statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to 959 a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is 960 output, this will be specified here. 962 Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric 963 definition, while others allow several output types or statistics. 965 7.4.1. Type 967 This column contains the name of the output type. The output type 968 defines a single type of result that the metric produces. It can be 969 the raw results (packet send times and singleton metrics), or it can 970 be a summary statistic. The specification of the output type MUST 971 define the format of the output. In some systems, format 972 specifications will simplify both measurement implementation and 973 collection/storage tasks. Note that if two different statistics are 974 required from a single measurement (for example, both "Xth percentile 975 mean" and "Raw"), then a new output type must be defined ("Xth 976 percentile mean AND Raw"). See the Naming section above for a list 977 of Output Types. 979 7.4.2. Reference Definition 981 This column contains a pointer to the specification(s) where the 982 output type and format are defined. 984 7.4.3. Metric Units 986 The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension 987 or units of measure. This column provides the units. 989 When a sample of singletons (see Section 11 of[RFC2330] for 990 definitions of these terms) is collected, this entry will specify the 991 units for each measured value. 993 7.4.4. Calibration 995 Some specifications for Methods of Measurement include the 996 possibility to perform an error calibration. Section 3.7.3 of 997 [RFC7679] is one example. In the registry entry, this field will 998 identify a method of calibration for the metric, and when available, 999 the measurement system SHOULD perform the calibration when requested 1000 and produce the output with an indication that it is the restult of a 1001 calbration method. In-situ calibration could be enabled with an 1002 internal loopback that includes as much of the measurement system as 1003 possible, performs address manipulation as needed, and provides some 1004 form of isolation (e.g., deterministic delay) to avoid send-receive 1005 interface contention. Some portion of the random and systematic 1006 error can be characterized this way. 1008 For one-way delay measurements, the error calibration must include an 1009 assessment of the internal clock synchronization with its external 1010 reference (this internal clock is supplying timestamps for 1011 measurement). In practice, the time offsets of clocks at both the 1012 source and destination are needed to estimate the systematic error 1013 due to imperfect clock synchronization (the time offsets are 1014 smoothed, thus the random variation is not usually represented in the 1015 results). 1017 Both internal loopback calibration and clock synchronization can be 1018 used to estimate the *available accuracy* of the Output Metric Units. 1019 For example, repeated loopback delay measurements will reveal the 1020 portion of the Output result resolution which is the result of system 1021 noise, and thus inaccurate. 1023 7.5. Administrative information 1025 7.5.1. Status 1027 The status of the specification of this Registered Performance 1028 Metric. Allowed values are 'current' and 'deprecated'. All newly 1029 defined Information Elements have 'current' status. 1031 7.5.2. Requester 1033 The requester for the Registered Performance Metric. The requester 1034 MAY be a document, such as RFC, or person. 1036 7.5.3. Revision 1038 The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric, starting at 0 1039 for Registered Performance Metrics at time of definition and 1040 incremented by one for each revision. 1042 7.5.4. Revision Date 1044 The date of acceptance or the most recent revision for the Registered 1045 Performance Metric. 1047 7.6. Comments and Remarks 1049 Besides providing additional details which do not appear in other 1050 categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen 1051 issues to be addressed by simply updating this informational entry. 1053 8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics 1055 Once a Performance Metric or set of Performance Metrics has been 1056 identified for a given application, candidate Performance Metrics 1057 Registry entry specifications in accordance with Section 7 are 1058 submitted to IANA to follow the process for review by the Performance 1059 Metric Experts, as defined below. This process is also used for 1060 other changes to the Performance Metric Registry, such as deprecation 1061 or revision, as described later in this section. 1063 It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Performance 1064 Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working 1065 group, or offer the opportunity for review on the WG mailing list. 1067 8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry 1069 Requests to change Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance 1070 Metric Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to 1071 a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed 1072 by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review 1073 RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The 1074 Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as 1075 compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable 1076 Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently 1077 defined set of Registered Performance Metrics. 1079 Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in 1080 this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA. 1082 The Performance Metric Experts should endeavor to complete referred 1083 reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, the 1084 Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, which 1085 updates the Performance Metric Registry. If the request is not 1086 acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts can coordinate with the 1087 requester to change the request to be compliant. The Performance 1088 Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject 1089 clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright. 1091 This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the 1092 Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus. Specifically, 1093 any Registered Performance Metrics that were added with IETF 1094 consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation. 1096 Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in 1097 Section 7 of RFC5226. 1099 8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics 1101 A request for Revision is only permissible when the changes maintain 1102 backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Performance 1103 Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric 1104 (entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and 1105 Name). 1107 The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metric Registry is 1108 to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Performance Metric is 1109 'current' or 'deprecated'. 1111 In addition, no policy is defined for revising the Performance Metric 1112 entries in the IANA Regsirty or addressing errors therein. To be 1113 certain, changes and deprecations within the Performance Metric 1114 Registry are not encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent 1115 possible. However, in recognition that change is inevitable, the 1116 provisions of this section address the need for revisions. 1118 Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance 1119 Metric definition to IANA, as in Section 8, identifying the existing 1120 Performance Metrics Registry entry. 1122 The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing 1123 changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of 1124 interoperability problems; Performance Metric Experts must work to 1125 maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to Registered 1126 Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way; 1127 necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow 1128 interoperability with unchanged implementations must result in the 1129 creation of a new Registered Performance Metric and possibly the 1130 deprecation of the earlier metric. 1132 A change to a Registered Performance Metric is held to be backward- 1133 compatible only when: 1135 1. "it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only 1136 editorial; or" 1138 2. "it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's 1139 definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent 1140 the Registered Performance Metric's usage as originally defined; 1141 or" 1143 3. "it corrects missing information in the metric definition without 1144 changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity' 1145 semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics 1146 value); or" 1148 4. "it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself 1149 corrected." 1151 If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the 1152 Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document, 1153 IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry. The 1154 requester of the change is appended to the requester in the 1155 Performance Metrics Registry. 1157 Each Registered Performance Metric in the Performance Metrics 1158 Registry has a revision number, starting at zero. Each change to a 1159 Registered Performance Metric following this process increments the 1160 revision number by one. 1162 When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the 1163 Performance Metric Registry, the date of acceptance of the most 1164 recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the 1165 registry for that Registered Performance Metric. 1167 Where applicable, additions to Registered Performance Metrics in the 1168 form of text Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such 1169 additions may not constitute a revision according to this process. 1171 Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the 1172 registry for archival purposes. The older entries are kept with all 1173 fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status 1174 field that is changed to "Deprecated". 1176 8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics 1178 Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered 1179 Performance Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A 1180 Registered Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when: 1182 1. "the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or 1183 shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in 1184 Section Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or" 1186 2. "the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was 1187 itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation 1188 method; or" 1190 A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the 1191 Performance Metric Expert for review. When deprecating an 1192 Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the 1193 Performance Metric Registry must be updated to explain the 1194 deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics 1195 created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric. 1197 The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented 1198 upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any 1199 revision. 1201 The use of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics should result in 1202 a log entry or human-readable warning by the respective application. 1204 Names and Metric ID of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics must 1205 not be reused. 1207 The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified, except 1208 the version, revision date, and the status field (changed to 1209 "Deprecated"). 1211 9. Security considerations 1213 This draft doesn't introduce any new security considerations for the 1214 Internet. However, the definition of Performance Metrics may 1215 introduce some security concerns, and should be reviewed with 1216 security in mind. 1218 10. IANA Considerations 1220 This document requests the following IANA Actions. 1222 10.1. New Namespace Assignments 1224 This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix 1225 urn:ietf:metrics for the purpose of generating URIs for metrics in 1226 general. The registration procedure for the new "metrics" URN sub- 1227 namespace is IETF Review. 1229 This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix 1230 urn:ietf:metrics:perf for the purpose of generating URIs for 1231 Registered Performance Metrics. The registration procedures for the 1232 new "perf" URN sub-namespace are Expert Review or IETF Standards 1233 Action, and coordinated with the entries added to the New Performance 1234 Metrics Registry (see below). 1236 10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements 1238 This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics Name 1239 Element Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new set of 1240 registries for Performance Metric Name Elements called "IETF URN Sub- 1241 namespace for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements" 1242 (urn:ietf:metrics:perf). Each Registry, whose names are listed 1243 below: 1245 MetricType: 1247 Method: 1249 SubTypeMethod: 1251 Spec: 1253 Units: 1255 Output: 1257 will contain the current set of possibilities for Performance Metric 1258 Registry Entry Names. 1260 To populate the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Performance 1261 Metric Name Elements at creation, the IANA is asked to use the lists 1262 of values for each name element listed in Section 7.1.2. The Name 1263 Elements in each registry are case-sensitive. 1265 When preparing a Metric entry for Registration, the developer SHOULD 1266 choose Name elements from among the registered elements. However, if 1267 the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, it may be 1268 necessary to propose a new Name element to properly describe the 1269 metric, as described below. 1271 A candidate Metric Entry RFC or document for Expert Review would 1272 propose one or more new element values required to describe the 1273 unique entry, and the new name element(s) would be reviewed along 1274 with the metric entry. New assignments for IETF URN Sub-namespace 1275 for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements will be administered 1276 by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a 1277 group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed 1278 by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. 1280 10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry 1282 This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics 1283 Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for 1284 Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics". This 1285 Registry will contain the following Summary columns: 1287 Identifier: 1289 Name: 1291 URIs: 1293 Description: 1295 Reference: 1297 Change Controller: 1299 Version: 1301 Descriptions of these columns and additional information found in the 1302 template for registry entries (categories and columns) are further 1303 defined in section Section 7. 1305 The "Identifier" 0 should be Reserved. "The Identifier" values from 1306 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use. 1308 Names starting with the prefix Priv_ are reserved for private use, 1309 and are not considered for registration. The "Name" column entries 1310 are further defined in section Section 7. 1312 The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each 1313 registry entry, and the linked text may be the URN itself. The 1314 template shall be HTML-ized to aid the reader, with links to 1315 reference RFCs (similar to the way that Internet Drafts are HTML- 1316 ized, the same tool can perform the function). 1318 The "Reference" column will include an RFC, an approved specification 1319 from another standards body, or the contact person. 1321 New assignments for Performance Metric Registry will be administered 1322 by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a 1323 group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed 1324 by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. The 1325 experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs, 1326 document editors, and members of the Performance Metrics Directorate, 1327 among other sources of experts. 1329 Extensions of the Performance Metric Registry require IETF Standards 1330 Action. Only one form of registry extension is envisaged: 1332 1. Adding columns, or both categories and columns, to accommodate 1333 unanticipated aspects of new measurements and metric categories. 1335 If the Performance Metrics Registry is extended in this way, the 1336 Version number of future entries complying with the extension SHALL 1337 be incremented (either in the unit or tenths digit, depending on the 1338 degree of extension. 1340 11. Acknowledgments 1342 Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading 1343 some brainstorming sessions on this topic. Thanks to Barbara Stark 1344 and Juergen Schoenwaelder for the detailed feedback and suggestions. 1345 Thanks to Andrew McGregor for suggestions on metric naming. Thanks 1346 to Michelle Cotton for her early IANA review, and to Amanda Barber 1347 for answering questions related to the presentation of the registry 1348 and accessibility of the complete template via URL. 1350 12. References 1351 12.1. Normative References 1353 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 1354 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 1355 . 1357 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1358 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1359 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1360 . 1362 [RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, DOI 10.17487/RFC2141, 1363 May 1997, . 1365 [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, 1366 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, 1367 DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, 1368 . 1370 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1371 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1372 RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 1373 . 1375 [RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics 1376 Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, DOI 10.17487/RFC4148, August 1377 2005, . 1379 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 1380 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, 1381 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 1382 . 1384 [RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics 1385 (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, 1386 DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011, 1387 . 1389 [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New 1390 Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, 1391 DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, 1392 . 1394 [RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, 1395 "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement 1396 Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March 1397 2012, . 1399 12.2. Informative References 1401 [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] 1402 Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza, 1403 "Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf- 1404 ippm-initial-registry-04 (work in progress), June 2017. 1406 [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way 1407 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679, 1408 September 1999, . 1410 [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip 1411 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681, 1412 September 1999, . 1414 [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation 1415 Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, 1416 DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, 1417 . 1419 [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network 1420 performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, 1421 DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, 1422 . 1424 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. 1425 Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time 1426 Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, 1427 July 2003, . 1429 [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed., 1430 "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", 1431 RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003, 1432 . 1434 [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session 1435 Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566, 1436 July 2006, . 1438 [RFC5474] Duffield, N., Ed., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A., 1439 Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for Packet 1440 Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474, DOI 10.17487/RFC5474, 1441 March 2009, . 1443 [RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F. 1444 Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet 1445 Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009, 1446 . 1448 [RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G. 1449 Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports", 1450 RFC 5477, DOI 10.17487/RFC5477, March 2009, 1451 . 1453 [RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation 1454 Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481, 1455 March 2009, . 1457 [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, 1458 "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms 1459 Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, 1460 . 1462 [RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich, 1463 "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice 1464 Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, DOI 10.17487/RFC6035, 1465 November 2010, . 1467 [RFC6776] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information 1468 Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an 1469 RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776, 1470 DOI 10.17487/RFC6776, October 2012, 1471 . 1473 [RFC6792] Wu, Q., Ed., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use 1474 of the RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792, 1475 DOI 10.17487/RFC6792, November 2012, 1476 . 1478 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", 1479 RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, 1480 . 1482 [RFC7003] Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP Control 1483 Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap 1484 Discard Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, DOI 10.17487/RFC7003, 1485 September 2013, . 1487 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 1488 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 1489 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 1490 . 1492 [RFC7014] D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow 1493 Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014, 1494 September 2013, . 1496 [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., 1497 Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale 1498 Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, 1499 DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, 1500 . 1502 [RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton, 1503 Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics 1504 (IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January 1505 2016, . 1507 [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with 1508 Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, 1509 May 2016, . 1511 Authors' Addresses 1513 Marcelo Bagnulo 1514 Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 1515 Av. Universidad 30 1516 Leganes, Madrid 28911 1517 SPAIN 1519 Phone: 34 91 6249500 1520 Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es 1521 URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es 1523 Benoit Claise 1524 Cisco Systems, Inc. 1525 De Kleetlaan 6a b1 1526 1831 Diegem 1527 Belgium 1529 Email: bclaise@cisco.com 1531 Philip Eardley 1532 BT 1533 Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath 1534 Ipswich 1535 ENGLAND 1537 Email: philip.eardley@bt.com 1538 Al Morton 1539 AT&T Labs 1540 200 Laurel Avenue South 1541 Middletown, NJ 1542 USA 1544 Email: acmorton@att.com 1546 Aamer Akhter 1547 Consultant 1548 118 Timber Hitch 1549 Cary, NC 1550 USA 1552 Email: aakhter@gmail.com