idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-16.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 seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (October 22, 2018) is 2007 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 1421, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3393' is defined on line 1429, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4566' is defined on line 1449, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5481' is defined on line 1468, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5905' is defined on line 1472, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6776' is defined on line 1482, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6792' is defined on line 1488, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7003' is defined on line 1497, 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-07 -- 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 (~~), 11 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: April 25, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 P. Eardley 7 BT 8 A. Morton 9 AT&T Labs 10 A. Akhter 11 Consultant 12 October 22, 2018 14 Registry for Performance Metrics 15 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-16 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 April 25, 2019. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2018 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 . . . . . . . . 11 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 80 7.3. Method of Measurement Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 81 7.3.1. Reference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 82 7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 110 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 111 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 BCP 183 14[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 184 capitals, as shown here. 186 Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure 187 of performance, targeted to an IETF-specified protocol or targeted 188 to an application transported over an IETF-specified protocol. 189 Examples of Performance Metrics are the FTP response time for a 190 complete file download, the DNS response time to resolve the IP 191 address, a database logging time, etc. This definition is 192 consistent with the definition of metric in [RFC2330] and broader 193 than the definition of performance metric in [RFC6390]. 195 Registered Performance Metric: A Registered Performance Metric is a 196 Performance Metric expressed as an entry in the Performance Metric 197 Registry, administered by IANA. Such a performance metric has met 198 all the registry review criteria defined in this document in order 199 to included in the registry. 201 Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing 202 Registered Performance Metrics. 204 Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a 205 proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry. 207 Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a 208 group of designated experts [RFC5226] selected by the IESG to 209 validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance 210 Metrics Registry. The Performance Metrics Experts work closely 211 with IANA. 213 Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition 214 of a Performance Metric. A numerical or other specified factor 215 forming one of a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions 216 of its operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a 217 metric and interpret the results. There are two types of 218 Parameters, Fixed and Run-time parameters. For the Fixed 219 Parameters, the value of the variable is specified in the 220 Performance Metrics Registry entry and different Fixed Parameter 221 values results in different Registered Performance Metrics. For 222 the Run-time Parameters, the value of the variable is defined when 223 the metric measurement method is executed and a given Registered 224 Performance Metric supports multiple values for the parameter. 225 Although Run-time Parameters do not change the fundamental nature 226 of the Performance Metric's definition, some have substantial 227 influence on the network property being assessed and 228 interpretation of the results. 230 Note: Consider the case of packet loss in the following two 231 Active Measurement Method cases. The first case is packet loss 232 as background loss where the Run-time Parameter set includes a 233 very sparse Poisson stream, and only characterizes the times 234 when packets were lost. Actual user streams likely see much 235 higher loss at these times, due to tail drop or radio errors. 236 The second case is packet loss as inverse of throughput where 237 the Run-time Parameter set includes a very dense, bursty 238 stream, and characterizes the loss experienced by a stream that 239 approximates a user stream. These are both "loss metrics", but 240 the difference in interpretation of the results is highly 241 dependent on the Run-time Parameters (at least), to the extreme 242 where we are actually using loss to infer its compliment: 243 delivered throughput. 245 Active Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on 246 traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is 247 generated for that reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics 248 are known a priori. The complete definition of Active Methods is 249 specified in section 3.4 of[RFC7799]. Examples of Active 250 Measurement Methods are the measurement methods for the One way 251 delay metric defined in [RFC7679] and the one for round trip delay 252 defined in [RFC2681]. 254 Passive Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on 255 network traffic, generated either from the end users or from 256 network elements that would exist regardless whether the 257 measurement was being conducted or not. The complete definition 258 of Passive Methods is specified in section 3.6 of [RFC7799]. One 259 characteristic of Passive Measurement Methods is that sensitive 260 information may be observed, and as a consequence, stored in the 261 measurement system. 263 Hybrid Measurement Method: Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement 264 that use a combination of Active Methods and Passive Methods, to 265 assess Active Metrics, Passive Metrics, or new metrics derived 266 from the a priori knowledge and observations of the stream of 267 interest. The complete definition of Hybrid Methods is specified 268 in section 3.8 of [RFC7799]. 270 3. Scope 272 This document is meant mainly for two different audiences. For those 273 defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides 274 specifications and best practices to be used in deciding which 275 Registered Performance Metrics are useful for a measurement study, 276 instructions for writing the text for each column of the Registered 277 Performance Metrics, and information on the supporting documentation 278 required for the new Performance Metrics Registry entry (up to and 279 including the publication of one or more RFCs or I-Ds describing it). 280 For the appointed Performance Metrics Experts and for IANA personnel 281 administering the new IANA Performance Metric Registry, it defines a 282 set of acceptance criteria against which these proposed Registered 283 Performance Metrics should be evaluated. In addition, this document 284 may be useful for other organization who are defining a Performance 285 Metric registry of its own, who can rely on the Performance Metric 286 registry defined in this document. 288 This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics 289 issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other 290 form of Performance Metric. This registry is designed to encompass 291 Performance Metrics developed throughout the IETF and especially for 292 the technologies specified in the following working groups: IPPM, 293 XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an prior attempt to 294 set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design 295 was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of 296 guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate 297 Registered Performance Metrics. 299 This document makes no attempt to populate the Performance Metrics 300 Registry with initial entries. It does provides a few examples that 301 are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry 302 at this point in time. 304 Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best 305 Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026]. 307 4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry 309 In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance 310 Metric Registry. 312 4.1. Interoperability 314 As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a 315 namespace for its use within one or more protocols. In the 316 particular case of the Performance Metric Registry, there are two 317 types of protocols that will use the Performance Metrics in the 318 Performance Metrics Registry during their operation (by referring to 319 the Index values): 321 o Control protocol: this type of protocols is used to allow one 322 entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using a 323 specific metric defined by the Performance Metrics Registry. One 324 particular example is the LMAP framework [RFC7594]. Using the 325 LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is used in the 326 LMAP Control protocol to allow a Controller to request a 327 measurement task to one or more Measurement Agents. In order to 328 enable this use case, the entries of the Performance Metric 329 Registry must be well enough defined to allow a Measurement Agent 330 implementation to trigger a specific measurement task upon the 331 reception of a control protocol message. This requirement heavily 332 constrains the type of entries that are acceptable for the 333 Performance Metric Registry. 335 o Report protocol: This type of protocols is used to allow an entity 336 to report measurement results to another entity. By referencing 337 to a specific Performance Metric Registry, it is possible to 338 properly characterize the measurement result data being reported. 339 Using the LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is 340 used in the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report 341 measurement results to a Collector. 343 It should be noted that the LMAP framework explicitly allows for 344 using not only the IANA-maintained Performance Metrics Registry but 345 also other registries containing Performance Metrics, either defined 346 by other organizations or private ones. However, others who are 347 creating Registries to be used in the context of an LMAP framework 348 are encouraged to use the Registry format defined in this document, 349 because this makes it easier for developers of LMAP Measurement 350 Agents (MAs) to programmatically use information found in those other 351 Registries' entries. 353 4.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics 355 A Performance Metrics Registry serves as a single point of reference 356 for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups in the 357 IETF. As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that define 358 Performance Metrics in the IETF and it is hard to keep track of all 359 them. This results in multiple definitions of similar Performance 360 Metrics that attempt to measure the same phenomena but in slightly 361 different (and incompatible) ways. Having a registry would allow 362 both the IETF community and external people to have a single list of 363 relevant Performance Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where 364 appropriate). The single list is also an essential aspect of 365 communication about Performance Metrics, where different entities 366 that request measurements, execute measurements, and report the 367 results can benefit from a common understanding of the referenced 368 Performance Metric. 370 4.3. Side benefits 372 There are a couple of side benefits of having such a registry. 373 First, the Performance Metrics Registry could serve as an inventory 374 of useful and used Performance Metrics, that are normally supported 375 by different implementations of measurement agents. Second, the 376 results of measurements using the Performance Metrics would be 377 comparable even if they are performed by different implementations 378 and in different networks, as the Performance Metric is properly 379 defined. BCP 176 [RFC6576] examines whether the results produced by 380 independent implementations are equivalent in the context of 381 evaluating the completeness and clarity of metric specifications. 382 This BCP defines the standards track advancement testing for (active) 383 IPPM metrics, and the same process will likely suffice to determine 384 whether Registered Performance Metrics are sufficiently well 385 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 QUIC (QUIC transport protocol) 627 HS (Hand-Shake, such as TCP's 3-way HS) 629 Poisson (Packet generation using Poisson distribution) 631 Periodic (Periodic packet generation) 633 SendOnRcv (Sender keeps one packet in-transit by sending when 634 previous packet arrives) 636 PayloadxxxxB (where xxxx is replaced by an integer, the number 637 of octets in the Payload)) 639 SustainedBurst (Capacity test, worst case) 641 StandingQueue (test of bottleneck queue behavior) 643 @@@@ 645 SubTypeMethod values are separated by a hyphen "-" character, 646 which indicates that they belong to this element, and that their 647 order is unimportant when considering name uniqueness. 649 o Spec: RFC that specifies this entry in the form RFCXXXXsecY, such 650 as RFC7799sec3. Note: this is not the Primary Reference 651 specification for the metric definition; it will contain the 652 placeholder "RFCXXXXsecY" until the RFC number is assigned to the 653 specifying document, and would remain blank in private registry 654 entries without a corresponding RFC. 656 o Units: The units of measurement for the output, such as: 658 Seconds 660 Ratio (unitless) 662 Percent (value multiplied by 100) 664 Logical (1 or 0) 666 Packets 668 BPS (Bits per Second) 670 PPS (Packets per Second) 672 EventTotal (for unit-less counts) 674 Multiple (more than one type of unit) 676 Enumerated (a list of outcomes) 678 Unitless 680 o Output: The type of output resulting from measurement, such as: 682 Singleton 684 Raw (multiple Singletons) 686 Count 688 Minimum 690 Maximum 692 Median 693 Mean 695 95Percentile (95th Percentile) 697 99Percentile (99th Percentile) 699 StdDev (Standard Deviation) 701 Variance 703 PFI (Pass, Fail, Inconclusive) 705 FlowRecords (descriptions of flows observed) 707 LossRatio (lost packets to total packets, <=1) 709 An example is: 711 RTDelay_Active_IP-UDP-Periodic_RFCXXXXsecY_Seconds_95Percentile 713 as described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]. 715 Note that private registries following the format described here 716 SHOULD use the prefix "Priv_" on any name to avoid unintended 717 conflicts (further considerations are described in section 10). 718 Private registry entries usually have no specifying RFC, thus the 719 Spec: element has no clear interpretation. 721 7.1.3. URIs 723 The URIs column MUST contain a URI [RFC3986] that uniquely identifies 724 the metric. This URI is a URN [RFC2141]. The URI is automatically 725 generated by prepending the prefix 727 urn:ietf:metrics:perf: 729 to the metric name. The resulting URI is globally unique. 731 The URIs column MUST contain a second URI which is a URL [RFC3986] 732 and uniquely identifies and locates the metric entry so it is 733 accessible through the Internet. The URL points to a file containing 734 the human-readable information of exactly one registry entry. 735 Ideally, the file will be HTML-formated and contain URLs to 736 referenced sections of HTML-ized RFCs. The separate files for 737 different entries can be more easily edited and re-used when 738 preparing new entries. The exact composition of each metric URL will 739 be determined by IANA and reside on "iana.org", but there will be 740 some overlap with the URN described above. The major sections of 742 [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] provide an example in HTML form 743 (sections 4 and higher). 745 7.1.4. Description 747 A Registered Performance Metric description is a written 748 representation of a particular Performance Metrics Registry entry. 749 It supplements the Registered Performance Metric name to help 750 Performance Metrics Registry users select relevant Registered 751 Performance Metrics. 753 7.1.5. Reference 755 This entry gives the specification containing the candidate registry 756 entry which was reviewed and agreed, if such an RFC or other 757 specification exists. 759 7.1.6. Change Controller 761 This entry names the entity responsible for approving revsions to the 762 regsitry entry, and provides contact information. 764 7.1.7. Version (of Registry Format) 766 This entry gives the version number for the registry format used. 767 Formats complying with this memo MUST use 1.0. 769 7.2. Metric Definition Category 771 This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details 772 related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and 773 values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open 774 in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance 775 metric. 777 7.2.1. Reference Definition 779 This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant 780 section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any 781 supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition 782 for implementations. The reference needs to be an immutable 783 document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is likely to 784 be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a 785 specification. 787 7.2.2. Fixed Parameters 789 Fixed Parameters are Parameters whose value must be specified in the 790 Performance Metrics Registry. The measurement system uses these 791 values. 793 Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their 794 descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated 795 as Fixed Parameters. As an example for active metrics, Fixed 796 Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention 797 "packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport 798 protocol, payload length, TTL, etc. An example for passive metrics 799 is for RTP packet loss calculation that relies on the validation of a 800 packet as RTP which is a multi-packet validation controlled by 801 MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550]. Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL 802 values can alter the loss report and this value could be set as a 803 Fixed Parameter. 805 Parameters MUST have well-defined names. For human readers, the 806 hanging indent style is preferred, and any Parameter names and 807 definitions that do not appear in the Reference Method Specification 808 MUST appear in this column (or Run-time Parameters column). 810 Parameters MUST have a well-specified data format. 812 A Parameter which is a Fixed Parameter for one Performance Metrics 813 Registry entry may be designated as a Run-time Parameter for another 814 Performance Metrics Registry entry. 816 7.3. Method of Measurement Category 818 This category includes columns for references to relevant sections of 819 the RFC(s) and any supplemental information needed to ensure an 820 unambiguous method for implementations. 822 7.3.1. Reference Method 824 This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s) 825 describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental 826 information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for 827 implementations referring to the RFC text. 829 Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or 830 actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation. 832 7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation 834 This column applies to Performance Metrics that generate traffic for 835 a part of their Measurement Method purposes including but not 836 necessarily limited to Active metrics. The generated traffic is 837 referred as stream and this columns describe its characteristics. 839 Each entry for this column contains the following information: 841 o Value: The name of the packet stream scheduling discipline 843 o Reference: the specification where the stream is defined 845 The packet generation stream may require parameters such as the the 846 average packet rate and distribution truncation value for streams 847 with Poisson-distributed inter-packet sending times. In case such 848 parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed 849 parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on 850 wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric. 852 The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling 853 (see [RFC2330]), where a single atomic measurement is conducted. 854 Each atomic measurement could consist of sending a single packet 855 (such as a DNS request) or sending several packets (for example, to 856 request a webpage). Other streams support a series of atomic 857 measurements in a "sample", with a schedule defining the timing 858 between each transmitted packet and subsequent measurement. 859 Principally, two different streams are used in IPPM metrics, Poisson 860 distributed as described in [RFC2330] and Periodic as described in 861 [RFC3432]. Both Poisson and Periodic have their own unique 862 parameters, and the relevant set of parameters names and values 863 should be included either in the Fixed Parameters column or in the 864 Run-time parameter column. 866 7.3.3. Traffic Filter 868 This column applies to Performance Metrics that observe packets 869 flowing through (the device with) the measurement agent i.e. that is 870 not necessarily addressed to the measurement agent. This includes 871 but is not limited to Passive Metrics. The filter specifies the 872 traffic that is measured. This includes protocol field values/ 873 ranges, such as address ranges, and flow or session identifiers. 875 The traffic filter itself depends on needs of the metric itself and a 876 balance of operators measurement needs and user's need for privacy. 877 Mechanics for conveying the filter criteria might be the BPF (Berkley 878 Packet Filter) or PSAMP [RFC5475] Property Match Filtering which 879 reuses IPFIX [RFC7012]. An example BPF string for matching TCP/80 880 traffic to remote destination net 192.0.2.0/24 would be "dst net 881 192.0.2.0/24 and tcp dst port 80". More complex filter engines might 882 be supported by the implementation that might allow for matching 883 using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology. 885 The traffic filter includes the following information: 887 Type: the type of traffic filter used, e.g. BPF, PSAMP, OpenFlow 888 rule, etc. as defined by a normative reference 890 Value: the actual set of rules expressed 892 7.3.4. Sampling Distribution 894 The sampling distribution defines out of all the packets that match 895 the traffic filter, which one of those are actually used for the 896 measurement. One possibility is "all" which implies that all packets 897 matching the Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other 898 sampling strategies. It includes the following information: 900 Value: the name of the sampling distribution 902 Reference definition: pointer to the specification where the 903 sampling distribution is properly defined. 905 The sampling distribution may require parameters. In case such 906 parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed 907 parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on 908 wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric. 910 Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection are 911 documented in the PSAMP (Packet Sampling) [RFC5475], while the 912 Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting, [RFC5474] provides more 913 background information. The sampling distribution parameters might 914 be expressed in terms of the Information Model for Packet Sampling 915 Exports, [RFC5477], and the Flow Selection Techniques, [RFC7014]. 917 7.3.5. Run-time Parameters 919 Run-Time Parameters are Parameters that must be determined, 920 configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results 921 for the context to be complete. However, the values of these 922 parameters is not specified in the Performance Metrics Registry (like 923 the Fixed Parameters), rather these parameters are listed as an aid 924 to the measurement system implementer or user (they must be left as 925 variables, and supplied on execution). 927 Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their 928 descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated 929 as Run-Time Parameters. 931 Parameters MUST have well defined names. For human readers, the 932 hanging indent style is preferred, and the names and definitions that 933 do not appear in the Reference Method Specification MUST appear in 934 this column. 936 A Data Format for each Run-time Parameter MUST be specified in this 937 column, to simplify the control and implementation of measurement 938 devices. For example, parameters that include an IPv4 address can be 939 encoded as a 32 bit integer (i.e. binary base64 encoded value) or ip- 940 address as defined in [RFC6991]. The actual encoding(s) used must be 941 explicitly defined for each Run-time parameter. IPv6 addresses and 942 options MUST be accomodated, allowing Registered Metrics to be used 943 in either address family. 945 Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement 946 point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and 947 other information essential to the method of measurement. 949 7.3.6. Role 951 In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined 952 e.g. on a one-way packet delay active measurement, there is one 953 measurement agent that generates the packets and the other one that 954 receives the packets. This column contains the name of the role for 955 this particular entry. In the previous example, there should be two 956 entries in the registry, one for each role, so that when a 957 measurement agent is instructed to perform the one way delay source 958 metric know that it is supposed to generate packets. The values for 959 this field are defined in the reference method of measurement. 961 7.4. Output Category 963 For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a 964 statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to 965 a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is 966 output, this will be specified here. 968 Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric 969 definition, while others allow several output types or statistics. 971 7.4.1. Type 973 This column contains the name of the output type. The output type 974 defines a single type of result that the metric produces. It can be 975 the raw results (packet send times and singleton metrics), or it can 976 be a summary statistic. The specification of the output type MUST 977 define the format of the output. In some systems, format 978 specifications will simplify both measurement implementation and 979 collection/storage tasks. Note that if two different statistics are 980 required from a single measurement (for example, both "Xth percentile 981 mean" and "Raw"), then a new output type must be defined ("Xth 982 percentile mean AND Raw"). See the Naming section above for a list 983 of Output Types. 985 7.4.2. Reference Definition 987 This column contains a pointer to the specification(s) where the 988 output type and format are defined. 990 7.4.3. Metric Units 992 The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension 993 or units of measure. This column provides the units. 995 When a sample of singletons (see Section 11 of[RFC2330] for 996 definitions of these terms) is collected, this entry will specify the 997 units for each measured value. 999 7.4.4. Calibration 1001 Some specifications for Methods of Measurement include the 1002 possibility to perform an error calibration. Section 3.7.3 of 1003 [RFC7679] is one example. In the registry entry, this field will 1004 identify a method of calibration for the metric, and when available, 1005 the measurement system SHOULD perform the calibration when requested 1006 and produce the output with an indication that it is the restult of a 1007 calbration method. In-situ calibration could be enabled with an 1008 internal loopback that includes as much of the measurement system as 1009 possible, performs address manipulation as needed, and provides some 1010 form of isolation (e.g., deterministic delay) to avoid send-receive 1011 interface contention. Some portion of the random and systematic 1012 error can be characterized this way. 1014 For one-way delay measurements, the error calibration must include an 1015 assessment of the internal clock synchronization with its external 1016 reference (this internal clock is supplying timestamps for 1017 measurement). In practice, the time offsets of clocks at both the 1018 source and destination are needed to estimate the systematic error 1019 due to imperfect clock synchronization (the time offsets are 1020 smoothed, thus the random variation is not usually represented in the 1021 results). 1023 Both internal loopback calibration and clock synchronization can be 1024 used to estimate the *available accuracy* of the Output Metric Units. 1025 For example, repeated loopback delay measurements will reveal the 1026 portion of the Output result resolution which is the result of system 1027 noise, and thus inaccurate. 1029 7.5. Administrative information 1031 7.5.1. Status 1033 The status of the specification of this Registered Performance 1034 Metric. Allowed values are 'current' and 'deprecated'. All newly 1035 defined Information Elements have 'current' status. 1037 7.5.2. Requester 1039 The requester for the Registered Performance Metric. The requester 1040 MAY be a document, such as RFC, or person. 1042 7.5.3. Revision 1044 The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric, starting at 0 1045 for Registered Performance Metrics at time of definition and 1046 incremented by one for each revision. 1048 7.5.4. Revision Date 1050 The date of acceptance or the most recent revision for the Registered 1051 Performance Metric. 1053 7.6. Comments and Remarks 1055 Besides providing additional details which do not appear in other 1056 categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen 1057 issues to be addressed by simply updating this informational entry. 1059 8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics 1061 Once a Performance Metric or set of Performance Metrics has been 1062 identified for a given application, candidate Performance Metrics 1063 Registry entry specifications prepared in accordance with Section 7 1064 should be submitted to IANA to follow the process for review by the 1065 Performance Metric Experts, as defined below. This process is also 1066 used for other changes to the Performance Metric Registry, such as 1067 deprecation or revision, as described later in this section. 1069 It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Performance 1070 Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working 1071 group, or offer the opportunity for review on the working group 1072 mailing list. 1074 8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry 1076 Requests to add Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance 1077 Metric Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to 1078 a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed 1079 by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review 1080 RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The 1081 Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as 1082 compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable 1083 Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently 1084 defined set of Registered Performance Metrics. 1086 Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in 1087 this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA. 1089 The Performance Metric Experts should endeavor to complete referred 1090 reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, the 1091 Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, which 1092 updates the Performance Metric Registry. If the request is not 1093 acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts can coordinate with the 1094 requester to change the request to be compliant. The Performance 1095 Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject 1096 clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright. 1098 This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the 1099 Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus. Specifically, 1100 any Registered Performance Metrics that were added with IETF 1101 consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation. 1103 Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in 1104 Section 7 of RFC5226. 1106 8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics 1108 A request for Revision is only permissible when the changes maintain 1109 backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Performance 1110 Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric 1111 (entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and 1112 Name). 1114 The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metric Registry is 1115 to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Performance Metric is 1116 'current' or 'deprecated'. 1118 In addition, no policy is defined for revising the Performance Metric 1119 entries in the IANA Regsirty or addressing errors therein. To be 1120 certain, changes and deprecations within the Performance Metric 1121 Registry are not encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent 1122 possible. However, in recognition that change is inevitable, the 1123 provisions of this section address the need for revisions. 1125 Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance 1126 Metric definition to IANA, as in Section 8, identifying the existing 1127 Performance Metrics Registry entry. 1129 The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing 1130 changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of 1131 interoperability problems; Performance Metric Experts must work to 1132 maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to Registered 1133 Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way; 1134 necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow 1135 interoperability with unchanged implementations must result in the 1136 creation of a new Registered Performance Metric and possibly the 1137 deprecation of the earlier metric. 1139 A change to a Registered Performance Metric SHALL be determined to be 1140 backward-compatible only when: 1142 1. it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only 1143 editorial; or 1145 2. it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's 1146 definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent 1147 the Registered Performance Metric's usage as originally defined; 1148 or 1150 3. it corrects missing information in the metric definition without 1151 changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity' 1152 semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics 1153 value); or 1155 4. it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself 1156 corrected. 1158 If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the 1159 Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document, 1160 IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry. The 1161 requester of the change is appended to the requester in the 1162 Performance Metrics Registry. 1164 Each Registered Performance Metric in the Performance Metrics 1165 Registry has a revision number, starting at zero. Each change to a 1166 Registered Performance Metric following this process increments the 1167 revision number by one. 1169 When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the 1170 Performance Metric Registry, the date of acceptance of the most 1171 recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the 1172 registry for that Registered Performance Metric. 1174 Where applicable, additions to Registered Performance Metrics in the 1175 form of text Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such 1176 additions may not constitute a revision according to this process. 1178 Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the 1179 registry for archival purposes. The older entries are kept with all 1180 fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status 1181 field that SHALL be changed to "Deprecated". 1183 8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics 1185 Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered 1186 Performance Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A 1187 Registered Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when: 1189 1. the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or 1190 shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in Section 8.2 1191 Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or 1193 2. the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was 1194 itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation 1195 method. 1197 A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the 1198 Performance Metric Experts for review. When deprecating an 1199 Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the 1200 Performance Metric Registry must be updated to explain the 1201 deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics 1202 created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric. 1204 The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented 1205 upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any 1206 revision. 1208 The use of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics should result in 1209 a log entry or human-readable warning by the respective application. 1211 Names and Metric IDs of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics 1212 must not be reused. 1214 The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified, except 1215 the version, revision date, and the status field (changed to 1216 "Deprecated"). 1218 9. Security considerations 1220 This draft defines a registry structure, and does not itself 1221 introduce any new security considerations for the Internet. The 1222 definition of Performance Metrics for this registry may introduce 1223 some security concerns, but the mandatory references should have 1224 their own considerations for secuity, and such definitions should be 1225 reviewed with security in mind if the security considerations are not 1226 covered by one or more reference standards. 1228 10. IANA Considerations 1230 This document requests the following IANA Actions. 1232 10.1. New Namespace Assignments 1234 This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix 1235 urn:ietf:metrics for the purpose of generating URIs for metrics in 1236 general. The registration procedure for the new "metrics" URN sub- 1237 namespace is IETF Review. 1239 This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix 1240 urn:ietf:metrics:perf for the purpose of generating URIs for 1241 Registered Performance Metrics. The registration procedures for the 1242 new "perf" URN sub-namespace are Expert Review or IETF Standards 1243 Action, and coordinated with the entries added to the New Performance 1244 Metrics Registry (see below). 1246 10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements 1248 This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics Name 1249 Element Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new set of 1250 registries for Performance Metric Name Elements called "IETF URN Sub- 1251 namespace for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements" 1252 (urn:ietf:metrics:perf). Each Registry, whose names are listed 1253 below: 1255 MetricType: 1257 Method: 1259 SubTypeMethod: 1261 Spec: 1263 Units: 1265 Output: 1267 will contain the current set of possibilities for Performance Metric 1268 Registry Entry Names. 1270 To populate the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Performance 1271 Metric Name Elements at creation, the IANA is asked to use the lists 1272 of values for each name element listed in Section 7.1.2. The Name 1273 Elements in each registry are case-sensitive. 1275 When preparing a Metric entry for Registration, the developer SHOULD 1276 choose Name elements from among the registered elements. However, if 1277 the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, it may be 1278 necessary to propose a new Name element to properly describe the 1279 metric, as described below. 1281 A candidate Metric Entry RFC or document for Expert Review would 1282 propose one or more new element values required to describe the 1283 unique entry, and the new name element(s) would be reviewed along 1284 with the metric entry. New assignments for IETF URN Sub-namespace 1285 for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements will be administered 1286 by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a 1287 group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed 1288 by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. 1290 10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry 1292 This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics 1293 Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for 1294 Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics". This 1295 Registry will contain the following Summary columns: 1297 Identifier: 1299 Name: 1301 URIs: 1303 Description: 1305 Reference: 1307 Change Controller: 1309 Version: 1311 Descriptions of these columns and additional information found in the 1312 template for registry entries (categories and columns) are further 1313 defined in section Section 7. 1315 The "Identifier" 0 should be Reserved. "The Identifier" values from 1316 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use. 1318 Names starting with the prefix Priv_ are reserved for private use, 1319 and are not considered for registration. The "Name" column entries 1320 are further defined in section Section 7. 1322 The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each 1323 registry entry, and the linked text may be the URN itself. The 1324 template shall be HTML-ized to aid the reader, with links to 1325 reference RFCs (similar to the way that Internet Drafts are HTML- 1326 ized, the same tool can perform the function). 1328 The "Reference" column will include an RFC, an approved specification 1329 from another standards body, or the contact person. 1331 New assignments for Performance Metric Registry will be administered 1332 by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a 1333 group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed 1334 by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. The 1335 experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs, 1336 document editors, and members of the Performance Metrics Directorate, 1337 among other sources of experts. 1339 Extensions of the Performance Metric Registry require IETF Standards 1340 Action. Only one form of registry extension is envisaged: 1342 1. Adding columns, or both categories and columns, to accommodate 1343 unanticipated aspects of new measurements and metric categories. 1345 If the Performance Metrics Registry is extended in this way, the 1346 Version number of future entries complying with the extension SHALL 1347 be incremented (either in the unit or tenths digit, depending on the 1348 degree of extension. 1350 11. Acknowledgments 1352 Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading 1353 some brainstorming sessions on this topic. Thanks to Barbara Stark 1354 and Juergen Schoenwaelder for the detailed feedback and suggestions. 1355 Thanks to Andrew McGregor for suggestions on metric naming. Thanks 1356 to Michelle Cotton for her early IANA review, and to Amanda Barber 1357 for answering questions related to the presentation of the registry 1358 and accessibility of the complete template via URL. 1360 12. References 1362 12.1. Normative References 1364 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 1365 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 1366 . 1368 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1369 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1370 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1371 . 1373 [RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, DOI 10.17487/RFC2141, 1374 May 1997, . 1376 [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, 1377 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, 1378 DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, 1379 . 1381 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1382 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1383 RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 1384 . 1386 [RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics 1387 Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, DOI 10.17487/RFC4148, August 1388 2005, . 1390 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 1391 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, 1392 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 1393 . 1395 [RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics 1396 (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, 1397 DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011, 1398 . 1400 [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New 1401 Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, 1402 DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, 1403 . 1405 [RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, 1406 "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement 1407 Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March 1408 2012, . 1410 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 1411 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 1412 May 2017, . 1414 12.2. Informative References 1416 [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] 1417 Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza, 1418 "Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf- 1419 ippm-initial-registry-07 (work in progress), June 2018. 1421 [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way 1422 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679, 1423 September 1999, . 1425 [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip 1426 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681, 1427 September 1999, . 1429 [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation 1430 Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, 1431 DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, 1432 . 1434 [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network 1435 performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, 1436 DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, 1437 . 1439 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. 1440 Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time 1441 Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, 1442 July 2003, . 1444 [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed., 1445 "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", 1446 RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003, 1447 . 1449 [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session 1450 Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566, 1451 July 2006, . 1453 [RFC5474] Duffield, N., Ed., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A., 1454 Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for Packet 1455 Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474, DOI 10.17487/RFC5474, 1456 March 2009, . 1458 [RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F. 1459 Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet 1460 Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009, 1461 . 1463 [RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G. 1464 Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports", 1465 RFC 5477, DOI 10.17487/RFC5477, March 2009, 1466 . 1468 [RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation 1469 Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481, 1470 March 2009, . 1472 [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, 1473 "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms 1474 Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, 1475 . 1477 [RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich, 1478 "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice 1479 Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, DOI 10.17487/RFC6035, 1480 November 2010, . 1482 [RFC6776] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information 1483 Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an 1484 RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776, 1485 DOI 10.17487/RFC6776, October 2012, 1486 . 1488 [RFC6792] Wu, Q., Ed., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use 1489 of the RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792, 1490 DOI 10.17487/RFC6792, November 2012, 1491 . 1493 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", 1494 RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, 1495 . 1497 [RFC7003] Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP Control 1498 Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap 1499 Discard Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, DOI 10.17487/RFC7003, 1500 September 2013, . 1502 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 1503 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 1504 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 1505 . 1507 [RFC7014] D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow 1508 Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014, 1509 September 2013, . 1511 [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., 1512 Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale 1513 Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, 1514 DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, 1515 . 1517 [RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton, 1518 Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics 1519 (IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January 1520 2016, . 1522 [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with 1523 Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, 1524 May 2016, . 1526 Authors' Addresses 1528 Marcelo Bagnulo 1529 Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 1530 Av. Universidad 30 1531 Leganes, Madrid 28911 1532 SPAIN 1534 Phone: 34 91 6249500 1535 Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es 1536 URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es 1537 Benoit Claise 1538 Cisco Systems, Inc. 1539 De Kleetlaan 6a b1 1540 1831 Diegem 1541 Belgium 1543 Email: bclaise@cisco.com 1545 Philip Eardley 1546 BT 1547 Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath 1548 Ipswich 1549 ENGLAND 1551 Email: philip.eardley@bt.com 1553 Al Morton 1554 AT&T Labs 1555 200 Laurel Avenue South 1556 Middletown, NJ 1557 USA 1559 Email: acmorton@att.com 1561 Aamer Akhter 1562 Consultant 1563 118 Timber Hitch 1564 Cary, NC 1565 USA 1567 Email: aakhter@gmail.com