idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20.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 (September 11, 2019) is 1682 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references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4148 (Obsoleted by RFC 6248) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 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: March 14, 2020 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 P. Eardley 7 BT 8 A. Morton 9 AT&T Labs 10 A. Akhter 11 Consultant 12 September 11, 2019 14 Registry for Performance Metrics 15 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20 17 Abstract 19 This document defines the format for the IANA Performance Metrics 20 Registry. This document also gives a set of guidelines for 21 Registered Performance Metric requesters and reviewers. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 14, 2020. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . 7 61 4.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 4.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics . . . . 8 63 4.3. Side benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 5. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration . . . . . . . . 9 65 6. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt . . . . . . . . . 9 66 6.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 7. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry . . . . . . . . 11 68 7.1. Summary Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 69 7.1.1. Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 7.1.2. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 71 7.1.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 72 7.1.4. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 73 7.1.5. Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 74 7.1.6. Change Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 75 7.1.7. Version (of Registry Format) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 76 7.2. Metric Definition Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 77 7.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 78 7.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 79 7.3. Method of Measurement Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 80 7.3.1. Reference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 81 7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 82 7.3.3. Traffic Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 83 7.3.4. Sampling Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 84 7.3.5. Run-time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 85 7.3.6. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 86 7.4. Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 87 7.4.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 88 7.4.2. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 89 7.4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 90 7.4.4. Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 91 7.5. Administrative information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 92 7.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 93 7.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 94 7.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 95 7.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 96 7.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 98 8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . 24 99 8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics 100 Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 101 8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 25 102 8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 27 103 9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 104 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 105 10.1. Registry Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 106 10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 107 10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 108 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 109 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 110 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 111 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 112 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 114 1. Introduction 116 The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and 117 applications transported over its protocols. Performance metrics are 118 such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that 119 [RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development. 121 The definition and use of Performance Metrics in the IETF happens in 122 various working groups (WG), most notably: 124 The "IP Performance Metrics" (IPPM) WG is the WG primarily 125 focusing on Performance Metrics definition at the IETF. 127 The "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework" 128 (XRBLOCK) WG recently specified many Performance Metrics related 129 to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611], 130 which establishes a framework to allow new information to be 131 conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined 132 in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", 133 [RFC3550]. 135 The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance 136 Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking 137 technologies. 139 The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) concluded WG specified an 140 IANA process for new Information Elements. Some Performance 141 Metrics related Information Elements are proposed on regular 142 basis. 144 The "Performance Metrics for Other Layers" (PMOL) a concluded WG, 145 defined some Performance Metrics related to Session Initiation 146 Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035]. 148 It is expected that more Performance Metrics will be defined in the 149 future, not only IP-based metrics, but also metrics which are 150 protocol-specific and application-specific. 152 Despite the importance of Performance Metrics, there are two related 153 problems for the industry. First, ensuring that when one party 154 requests another party to measure (or report or in some way act on) a 155 particular Performance Metric, then both parties have exactly the 156 same understanding of what Performance Metric is being referred to. 157 Second, discovering which Performance Metrics have been specified, to 158 avoid developing a new Performance Metric that is very similar, but 159 not quite inter-operable. These problems can be addressed by 160 creating a registry of performance metrics. The usual way in which 161 the IETF organizes registries is with Internet Assigned Numbers 162 Authority (IANA), and there is currently no Performance Metrics 163 Registry maintained by the IANA. 165 This document requests that IANA create and maintain a Performance 166 Metrics Registry, according to the maintenance procedures and the 167 Performance Metrics Registry format defined in this memo. The 168 resulting Performance Metrics Registry is for use by the IETF and 169 others. Although the Registry formatting specifications herein are 170 primarily for registry creation by IANA, any other organization that 171 wishes to create a Performance Metrics Registry MAY use the same 172 formatting specifications for their purposes. The authors make no 173 guarantee of the registry format's applicability to any possible set 174 of Performance Metrics envisaged by other organizations, but 175 encourage others to apply it. In the remainder of this document, 176 unless we explicitly say otherwise, we will refer to the IANA- 177 maintained Performance Metrics Registry as simply the Performance 178 Metrics Registry. 180 2. Terminology 182 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 183 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 184 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 185 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 186 capitals, as shown here. 188 Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure 189 of performance, targeted to an IETF-specified protocol or targeted 190 to an application transported over an IETF-specified protocol. 191 Examples of Performance Metrics are the FTP response time for a 192 complete file download, the DNS response time to resolve the IP 193 address, a database logging time, etc. This definition is 194 consistent with the definition of metric in [RFC2330] and broader 195 than the definition of performance metric in [RFC6390]. 197 Registered Performance Metric: A Registered Performance Metric is a 198 Performance Metric expressed as an entry in the Performance 199 Metrics Registry, administered by IANA. Such a performance metric 200 has met all the registry review criteria defined in this document 201 in order to included in the registry. 203 Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing 204 Registered Performance Metrics. 206 Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a 207 proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry. 209 Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a 210 group of designated experts [RFC8126] selected by the IESG to 211 validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance 212 Metrics Registry. The Performance Metrics Experts work closely 213 with IANA. 215 Parameter: A Parameter is an input factor defined as a variable in 216 the definition of a Performance Metric. A Parameter is a 217 numerical or other specified factor forming one of a set that 218 defines a metric or sets the conditions of its operation. All 219 Parameters must be known to measure using a metric and interpret 220 the results. There are two types of Parameters: Fixed and Run- 221 time parameters. For the Fixed Parameters, the value of the 222 variable is specified in the Performance Metrics Registry entry 223 and different Fixed Parameter values results in different 224 Registered Performance Metrics. For the Run-time Parameters, the 225 value of the variable is defined when the metric measurement 226 method is executed and a given Registered Performance Metric 227 supports multiple values for the parameter. Although Run-time 228 Parameters do not change the fundamental nature of the Performance 229 Metric's definition, some have substantial influence on the 230 network property being assessed and interpretation of the results. 232 Note: Consider the case of packet loss in the following two 233 Active Measurement Method cases. The first case is packet loss 234 as background loss where the Run-time Parameter set includes a 235 very sparse Poisson stream, and only characterizes the times 236 when packets were lost. Actual user streams likely see much 237 higher loss at these times, due to tail drop or radio errors. 238 The second case is packet loss as inverse of throughput where 239 the Run-time Parameter set includes a very dense, bursty 240 stream, and characterizes the loss experienced by a stream that 241 approximates a user stream. These are both "loss metrics", but 242 the difference in interpretation of the results is highly 243 dependent on the Run-time Parameters (at least), to the extreme 244 where we are actually using loss to infer its compliment: 245 delivered throughput. 247 Active Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on 248 traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is 249 generated for that reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics 250 are known a priori. The complete definition of Active Methods is 251 specified in section 3.4 of[RFC7799]. Examples of Active 252 Measurement Methods are the measurement methods for the One way 253 delay metric defined in [RFC7679] and the one for round trip delay 254 defined in [RFC2681]. 256 Passive Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on 257 network traffic, generated either from the end users or from 258 network elements that would exist regardless whether the 259 measurement was being conducted or not. The complete definition 260 of Passive Methods is specified in section 3.6 of [RFC7799]. One 261 characteristic of Passive Measurement Methods is that sensitive 262 information may be observed, and as a consequence, stored in the 263 measurement system. 265 Hybrid Measurement Method: Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement 266 that use a combination of Active Methods and Passive Methods, to 267 assess Active Metrics, Passive Metrics, or new metrics derived 268 from the a priori knowledge and observations of the stream of 269 interest. The complete definition of Hybrid Methods is specified 270 in section 3.8 of [RFC7799]. 272 3. Scope 274 This document is intended for two different audiences: 276 1. For those defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it 277 provides specifications and best practices to be used in deciding 278 which Registered Performance Metrics are useful for a measurement 279 study, instructions for writing the text for each column of the 280 Registered Performance Metrics, and information on the supporting 281 documentation required for the new Performance Metrics Registry 282 entry (up to and including the publication of one or more RFCs or 283 I-Ds describing it). 285 2. For the appointed Performance Metrics Experts and for IANA 286 personnel administering the new IANA Performance Metrics 287 Registry, it defines a set of acceptance criteria against which 288 these proposed Registered Performance Metrics should be 289 evaluated. 291 In addition, this document may be useful for other organizations who 292 are defining a Performance Metric registry of their own, and may re- 293 use the features of the Performance Metrics Registry defined in this 294 document. 296 This Performance Metrics Registry is applicable to Performance 297 Metrics issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any 298 other form of Performance Metric. This registry is designed to 299 encompass Performance Metrics developed throughout the IETF and 300 especially for the technologies specified in the following working 301 groups: IPPM, XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an 302 prior attempt to set up a Performance Metrics Registry, and the 303 reasons why this design was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this 304 document gives a set of guidelines for requesters and expert 305 reviewers of candidate Registered Performance Metrics. 307 This document makes no attempt to populate the Performance Metrics 308 Registry with initial entries. 310 Based on [RFC8126] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best 311 Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026]. 313 4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry 315 In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance 316 Metrics Registry. 318 4.1. Interoperability 320 As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a 321 registry for its use within one or more protocols. In the particular 322 case of the Performance Metrics Registry, there are two types of 323 protocols that will use the Performance Metrics in the Performance 324 Metrics Registry during their operation (by referring to the Index 325 values): 327 o Control protocol: This type of protocol used to allow one entity 328 to request another entity to perform a measurement using a 329 specific metric defined by the Performance Metrics Registry. One 330 particular example is the LMAP framework [RFC7594]. Using the 331 LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is used in the 332 LMAP Control protocol to allow a Controller to request a 333 measurement task to one or more Measurement Agents. In order to 334 enable this use case, the entries of the Performance Metrics 335 Registry must be sufficiently defined to allow a Measurement Agent 336 implementation to trigger a specific measurement task upon the 337 reception of a control protocol message. This requirement heavily 338 constrains the type of entries that are acceptable for the 339 Performance Metrics Registry. 341 o Report protocol: This type of protocol is used to allow an entity 342 to report measurement results to another entity. By referencing 343 to a specific Performance Metrics Registry, it is possible to 344 properly characterize the measurement result data being reported. 345 Using the LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is 346 used in the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report 347 measurement results to a Collector. 349 It should be noted that the LMAP framework explicitly allows for 350 using not only the IANA-maintained Performance Metrics Registry but 351 also other registries containing Performance Metrics, either defined 352 by other organizations or private ones. However, others who are 353 creating Registries to be used in the context of an LMAP framework 354 are encouraged to use the Registry format defined in this document, 355 because this makes it easier for developers of LMAP Measurement 356 Agents (MAs) to programmatically use information found in those other 357 Registries' entries. 359 4.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics 361 A Performance Metrics Registry serves as a single point of reference 362 for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups in the 363 IETF. As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that define 364 Performance Metrics in the IETF and it is hard to keep track of all 365 them. This results in multiple definitions of similar Performance 366 Metrics that attempt to measure the same phenomena but in slightly 367 different (and incompatible) ways. Having a registry would allow 368 both the IETF community and external people to have a single list of 369 relevant Performance Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where 370 appropriate). The single list is also an essential aspect of 371 communication about Performance Metrics, where different entities 372 that request measurements, execute measurements, and report the 373 results can benefit from a common understanding of the referenced 374 Performance Metric. 376 4.3. Side benefits 378 There are a couple of side benefits of having such a registry. 379 First, the Performance Metrics Registry could serve as an inventory 380 of useful and used Performance Metrics, that are normally supported 381 by different implementations of measurement agents. Second, the 382 results of measurements using the Performance Metrics should be 383 comparable even if they are performed by different implementations 384 and in different networks, as the Performance Metric is properly 385 defined. BCP 176 [RFC6576] examines whether the results produced by 386 independent implementations are equivalent in the context of 387 evaluating the completeness and clarity of metric specifications. 388 This BCP defines the standards track advancement testing for (active) 389 IPPM metrics, and the same process will likely suffice to determine 390 whether Registered Performance Metrics are sufficiently well 391 specified to result in comparable (or equivalent) results. 392 Registered Performance Metrics which have undergone such testing 393 SHOULD be noted, with a reference to the test results. 395 5. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration 397 It is neither possible nor desirable to populate the Performance 398 Metrics Registry with all combinations of Parameters of all 399 Performance Metrics. The Registered Performance Metrics should be: 401 1. interpretable by the user. 403 2. implementable by the software designer, 405 3. deployable by network operators, 407 4. accurate, for interoperability and deployment across vendors, 409 5. Operationally useful, so that it has significant industry 410 interest and/or has seen deployment, 412 6. Sufficiently tightly defined, so that different values for the 413 Run-time Parameters does not change the fundamental nature of the 414 measurement, nor change the practicality of its implementation. 416 In essence, there needs to be evidence that a candidate Registered 417 Performance Metric has significant industry interest, or has seen 418 deployment, and there is agreement that the candidate Registered 419 Performance Metric serves its intended purpose. 421 6. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt 423 There was a previous attempt to define a metric registry RFC 4148 424 [RFC4148]. However, it was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because 425 it was "found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM 426 metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when 427 characterizing a metric exactly" which led to the RFC4148 registry 428 having "very few users, if any". 430 A couple of interesting additional quotes from RFC 6248 might help 431 understand the issues related to that registry. 433 1. "It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register 434 every possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and 435 Stream parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metrics 436 Registry." 438 2. "The registry structure has been found to be insufficiently 439 detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics." 441 3. "Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, 442 no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 443 registry during the second half of 2010." 445 The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each 446 Registered Performance Metric with only a few variable (Run-time) 447 Parameters to be specified by the measurement designer, if any. The 448 idea is that entries in the Performance Metrics Registry stem from 449 different measurement methods which require input (Run-time) 450 parameters to set factors like source and destination addresses 451 (which do not change the fundamental nature of the measurement). The 452 downside of this approach is that it could result in a large number 453 of entries in the Performance Metrics Registry. There is agreement 454 that less is more in this context - it is better to have a reduced 455 set of useful metrics rather than a large set of metrics, some with 456 with questionable usefulness. 458 6.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed 460 As mentioned in the previous section, one of the main issues with the 461 previous registry was that the metrics contained in the registry were 462 too generic to be useful. This document specifies stricter criteria 463 for performance metric registration (see section 6), and imposes a 464 group of Performance Metrics Experts that will provide guidelines to 465 assess if a Performance Metric is properly specified. 467 Another key difference between this attempt and the previous one is 468 that in this case there is at least one clear user for the 469 Performance Metrics Registry: the LMAP framework and protocol. 470 Because the LMAP protocol will use the Performance Metrics Registry 471 values in its operation, this actually helps to determine if a metric 472 is properly defined. In particular, since we expect that the LMAP 473 control protocol will enable a controller to request a measurement 474 agent to perform a measurement using a given metric by embedding the 475 Performance Metrics Registry value in the protocol, a metric is 476 properly specified if it is defined well-enough so that it is 477 possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the measurement 478 agent. This was the failure of the previous attempt: a registry 479 entry with an undefined Type-P (section 13 of RFC 2330 [RFC2330]) 480 allows implementation to be ambiguous. 482 7. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry 484 This Performance Metrics Registry is applicable to Performance 485 Metrics used for Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any 486 other form of Performance Metric. Each category of measurement has 487 unique properties, so some of the columns defined below are not 488 applicable for a given metric category. In this case, the column(s) 489 SHOULD be populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable). However, 490 the "NA" value MUST NOT be used by any metric in the following 491 columns: Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester, Revision, Revision 492 Date, Description. In the future, a new category of metrics could 493 require additional columns, and adding new columns is a recognized 494 form of registry extension. The specification defining the new 495 column(s) MUST give guidelines to populate the new column(s) for 496 existing entries (in general). 498 The columns of the Performance Metrics Registry are defined below. 499 The columns are grouped into "Categories" to facilitate the use of 500 the registry. Categories are described at the 7.x heading level, and 501 columns are at the 7.x.y heading level. The Figure below illustrates 502 this organization. An entry (row) therefore gives a complete 503 description of a Registered Performance Metric. 505 Each column serves as a check-list item and helps to avoid omissions 506 during registration and expert review. 508 Registry Categories and Columns, shown as 510 Category 511 ------------------ 512 Column | Column | 514 Summary 515 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 516 Identifier | Name | URIs | Desc. | Reference | Change Controller | Ver | 518 Metric Definition 519 ----------------------------------------- 520 Reference Definition | Fixed Parameters | 522 Method of Measurement 523 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 524 Reference | Packet | Traffic | Sampling | Run-time | Role | 525 Method | Stream | Filter | Distribution | Parameters | | 526 | Generation | 527 Output 528 ----------------------------------------- 529 Type | Reference | Units | Calibration | 530 | Definition | | | 532 Administrative Information 533 ---------------------------------- 534 Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date | 536 Comments and Remarks 537 -------------------- 539 7.1. Summary Category 541 7.1.1. Identifier 543 A numeric identifier for the Registered Performance Metric. This 544 identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metrics Registry. 546 The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is an unbounded 547 integer (range 0 to infinity). 549 The Identifier 0 should be Reserved. The Identifier values from 550 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use. 552 When adding newly Registered Performance Metrics to the Performance 553 Metrics Registry, IANA SHOULD assign the lowest available identifier 554 to the new Registered Performance Metric. 556 If a Performance Metrics Expert providing review determines that 557 there is a reason to assign a specific numeric identifier, possibly 558 leaving a temporary gap in the numbering, then the Performance Expert 559 SHALL inform IANA of this decision. 561 7.1.2. Name 563 As the name of a Registered Performance Metric is the first thing a 564 potential human implementor will use when determining whether it is 565 suitable for their measurement study, it is important to be as 566 precise and descriptive as possible. In future, users will review 567 the names to determine if the metric they want to measure has already 568 been registered, or if a similar entry is available as a basis for 569 creating a new entry. 571 Names are composed of the following elements, separated by an 572 underscore character "_": 574 MetricType_Method_SubTypeMethod_... Spec_Units_Output 576 o MetricType: a combination of the directional properties and the 577 metric measured, such as: 579 RTDelay (Round Trip Delay) 581 RTDNS (Response Time Domain Name Service) 583 RLDNS (Response Loss Domain Name Service) 585 OWDelay (One Way Delay) 587 RTLoss (Round Trip Loss) 589 OWLoss (One Way Loss) 591 OWPDV (One Way Packet Delay Variation) 593 OWIPDV (One Way Inter-Packet Delay Variation) 595 OWReorder (One Way Packet Reordering) 597 OWDuplic (One Way Packet Duplication) 599 OWBTC (One Way Bulk Transport Capacity) 601 OWMBM (One Way Model Based Metric) 603 SPMonitor (Single Point Monitor) 604 MPMonitor (Multi-Point Monitor) 606 o Method: One of the methods defined in [RFC7799], such as: 608 Active (depends on a dedicated measurement packet stream and 609 observations of the stream) 611 Passive (depends *solely* on observation of one or more 612 existing packet streams) 614 HybridType1 (obervations on one stream that combine both active 615 and passive methods) 617 HybridType2 (obervations on two or more streams that combine 618 both active and passive methods) 620 Spatial (Spatial Metric of RFC5644) 622 o SubTypeMethod: One or more sub-types to further describe the 623 features of the entry, such as: 625 ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) 627 IP (Internet Protocol) 629 DSCPxx (where xx is replaced by a Diffserv code point) 631 UDP (User Datagram Protocol) 633 TCP (Transport Control Protocol) 635 QUIC (QUIC transport protocol) 637 HS (Hand-Shake, such as TCP's 3-way HS) 639 Poisson (Packet generation using Poisson distribution) 641 Periodic (Periodic packet generation) 643 SendOnRcv (Sender keeps one packet in-transit by sending when 644 previous packet arrives) 646 PayloadxxxxB (where xxxx is replaced by an integer, the number 647 of octets in the Payload)) 649 SustainedBurst (Capacity test, worst case) 651 StandingQueue (test of bottleneck queue behavior) 653 SubTypeMethod values are separated by a hyphen "-" character, 654 which indicates that they belong to this element, and that their 655 order is unimportant when considering name uniqueness. 657 o Spec: RFC number and major section number that specifies this 658 Registry entry in the form RFCXXXXsecY, such as RFC7799sec3. 659 Note: the RFC number is not the Primary Reference specification 660 for the metric definition, such as [RFC7679] for One-way Delay; it 661 will contain the placeholder "RFCXXXXsecY" until the RFC number is 662 assigned to the specifying document, and would remain blank in 663 private registry entries without a corresponding RFC. 665 o Units: The units of measurement for the output, such as: 667 Seconds 669 Ratio (unitless) 671 Percent (value multiplied by 100) 673 Logical (1 or 0) 675 Packets 677 BPS (Bits per Second) 679 PPS (Packets per Second) 681 EventTotal (for unit-less counts) 683 Multiple (more than one type of unit) 685 Enumerated (a list of outcomes) 687 Unitless 689 o Output: The type of output resulting from measurement, such as: 691 Singleton 693 Raw (multiple Singletons) 695 Count 697 Minimum 699 Maximum 700 Median 702 Mean 704 95Percentile (95th Percentile) 706 99Percentile (99th Percentile) 708 StdDev (Standard Deviation) 710 Variance 712 PFI (Pass, Fail, Inconclusive) 714 FlowRecords (descriptions of flows observed) 716 LossRatio (lost packets to total packets, <=1) 718 An example is: 720 RTDelay_Active_IP-UDP-Periodic_RFCXXXXsecY_Seconds_95Percentile 722 as described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]. 724 Note that private registries following the format described here 725 SHOULD use the prefix "Priv_" on any name to avoid unintended 726 conflicts (further considerations are described in section 10). 727 Private registry entries usually have no specifying RFC, thus the 728 Spec: element has no clear interpretation. 730 7.1.3. URIs 732 The URIs column MUST contain a URL [RFC3986] that uniquely identifies 733 and locates the metric entry so it is accessible through the 734 Internet. The URL points to a file containing all the human-readable 735 information for one registry entry. The URL SHALL reference a target 736 file that is HTML-formated and contains URLs to referenced sections 737 of HTML-ized RFCs. These target files for different entries can be 738 more easily edited and re-used when preparing new entries. The exact 739 form of the URL for each target file will be determined by IANA and 740 reside on "iana.org". The major sections of 741 [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] provide an example of a target file 742 in HTML form (sections 4 and higher). 744 7.1.4. Description 746 A Registered Performance Metric description is a written 747 representation of a particular Performance Metrics Registry entry. 748 It supplements the Registered Performance Metric name to help 749 Performance Metrics Registry users select relevant Registered 750 Performance Metrics. 752 7.1.5. Reference 754 This entry gives the specification containing the candidate registry 755 entry which was reviewed and agreed, if such an RFC or other 756 specification exists. 758 7.1.6. Change Controller 760 This entry names the entity responsible for approving revisions to 761 the registry entry, and SHALL provide contact information (for an 762 individual, where appropriate). 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. The version number 768 SHALL NOT change unless a new RFC is published that changes the 769 registry format. 771 7.2. Metric Definition Category 773 This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details 774 related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and 775 values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open 776 in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance 777 metric. 779 7.2.1. Reference Definition 781 This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant 782 section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any 783 supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition 784 for implementations. The reference needs to be an immutable 785 document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is likely to 786 be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a 787 specification. 789 7.2.2. Fixed Parameters 791 Fixed Parameters are Parameters whose value must be specified in the 792 Performance Metrics Registry. The measurement system uses these 793 values. 795 Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their 796 descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated 797 as Fixed Parameters. As an example for active metrics, Fixed 798 Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention 799 "packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport 800 protocol, payload length, TTL, etc. An example for passive metrics 801 is for RTP packet loss calculation that relies on the validation of a 802 packet as RTP which is a multi-packet validation controlled by 803 MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550]. Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL 804 values can alter the loss report and this value could be set as a 805 Fixed Parameter. 807 Parameters MUST have well-defined names. For human readers, the 808 hanging indent style is preferred, and any Parameter names and 809 definitions that do not appear in the Reference Method Specification 810 MUST appear in this column (or Run-time Parameters column). 812 Parameters MUST have a well-specified data format. 814 A Parameter which is a Fixed Parameter for one Performance Metrics 815 Registry entry may be designated as a Run-time Parameter for another 816 Performance Metrics Registry entry. 818 7.3. Method of Measurement Category 820 This category includes columns for references to relevant sections of 821 the RFC(s) and any supplemental information needed to ensure an 822 unambiguous method for implementations. 824 7.3.1. Reference Method 826 This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s) 827 describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental 828 information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for 829 implementations referring to the RFC text. 831 Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or 832 actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation. 834 7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation 836 This column applies to Performance Metrics that generate traffic as 837 part of their Measurement Method, including but not necessarily 838 limited to Active metrics. The generated traffic is referred as a 839 stream and this column describes its characteristics. 841 Each entry for this column contains the following information: 843 o Value: The name of the packet stream scheduling discipline 845 o Reference: the specification where the parameters of the stream 846 are defined 848 The packet generation stream may require parameters such as the 849 average packet rate and distribution truncation value for streams 850 with Poisson-distributed inter-packet sending times. In case such 851 parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed 852 parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on 853 wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric. 855 The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling 856 (see [RFC2330]), where a single atomic measurement is conducted. 857 Each atomic measurement could consist of sending a single packet 858 (such as a DNS request) or sending several packets (for example, to 859 request a webpage). Other streams support a series of atomic 860 measurements in a "sample", with a schedule defining the timing 861 between each transmitted packet and subsequent measurement. 862 Principally, two different streams are used in IPPM metrics, Poisson 863 distributed as described in [RFC2330] and Periodic as described in 864 [RFC3432]. Both Poisson and Periodic have their own unique 865 parameters, and the relevant set of parameters names and values 866 should be included either in the Fixed Parameters column or in the 867 Run-time parameter column. 869 7.3.3. Traffic Filter 871 This column applies to Performance Metrics that observe packets 872 flowing through (the device with) the measurement agent i.e. that is 873 not necessarily addressed to the measurement agent. This includes 874 but is not limited to Passive Metrics. The filter specifies the 875 traffic that is measured. This includes protocol field values/ 876 ranges, such as address ranges, and flow or session identifiers. 878 The traffic filter itself depends on needs of the metric itself and a 879 balance of an operator's measurement needs and a user's need for 880 privacy. Mechanics for conveying the filter criteria might be the 881 BPF (Berkley Packet Filter) or PSAMP [RFC5475] Property Match 882 Filtering which reuses IPFIX [RFC7012]. An example BPF string for 883 matching TCP/80 traffic to remote destination net 192.0.2.0/24 would 884 be "dst net 192.0.2.0/24 and tcp dst port 80". More complex filter 885 engines might be supported by the implementation that might allow for 886 matching using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology. 888 The traffic filter includes the following information: 890 Type: the type of traffic filter used, e.g. BPF, PSAMP, OpenFlow 891 rule, etc. as defined by a normative reference 893 Value: the actual set of rules expressed 895 7.3.4. Sampling Distribution 897 The sampling distribution defines out of all the packets that match 898 the traffic filter, which one of those are actually used for the 899 measurement. One possibility is "all" which implies that all packets 900 matching the Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other 901 sampling strategies. It includes the following information: 903 Value: the name of the sampling distribution 905 Reference definition: pointer to the specification where the 906 sampling distribution is properly defined. 908 The sampling distribution may require parameters. In case such 909 parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed 910 parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on 911 whether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric. 913 Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection are 914 documented in the PSAMP (Packet Sampling) [RFC5475], while the 915 Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting, [RFC5474] provides more 916 background information. The sampling distribution parameters might 917 be expressed in terms of the Information Model for Packet Sampling 918 Exports, [RFC5477], and the Flow Selection Techniques, [RFC7014]. 920 7.3.5. Run-time Parameters 922 Run-Time Parameters are Parameters that must be determined, 923 configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results 924 for the context to be complete. However, the values of these 925 parameters is not specified in the Performance Metrics Registry (like 926 the Fixed Parameters), rather these parameters are listed as an aid 927 to the measurement system implementer or user (they must be left as 928 variables, and supplied on execution). 930 Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their 931 descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated 932 as Run-Time Parameters. 934 Parameters MUST have well defined names. For human readers, the 935 hanging indent style is preferred, and the names and definitions that 936 do not appear in the Reference Method Specification MUST appear in 937 this column. 939 A Data Format for each Run-time Parameter MUST be specified in this 940 column, to simplify the control and implementation of measurement 941 devices. For example, parameters that include an IPv4 address can be 942 encoded as a 32 bit integer (i.e. binary base64 encoded value) or ip- 943 address as defined in [RFC6991]. The actual encoding(s) used must be 944 explicitly defined for each Run-time parameter. IPv6 addresses and 945 options MUST be accomodated, allowing Registered Metrics to be used 946 in either address family. 948 Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement 949 point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and 950 other information essential to the method of measurement. 952 7.3.6. Role 954 In some methods of measurement, there may be several roles defined, 955 e.g., for a one-way packet delay active measurement there is one 956 measurement agent that generates the packets and another agent that 957 receives the packets. This column contains the name of the Role(s) 958 for this particular entry. In the one-way delay example above, there 959 should be two entries in the Role registry column, one for each Role 960 (Source and Destination). When a measurement agent is instructed to 961 perform the "Source" Role for one-way delay metric, the agent knows 962 that it is required to generate packets. The values for this field 963 are defined in the reference method of measurement (and this 964 frequently results in abbreviated role names such as "Src"). 966 When the Role column of a registry entry defines more than one Role, 967 then the Role SHALL be treated as a Run-time Parameter and supplied 968 for execution. It should be noted that the LMAP framework [RFC7594] 969 distinguishes the Role from other Run-time Parameters, and defines a 970 special parameter "Roles" inside the registry-grouping function list 971 in the LMAP YANG model[RFC8194]. 973 7.4. Output Category 975 For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a 976 statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to 977 a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is 978 output, this will be specified here. 980 Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric 981 definition, while others allow several output types or statistics. 983 7.4.1. Type 985 This column contains the name of the output type. The output type 986 defines a single type of result that the metric produces. It can be 987 the raw results (packet send times and singleton metrics), or it can 988 be a summary statistic. The specification of the output type MUST 989 define the format of the output. In some systems, format 990 specifications will simplify both measurement implementation and 991 collection/storage tasks. Note that if two different statistics are 992 required from a single measurement (for example, both "Xth percentile 993 mean" and "Raw"), then a new output type must be defined ("Xth 994 percentile mean AND Raw"). See the Naming section above for a list 995 of Output Types. 997 7.4.2. Reference Definition 999 This column contains a pointer to the specification(s) where the 1000 output type and format are defined. 1002 7.4.3. Metric Units 1004 The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension 1005 or units of measure. This column provides the units. 1007 When a sample of singletons (see Section 11 of[RFC2330] for 1008 definitions of these terms) is collected, this entry will specify the 1009 units for each measured value. 1011 7.4.4. Calibration 1013 Some specifications for Methods of Measurement include the 1014 possibility to perform an error calibration. Section 3.7.3 of 1015 [RFC7679] is one example. In the registry entry, this field will 1016 identify a method of calibration for the metric, and when available, 1017 the measurement system SHOULD perform the calibration when requested 1018 and produce the output with an indication that it is the result of a 1019 calbration method. In-situ calibration could be enabled with an 1020 internal loopback that includes as much of the measurement system as 1021 possible, performs address manipulation as needed, and provides some 1022 form of isolation (e.g., deterministic delay) to avoid send-receive 1023 interface contention. Some portion of the random and systematic 1024 error can be characterized this way. 1026 For one-way delay measurements, the error calibration must include an 1027 assessment of the internal clock synchronization with its external 1028 reference (this internal clock is supplying timestamps for 1029 measurement). In practice, the time offsets of clocks at both the 1030 source and destination are needed to estimate the systematic error 1031 due to imperfect clock synchronization (the time offsets are 1032 smoothed, thus the random variation is not usually represented in the 1033 results). 1035 Both internal loopback calibration and clock synchronization can be 1036 used to estimate the *available accuracy* of the Output Metric Units. 1037 For example, repeated loopback delay measurements will reveal the 1038 portion of the Output result resolution which is the result of system 1039 noise, and thus inaccurate. 1041 7.5. Administrative information 1043 7.5.1. Status 1045 The status of the specification of this Registered Performance 1046 Metric. Allowed values are 'current' and 'deprecated'. All newly 1047 defined Information Elements have 'current' status. 1049 7.5.2. Requester 1051 The requester for the Registered Performance Metric. The requester 1052 MAY be a document, such as RFC, or person. 1054 7.5.3. Revision 1056 The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric, starting at 0 1057 for Registered Performance Metrics at time of definition and 1058 incremented by one for each revision. 1060 7.5.4. Revision Date 1062 The date of acceptance or the most recent revision for the Registered 1063 Performance Metric. The date SHALL be determined by the reviewing 1064 Performance Metrics Expert in the case of Expert Review, or by IANA 1065 in the case of Standards Action. 1067 7.6. Comments and Remarks 1069 Besides providing additional details which do not appear in other 1070 categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen 1071 issues to be addressed by simply updating this informational entry. 1073 8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics 1075 Once a Performance Metric or set of Performance Metrics has been 1076 identified for a given application, candidate Performance Metrics 1077 Registry entry specifications prepared in accordance with Section 7 1078 should be submitted to IANA to follow the process for review by the 1079 Performance Metric Experts, as defined below. This process is also 1080 used for other changes to the Performance Metrics Registry, such as 1081 deprecation or revision, as described later in this section. 1083 It is desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Performance Metrics 1084 Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working group, or 1085 offer the opportunity for review on the working group mailing list. 1087 8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry 1089 Requests to add Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance 1090 Metrics Registry SHALL be submitted to IANA, which forwards the 1091 request to a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) 1092 appointed by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the 1093 Expert Review [RFC8126]policy defined for the Performance Metrics 1094 Registry. The Performance Metric Experts review the request for such 1095 things as compliance with this document, compliance with other 1096 applicable Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the 1097 currently defined set of Registered Performance Metrics. 1099 Submission to IANA MAY be during IESG review (leading to IETF 1100 Standards Action), where an Internet Draft proposes one or more 1101 Registered Performance Metrics to be added to the Performance Metrics 1102 Registry, including the text of the proposed Registered Performance 1103 Metric(s). 1105 Authors of proposed Registered Performance Metrics SHOULD review 1106 compliance with the specifications in this document to check their 1107 submissions before sending them to IANA. 1109 At least one Performance Metric Expert should endeavor to complete 1110 referred reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, 1111 the Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, and 1112 IANA updates the Performance Metrics Registry. If the request is not 1113 acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts MAY coordinate with the 1114 requester to change the request to be compliant, otherwise IANA SHALL 1115 coordinate resolution of issues on behalf of the expert. The 1116 Performance Metric Experts MAY choose to reject clearly frivolous or 1117 inappropriate change requests outright, but such exceptional 1118 circumstances should be rare. 1120 This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the 1121 Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus. Specifically, 1122 any Registered Performance Metrics that were added to the Performance 1123 Metrics Registry with IETF consensus require IETF consensus for 1124 revision or deprecation. 1126 Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in 1127 Section 7 of [RFC8126]. 1129 8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics 1131 A request for Revision is only permitted when the requested changes 1132 maintain backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior 1133 Performance Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered 1134 Performance Metric (entries with lower revision numbers, but the same 1135 Identifier and Name). 1137 The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metrics Registry 1138 is to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Performance Metric 1139 is 'current' or 'deprecated'. 1141 In addition, no policy is defined for revising the Performance Metric 1142 entries in the IANA Regsirty or addressing errors therein. To be 1143 clear, changes and deprecations within the Performance Metrics 1144 Registry are not encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent 1145 possible. However, in recognition that change is inevitable, the 1146 provisions of this section address the need for revisions. 1148 Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance 1149 Metric definition to IANA, as in Section 8.1, identifying the 1150 existing Performance Metrics Registry entry, and explaining how and 1151 why the existing entry should be revised. 1153 The primary requirement in the definition of procedures for managing 1154 changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of 1155 measurement interoperability problems; the Performance Metric Experts 1156 must work to maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to 1157 Registered Performance Metrics may only be done in an interoperable 1158 way; necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow 1159 interoperability with unchanged implementations MUST result in the 1160 creation of a new Registered Performance Metric (with a new Name, 1161 replacing the RFCXXXXsecY portion of the name) and possibly the 1162 deprecation of the earlier metric. 1164 A change to a Registered Performance Metric SHALL be determined to be 1165 backward-compatible only when: 1167 1. it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only 1168 editorial; or 1170 2. it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's 1171 definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent 1172 the Registered Performance Metric's usage as originally defined; 1173 or 1175 3. it corrects missing information in the metric definition without 1176 changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity' 1177 semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics 1178 value); or 1180 4. it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself 1181 corrected. 1183 If a Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible and backward- 1184 compatible by the Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules 1185 in this document, IANA SHOULD execute the change(s) in the 1186 Performance Metrics Registry. The requester of the change is 1187 appended to the original requester in the Performance Metrics 1188 Registry. The Name of the revised Registered Performance Metric, 1189 including the RFCXXXXsecY portion of the name, SHALL remain unchamged 1190 (even when the change is the result of IETF Standards Action; the 1191 revised registry entry SHOULD reference the new RFC in an appropriate 1192 category and column). 1194 Each Registered Performance Metric in the Performance Metrics 1195 Registry has a revision number, starting at zero. Each change to a 1196 Registered Performance Metric following this process increments the 1197 revision number by one. 1199 When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the 1200 Performance Metrics Registry, the date of acceptance of the most 1201 recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the 1202 registry for that Registered Performance Metric. 1204 Where applicable, additions to Registered Performance Metrics in the 1205 form of text Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such 1206 additions may not constitute a revision according to this process. 1208 Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the 1209 registry for archival purposes. The older entries are kept with all 1210 fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status 1211 field that SHALL be changed to "Deprecated". 1213 8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics 1215 Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered 1216 Performance Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A 1217 Registered Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when: 1219 1. the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or 1220 shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in Section 8.2 1221 Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or 1223 2. the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was 1224 itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation 1225 method. 1227 A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the 1228 Performance Metric Experts for review. When deprecating an 1229 Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the 1230 Performance Metrics Registry must be updated to explain the 1231 deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics 1232 created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric. 1234 The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented 1235 upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any 1236 revision. 1238 The use of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics should result in 1239 a log entry or human-readable warning by the respective application. 1241 Names and Metric IDs of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics 1242 must not be reused. 1244 The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified, except 1245 the version, revision date, and the status field (changed to 1246 "Deprecated"). 1248 9. Security considerations 1250 This draft defines a registry structure, and does not itself 1251 introduce any new security considerations for the Internet. The 1252 definition of Performance Metrics for this registry may introduce 1253 some security concerns, but the mandatory references should have 1254 their own considerations for secuity, and such definitions should be 1255 reviewed with security in mind if the security considerations are not 1256 covered by one or more reference standards. 1258 10. IANA Considerations 1260 With the background and processes described in earlier sections, this 1261 document requests the following IANA Actions. Note that mock-ups of 1262 the implementation of this set of requests have been prepared with 1263 IANA's help during development of this memo, and have been captured 1264 in the Proceedings of IPPM working group sessions. 1266 10.1. Registry Group 1268 The new registry group SHALL be named, "PERFORMANCE METRICS Group". 1270 10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements 1272 This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics Name 1273 Element Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new set of 1274 registries for Performance Metric Name Elements called "Registered 1275 Performance Metric Name Elements". Each Registry, whose names are 1276 listed below: 1278 MetricType: 1280 Method: 1282 SubTypeMethod: 1284 Spec: 1286 Units: 1288 Output: 1290 will contain the current set of possibilities for Performance Metrics 1291 Registry Entry Names. 1293 To populate the Registered Performance Metric Name Elements at 1294 creation, the IANA is asked to use the lists of values for each name 1295 element listed in Section 7.1.2. The Name Elements in each registry 1296 are case-sensitive. 1298 When preparing a Metric entry for Registration, the developer SHOULD 1299 choose Name elements from among the registered elements. However, if 1300 the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, it may be 1301 necessary to propose a new Name element to properly describe the 1302 metric, as described below. 1304 A candidate Metric Entry RFC or document for Expert Review would 1305 propose one or more new element values required to describe the 1306 unique entry, and the new name element(s) would be reviewed along 1307 with the metric entry. New assignments for Registered Performance 1308 Metric Name Elements will be administered by IANA through Expert 1309 Review [RFC8126], i.e., review by one of a group of experts, the 1310 Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed by the IESG upon 1311 recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. 1313 10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry 1315 This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics 1316 Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for 1317 Performance Metrics called "Performance Metrics Registry". This 1318 Registry will contain the following Summary columns: 1320 Identifier: 1322 Name: 1324 URIs: 1326 Description: 1328 Reference: 1330 Change Controller: 1332 Version: 1334 Descriptions of these columns and additional information found in the 1335 template for registry entries (categories and columns) are further 1336 defined in section Section 7. 1338 The "Identifier" 0 should be Reserved. "The Identifier" values from 1339 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use. 1341 Names starting with the prefix Priv_ are reserved for private use, 1342 and are not considered for registration. The "Name" column entries 1343 are further defined in section Section 7. 1345 The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each 1346 registry entry. The Registry Entry text SHALL be HTML-ized to aid 1347 the reader, with links to reference RFCs (similar to the way that 1348 Internet Drafts are HTML-ized, the same tool can perform the 1349 function). 1351 The "Reference" column will include an RFC number, an approved 1352 specification designator from another standards body, or the contact 1353 person. 1355 New assignments for Performance Metrics Registry will be administered 1356 by IANA through Expert Review [RFC8126], i.e., review by one of a 1357 group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed 1358 by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors, or 1359 by Standards Action. The experts can be initially drawn from the 1360 Working Group Chairs, document editors, and members of the 1361 Performance Metrics Directorate, among other sources of experts. 1363 Extensions of the Performance Metrics Registry require IETF Standards 1364 Action. Only one form of registry extension is envisaged: 1366 1. Adding columns, or both categories and columns, to accommodate 1367 unanticipated aspects of new measurements and metric categories. 1369 If the Performance Metrics Registry is extended in this way, the 1370 Version number of future entries complying with the extension SHALL 1371 be incremented (either in the unit or tenths digit, depending on the 1372 degree of extension. 1374 11. Acknowledgments 1376 Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading 1377 some brainstorming sessions on this topic. Thanks to Barbara Stark 1378 and Juergen Schoenwaelder for the detailed feedback and suggestions. 1379 Thanks to Andrew McGregor for suggestions on metric naming. Thanks 1380 to Michelle Cotton for her early IANA review, and to Amanda Barber 1381 for answering questions related to the presentation of the registry 1382 and accessibility of the complete template via URL. 1384 12. References 1386 12.1. Normative References 1388 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 1389 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 1390 . 1392 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1393 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1394 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1395 . 1397 [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, 1398 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, 1399 DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, 1400 . 1402 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1403 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1404 RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 1405 . 1407 [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New 1408 Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, 1409 DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, 1410 . 1412 [RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, 1413 "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement 1414 Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March 1415 2012, . 1417 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 1418 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 1419 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 1420 . 1422 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 1423 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 1424 May 2017, . 1426 12.2. Informative References 1428 [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] 1429 Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza, 1430 "Initial Performance Metrics Registry Entries", draft- 1431 ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11 (work in progress), March 1432 2019. 1434 [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip 1435 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681, 1436 September 1999, . 1438 [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network 1439 performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, 1440 DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, 1441 . 1443 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. 1444 Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time 1445 Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, 1446 July 2003, . 1448 [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed., 1449 "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", 1450 RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003, 1451 . 1453 [RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics 1454 Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, DOI 10.17487/RFC4148, August 1455 2005, . 1457 [RFC5474] Duffield, N., Ed., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A., 1458 Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for Packet 1459 Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474, DOI 10.17487/RFC5474, 1460 March 2009, . 1462 [RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F. 1463 Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet 1464 Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009, 1465 . 1467 [RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G. 1468 Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports", 1469 RFC 5477, DOI 10.17487/RFC5477, March 2009, 1470 . 1472 [RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich, 1473 "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice 1474 Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, DOI 10.17487/RFC6035, 1475 November 2010, . 1477 [RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics 1478 (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, 1479 DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011, 1480 . 1482 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", 1483 RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, 1484 . 1486 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 1487 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 1488 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 1489 . 1491 [RFC7014] D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow 1492 Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014, 1493 September 2013, . 1495 [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., 1496 Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale 1497 Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, 1498 DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, 1499 . 1501 [RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton, 1502 Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics 1503 (IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January 1504 2016, . 1506 [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with 1507 Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, 1508 May 2016, . 1510 [RFC8194] Schoenwaelder, J. and V. Bajpai, "A YANG Data Model for 1511 LMAP Measurement Agents", RFC 8194, DOI 10.17487/RFC8194, 1512 August 2017, . 1514 Authors' Addresses 1516 Marcelo Bagnulo 1517 Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 1518 Av. Universidad 30 1519 Leganes, Madrid 28911 1520 SPAIN 1522 Phone: 34 91 6249500 1523 Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es 1524 URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es 1526 Benoit Claise 1527 Cisco Systems, Inc. 1528 De Kleetlaan 6a b1 1529 1831 Diegem 1530 Belgium 1532 Email: bclaise@cisco.com 1534 Philip Eardley 1535 BT 1536 Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath 1537 Ipswich 1538 ENGLAND 1540 Email: philip.eardley@bt.com 1541 Al Morton 1542 AT&T Labs 1543 200 Laurel Avenue South 1544 Middletown, NJ 1545 USA 1547 Email: acmorton@att.com 1549 Aamer Akhter 1550 Consultant 1551 118 Timber Hitch 1552 Cary, NC 1553 USA 1555 Email: aakhter@gmail.com