idnits 2.17.1 draft-morton-ippm-2679-bis-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (October 15, 2012) is 4212 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 215 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 218 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 221 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 223 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5' on line 226 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '6' on line 228 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '7' on line 231 == Unused Reference: 'RFC2026' is defined on line 238, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2330' is defined on line 244, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2679' is defined on line 248, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2680' is defined on line 251, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3432' is defined on line 254, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4656' is defined on line 258, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5357' is defined on line 262, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5657' is defined on line 266, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5835' is defined on line 270, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6049' is defined on line 273, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6576' is defined on line 276, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6703' is defined on line 280, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'ADK' is defined on line 286, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3931' is defined on line 291, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2679 (Obsoleted by RFC 7679) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2680 (Obsoleted by RFC 7680) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 16 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group G. Almes 3 Internet-Draft S. Kalidindi 4 Intended status: Informational M. Zekauskas 5 Expires: April 18, 2013 6 A. Morton, Ed. 7 AT&T Labs 8 October 15, 2012 10 A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM 11 draft-morton-ippm-2679-bis-00 13 Abstract 15 This memo defines a metric for one-way delay of packets across 16 Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the 17 IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be 18 familiar with that document. 20 Requirements Language 22 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 23 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 24 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 26 Status of this Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2013. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 1.2. General Issues Regarding Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 2. A Singleton Definition for One-way Delay . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 2.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 2.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 2.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 2.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 2.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 2.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 2.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 2.7.1. Errors or uncertainties related to Clocks . . . . . . . 5 72 2.7.2. Errors or uncertainties related to Wire-time vs 73 Host-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 2.7.3. Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 2.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 2.8.1. Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 2.8.2. Loss Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 2.8.3. Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 79 2.8.4. Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 3. A Definition for Samples of One-way Delay . . . . . . . . . . . 5 81 3.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 82 3.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 3.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 84 3.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 85 3.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 86 3.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 87 3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 88 3.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 89 4. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Delay . . . . . . . . . 6 90 4.1. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 91 4.2. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Median . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 92 4.3. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 93 4.4. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Inverse-Percentile . . . . . . . . . . 6 94 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 95 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 96 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 97 8. Refetrences (temporary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 98 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 99 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 100 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 101 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 103 1. Introduction 105 This memo defines a metric for one-way delay of packets across 106 Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the 107 IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330 [1]; the reader is assumed to be 108 familiar with that document. 110 This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a companion 111 document for Packet Loss ("A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM") 112 [2]. 114 Although RFC 2119 was written with protocols in mind, the key words 115 are used in this document for similar reasons. They are used to 116 ensure the results of measurements from two different implementations 117 are comparable, and to note instances when an implementation could 118 perturb the network. 120 The structure of the memo is as follows: 122 + A 'singleton' analytic metric, called Type-P-One-way-Delay, will be 123 introduced to measure a single observation of one-way delay. 125 + Using this singleton metric, a 'sample', called Type-P-One-way- 126 Delay-Poisson-Stream, will be introduced to measure a sequence of 127 singleton delays measured at times taken from a Poisson process. 129 + Using this sample, several 'statistics' of the sample will be 130 defined and discussed. This progression from singleton to sample to 131 statistics, with clear separation among them, is important. 133 Whenever a technical term from the IPPM Framework document is first 134 used in this memo, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk. For 135 example, "term*" indicates that "term" is defined in the Framework. 137 1.1. Motivation 139 1.2. General Issues Regarding Time 141 2. A Singleton Definition for One-way Delay 143 2.1. Metric Name: 145 2.2. Metric Parameters: 147 2.3. Metric Units: 149 2.4. Definition: 151 2.5. Discussion: 153 2.6. Methodologies: 155 2.7. Errors and Uncertainties: 157 2.7.1. Errors or uncertainties related to Clocks 159 2.7.2. Errors or uncertainties related to Wire-time vs Host-time 161 2.7.3. Calibration 163 2.8. Reporting the metric: 165 2.8.1. Type-P 167 2.8.2. Loss Threshold 169 2.8.3. Calibration Results 171 2.8.4. Path 173 3. A Definition for Samples of One-way Delay 175 3.1. Metric Name: 177 3.2. Metric Parameters: 179 3.3. Metric Units: 181 3.4. Definition: 183 3.5. Discussion: 185 3.6. Methodologies: 187 3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: 189 3.8. Reporting the metric: 191 4. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Delay 193 4.1. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile 195 4.2. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Median 197 4.3. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Minimum 199 4.4. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Inverse-Percentile 201 5. Security Considerations 203 The 205 6. IANA Considerations 207 This memo makes no requests of IANA. 209 7. Acknowledgements 211 The authors thank 213 8. Refetrences (temporary) 215 [1] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J. and M. Mathis, "Framework for 216 IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May 1998. 218 [2] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss 219 Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999. 221 [3] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (v3)", RFC 1305, April 1992. 223 [4] Mahdavi J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring 224 Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999. 226 [5] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. 228 [6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 229 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 231 [7] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 232 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 234 9. References 236 9.1. Normative References 238 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 239 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 241 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 242 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 244 [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, 245 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, 246 May 1998. 248 [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way 249 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999. 251 [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way 252 Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999. 254 [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network 255 performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, 256 November 2002. 258 [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. 259 Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol 260 (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006. 262 [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. 263 Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", 264 RFC 5357, October 2008. 266 [RFC5657] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation 267 and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft 268 Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009. 270 [RFC5835] Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for Metric 271 Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010. 273 [RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of 274 Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011. 276 [RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP 277 Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing", 278 BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012. 280 [RFC6703] Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting 281 IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View", 282 RFC 6703, August 2012. 284 9.2. Informative References 286 [ADK] Scholz, F. and M. Stephens, "K-sample Anderson-Darling 287 Tests of fit, for continuous and discrete cases", 288 University of Washington, Technical Report No. 81, 289 May 1986. 291 [RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling 292 Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, March 2005. 294 Authors' Addresses 296 Guy Almes 298 Phone: 299 Fax: 300 Email: 301 URI: 303 S. Kalidindi 305 Phone: 306 Fax: 307 Email: 308 URI: 310 Matt Zekauskas 312 Phone: 313 Fax: 314 Email: 315 URI: 317 Al Morton 318 AT&T Labs 319 200 Laurel Avenue South 320 Middletown, NJ 07748 321 USA 323 Phone: +1 732 420 1571 324 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 325 Email: acmorton@att.com 326 URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/