idnits 2.17.1 draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-02.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 25, 2010) is 4932 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (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 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2679 (Obsoleted by RFC 7679) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2680 (Obsoleted by RFC 7680) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4148 (Obsoleted by RFC 6248) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Morton 3 Internet-Draft AT&T Labs 4 Intended status: Standards Track October 25, 2010 5 Expires: April 28, 2011 7 RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete 8 draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-02 10 Abstract 12 This memo recommends that RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) 13 Registry be reclassified as Historic, and the IANA IPPM Metrics 14 Registry itself be withdrawn from use. The current registry 15 structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely 16 identify IPPM metrics. Despite apparent efforts to find current or 17 even future users, no one has responded to the third quarter of 2010 18 call for interest in the RFC 4148 registry. 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 28, 2011. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2010 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the 62 corresponding IANA registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 1. Introduction 73 The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework [RFC2330] describes 74 several ways to record options and metric parameter settings, in 75 order to account for sources of measurement variability. For 76 example, Section 13 of[RFC2330] describes the notion of "Type P" so 77 that metrics can be specified in general, but the specifics (such as 78 payload length in octets and protocol type) can replace P to 79 disambiguate the results. 81 When the IPPM Metric Registry [RFC4148] was designed, the variability 82 of the Type P notion, and the variability possible with the many 83 metric parameters (see Section 4.1 of [RFC2679] ) was not fully 84 appreciated. Further, some of the early metric definitions only 85 indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in [RFC2679], 86 [RFC2680], and [RFC3393]), but later work standardized the methods 87 for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], adding to the variability 88 possible when characterizing a metric exactly. 90 It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register every 91 possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and Stream 92 parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metric Registry. 94 The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few, if any users. 95 Evidence of this provided by the fact that one registry entry was 96 syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published. 97 The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that document instead of 98 "::=". It took eight months before someone complained that a parser 99 found the error. Even the original registry author agrees that the 100 current registry is not efficient, and has submitted a proposal to 101 effectively create a new registry 102 [draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext-00, work in progress]. 104 Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, no one 105 has responded to the third quarter of 2010 call for interest in the 106 RFC 4148 registry. Therefore, the IETF could now declare the 107 registry Historic without any further reservations. 109 When a registry is declared Historic, it simply prevents IANA from 110 registering new objects, in this case new metrics. So, even if a 111 registry user was eventually found, they could continue to use the 112 current registry and its contents will continue to be available. 114 2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the corresponding 115 IANA registry 117 Due to the ambiguities between the current metrics registrations and 118 the metrics used, and the apparent minimal adoption of the registry 119 in practice, this memo RECOMMENDS that: 121 o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Historic 123 o the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry 125 It is assumed that parties who wish to establish a replacement 126 registry function will work to specify such a registry. 128 3. Security Considerations 130 This memo and its recommendations have no known impact on the 131 security of the Internet (especially if there is a zombie apocalypse 132 on the day it is published; humans will have many more security 133 issues to worry about stemming from the rise of the un-dead). 135 4. IANA Considerations 137 Metrics defined in IETF are typically registered in the IANA IPPM 138 METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry 139 [RFC4148]. However, areas for improvement of this registry have been 140 identified, and the registry structure has to be revisited when there 141 is consensus to do so. 143 The current consensus is to withdraw the IPPM Metrics Registry, as 144 originally described in [RFC4148]. 146 5. Acknowledgements 148 Henk Uijterwaal suggested additional rationale for the recommendation 149 in this memo. 151 6. References 153 6.1. Normative References 155 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 156 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 158 [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, 159 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, 160 May 1998. 162 [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way 163 Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999. 165 [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way 166 Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999. 168 [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation 169 Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, 170 November 2002. 172 [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network 173 performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, 174 November 2002. 176 [RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics 177 Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005. 179 [RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance 180 Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644, 181 October 2009. 183 6.2. Informative References 185 [....] "None", . 187 Author's Address 189 Al Morton 190 AT&T Labs 191 200 Laurel Avenue South 192 Middletown,, NJ 07748 193 USA 195 Phone: +1 732 420 1571 196 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 197 Email: acmorton@att.com 198 URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/