Subject: [ippm] Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-16.txt> (Spatial Composition of Metrics) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:12:47 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'Spatial Composition of Metrics'
  <draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-16.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This specification has normative references to two Informational RFCs:

* "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330
* "Framework for Metric Composition", RFC 5835

These downrefs describe the frameworks for IP performance metrics and
their composition, and are therefore required background reading in order to 
implement this Proposed Standard. Comments on whether these downrefs
are appropriate for a standards track publications are requested.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2010-08-31. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition/

No IPR declarations were found that appear related to this I-D.

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:40:28 +0200

> are appropriate for a standards track publications are requested.

Yes, I think it is appropriate.  We wrote the framework documents to
provide a common framework for IPPM metrics and to avoid that each
document describing a metric has to repeat everything that is said
in the framework documents.  However, at the time of publication
of 2330 and 5835, framework documents were classified as informational.
Thus, the downref cannot be avoided.

On a more general note: I think this situation will occur in every
case where there is a framework document plus standards built on
the framework, so a more general solution might be in order.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:25:34 -0400

At 07:40 AM 8/24/2010, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>...On a more general note: I think this situation will occur in every
I agree, and observed the same in my exchange with Dan.
"Framework" Status, or a Reference track is now needed
(and wasn't needed in the past when there was a single
reference section and no Down-Refs).

Al