Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-18 and -initial-registry-10

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:43:12 +0000

IPPM,

The WG Chairs have asked me to lead a discussion of the
two Registry Drafts during the IPPM session, and hopefully 
close the extended WGLC. URLs to the drafts are appended
to this message.

The current versions -18 and -10 address the comments on
ippm-list up to today (but see below).

At my request, Michelle Cotton of IANA provided 
yet-another-early-IANA-review, and her comments on the 
-registry-17 draft have been resolved in -18 as well.
*Thanks Michelle!*

AFAIK*, The remaining issue is whether we retain or 
remove the proposed URN namespaces for metric names.
I asked the following question on the list several weeks
back:
> [acm]
> If we have a unique numerical ID for each registered metric, paired
> with a unique Name determined according to a carefully constructed format
> with some extensibility:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17#section-
> 7.1.2
> 
> what additional benefits do we gain when we create a new URN by appending
> the Name to   urn:ietf:<metrics or param or ??> ?
> 
> There seems to be some overlap between a unique name in the Performance
> Metrics Registry and a URN for the same Registered Metric,
> and I think we should weigh the value of having both (or just the Name,
> in a registry).

For me, the Identifier is sufficient for use in control protocols,
and the unique Name (not URN) is sufficient to document test results.

So, if I have overlooked an issue, please let me know, 
and please come prepared to discuss these drafts.

thanks,
Al, for the many co-authors

* Some editorial issues may remain, as well. At least one of my co-authors
has offered to help find them. We know that the RFC Editor will do a 
more complete review than we can ever conjure-up, eventually.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of internet-
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 5:43 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-18.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Measurement WG of the
> IETF.
> 
>         Title           : Registry for Performance Metrics
>         Authors         : Marcelo Bagnulo
>                           Benoit Claise
>                           Philip Eardley
>                           Al Morton
>                           Aamer Akhter
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-18.txt
> 	Pages           : 34
> 	Date            : 2019-03-11
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document defines the format for the IANA Performance Metrics
>    Registry.  This document also gives a set of guidelines for
>    Registered Performance Metric requesters and reviewers.
> 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-18

[acm] 
And
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Measurement WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Initial Performance Metrics Registry Entries
        Authors         : Al Morton
                          Marcelo Bagnulo
                          Philip Eardley
                          Kevin D'Souza
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10.txt
	Pages           : 79
	Date            : 2019-03-11

Abstract:
   This memo defines the set of Initial Entries for the IANA Performance
   Metrics Registry.  The set includes, UDP Round-trip Latency and Loss,
   Packet Delay Variation, DNS Response Latency and Loss, UDP Poisson
   One-way Delay and Loss, UDP Periodic One-way Delay and Loss, ICMP
   Round-trip Latency and Loss, and TCP round-trip Latency and Loss.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10