Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:46:54 -0700

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.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:42:07 -0400

>         Filename        : draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10.txt

I've started looking at this draft.  It looks admirable for the
thoroughness and extent of documentation of the registry entries.  But
it seems like the overall organization could be improved.

I started reading through section 4, "UDP Round-trip Latency and Loss
Registry Entries".  That provides much documentation for two metrics,
2,000 words in fact.  But what is the reason that all of that text
should be transcribed into the registry?  It seems to me that a better
approach is to have the registry limited to the metric name ("UDP
Round-trip Latency"), its unique idenfiers:

   [IANA is asked to assign different numeric identifiers to each of the
   two Named Metrics.]

   RTDelay_Active_IP-UDP-Periodic_RFCXXXXsecY_Seconds_95Percentile

   RTLoss_Active_IP-UDP-Periodic_RFCXXXXsecY_Percent_LossRatio

   URN: Prefix urn:ietf:metrics:perf:<name>

   URL: http://<TBD by IANA>/<name>

and a pointer to section 4 of this document for the rest of the
information.

The purpose of the URL is unclear, since it seems to be intended that
the URL be fixed, but there doesn't seem to be any way one can use it to
fetch a resource.

There is also:

   Note: Each Registry entry only produces a "raw" output or a
   statistical summary.  To describe both "raw" and one or more
   statistics efficiently, the Identifier, Name, and Output Categories
   can be split and a single section can specify two or more closely-
   related metrics.

Be aware that this is a significant open technical point, not a note to
IANA.

Nit-like comments:

Section 4.1.1 says:

   IANA is asked to assign different numeric identifiers to each of the
   two Named Metrics.

Strictly, this doesn't request that the numbers be different from the
numbers for the metrics in other sections.  These instructions need to
be updated to what you're really asking of IANA, that it assign a
distinct integer to each metric entry, which request would go in section
3.  You may also want to specify that they count up from 1, or count up
from 0, or whatever.

Section 4.3.3 has "NA" at the end, which seems to be left over from
editing.

Dale

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:52:18 +0000

Hi Dale,  
please see straight-forward replies below, [acm],
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dale R. Worley
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 9:42 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10.txt
> 
[acm] 
I'm glad you agree with the registry organization I proposed 
back in 2016 or so. See:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17#section-10.3
I also worked with IANA folks on an html mock-up of the registry,
and shared it at several IPPM sessions. In the Registry, 
the URL will point to major sections of the HTML-ized 
initial-registry draft, to help the reader locate references.

> Be aware that this is a significant open technical point, not a note to
[acm] 
I don't consider this point open. 
All the sections of the initial-registry draft
follow this Note to efficiently express multiple statistics,
or even loss and delay when the methods are closely related.

> 3.  You may also want to specify that they count up from 1, or count up
[acm] 
The Instructions for all entries are in the Registry draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17#section-7.1.1
Section 4.1.1 simply indicates that two identifiers are needed.

> Section 4.3.3 has "NA" at the end, which seems to be left over from
[acm] 
Actually, sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 are intended for passive
metrics that filter and/or sample the traffic. The filter
section text:
   The measured results based on a filtered version of the packets
   observed, and this section provides the filter details (when
   present).
can be removed, but the NA stays for active metrics.

> 
> Dale
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=YtH7aRHJ27wLFagzZJqyh-
> Zi0uD5ZIDo3CKsejWnai0&s=0Ucrnj-4sX3BpyAGUN070WIUW0ci953i_WsOzbEq1Kw&e=