Subject: [PMOL] comments on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:24:34 +0200

Please find below my contributor comments on
draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-00.txt

1. Section 1.1: s/Although the IETF has two Working Groups/Although the
IETF currently has two active Working Groups/

2. Section 3.3: s/Temporal Aggregation is a summarization of metrics
into/Temporal Aggregation is a summarization of sets of metrics into/

3. Section 3.4.1 - it is not clear what is the difference between 'what
the metric is' and 'describes the metrics'. Maybe the intent here is
s/describes the metric/describes the rationale of the metric/? 

4. (iii) Measurement Method - should not we relate here also to the
measurement points? For example in the sip-performance-metrics draft
some of the metrics are measured only at UACs, other at UAC or UAS, etc.

5. The 2119 capitalization in section 3.4.2 is inconsistent. Maybe the
MUST in the first phrase is enough and the rest needs not be
capitalized. 

6. There are alignment problems with the paragraphs in 3.4.3

7. 3.4.3 (ii) - is conformance testing really a SHOULD in our metrics
documents? Or maybe just a MAY? I am hesitating on this, we define very
little conformance testing in the IETF

8. 3.4.4 - if Conformance Testing is to stay, it should be part of the
template. 

9. It is not clear to me what is the scope of 3.5 and in any case I do
not believe it should be located here in the document. Maybe its place
is rather in section 4, as a checklist for reviewing PM documents, or
maybe in an Annex. 

10. The text in 3.6 and the whole subsection should be merged with the
text about reporting models in 3.4.4

11. Section 4.2 - What proposal approval are we talking about here? The
approval of initial work, or the final approval? In any case I think
that we just need to refer to the IETF processes to charter new work, or
to approve documents. We do not intent to invent a new process here, but
to either support other WGs with the expertise of a cross-area
directorate, or create the framework of a new WG. I am not sure this
section is needed at all. 

12. Section 4.3 - here we should explain in a few words the two options
1. a cross-area directorate which is called to give advice on the
development of new PMOL metrics in other WGs and reviews the documents
as part of the WGLC and IESG review process 2. a dedicated WG within the
OPS Area which creates the framework for other areas protocol experts to
develop here their PM definition documents. In both cases there is a
need to interact - in case #1 as a WG-directorate review team
relationship, in case #2 as a protocol WG- PMOL WG relation. The
decision should be left IMO to the IESG 

13. Section 4.3 - I think that the requirement for a dedicated mailing
list for each effort is exaggerated - the protocol WG mail list and/or
the PMOL (directorate or WG) list should be enough. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol