Subject: [ippm] 2nd WGLC for draft Spatial Composition of Metrics

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:51:49 +0200

IPPM group,

This is a WGLC for the draft: Spatial Composition of Metrics

A number of small issues were raised during the first WGLC.  This version
addresses them.  We'd like to give everybody a chance to confirm that the
comments have been correctly incorported.  Please raise any issues on the
draft by Monday June 14, 9:00 UTC.  An URL for the draft is:

   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition/

Matt & 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: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:17:30 +0200

IPPM group,

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition/

One issue was raised on this draft.  Emile Stephan asked if (some of) the
metrics should be registered in the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry.  There are
two issues with this.  They could be summarized as:

a) Adding these metrics to the registry will take a considerable amount
    of time and effort.  Perhaps it would be sufficient to add only a subset
    but this raises the issues which subset to select.  On the other hand, it
    is not clear if/how/by whom the registry is being used at the moment.

b) Currently, the registry only contains metric names.  There have been
    suggestions to expand it with parameters and other information.  This
    would be useful for the metrics in this document.  Expanding the
    registry will require discussion in the group first.  Adding metrics
    to an expanded registry, of course, means redoing most of the work
    done for the current registry.

Solving either one of these issues is clearly outside the scope of a WGLC.

In order to proceed, the authors and chairs think that it is best to move
this draft forward with a note saying that the registry has to be revisited
once the issues surrounding the registry have been settled.  We have
also asked Emile to raise the issues regarding the registry on the list,
so we can discuss them.

No other issues were raised regarding this draft.

Matt & Henk