Re: [ippm] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-14: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Al, the changes below los good to me.

Alvaro.

On December 4, 2019 at 11:09:11 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) (
[e-mail]) wrote:

Hi Alvaro,

Thanks again for your review and comments.

Please see replies marked [acm] below.
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:34 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Brian Trammell
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on
draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-
> 14: (with COMMENT)
>
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-14: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=ILN34KWl728d4MwapM6b2uFD-
> AN_qvG3pywSVlI__xI&s=nSlIN1hkc12vDUVhxTXZ0oJvW7f6yWlIlilAarPCnE4&e=
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dinitial-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=ILN34KWl728d4MwapM6b2uFD-
> AN_qvG3pywSVlI__xI&s=J65nyx-0afWUBtjfKbF2_j7nKQmwb87O9qpiPkDnXkE&e=
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have a significant issue related to the approval of this initial
> registry,
> and then a minor point.
>
> (1) This is the significant issue:
>
> §2:
>
> This document defines the initial set of Performance Metrics Registry
> entries, for which IETF approval (following development in the IP
> Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group) will satisfy the
> requirement for Expert Review. Most are Active Performance Metrics,
> which are based on RFCs prepared in the IPPM working group of the
> IETF, according to their framework [RFC2330] and its updates.
>
> s/IETF approval/IESG Approval
> There is no "IETF approval" policy in rfc8126.
>
> Even though it is self-serving for this document to provide guidance on
the
> approval for the new registry entries, I think that it should be possible
to do
> so using IESG Approval given that these initial entries into the new
registry
> have been reviewed by the WG. However, draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry
only
> explicitly talks about using Specification Required (including Expert
Review),
> and it makes no exceptions.
>
> This document should not make statements about criteria used for this
initial
> registration, so §2 should be deleted.
[acm]
OK, but I think it is fair to keep parts of Section 2, which is the Scope.

Here's the revised version I suggest:
This document defines a set of initial Performance Metrics Registry
entries.
Most are Active Performance Metrics, which are based on RFCs prepared in
the
IPPM working group of the IETF, according to their framework [RFC2330] and
its
updates.

>
> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry should be explicit about the initial
population
> of the registry. I am them balloting DISCUSS on that other document to
address
> the approval of the initial registry entries in this document.
[acm]
Added an explicit mention of the initial-registry draft at the end of the
Scope
of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.


>
> (2) Minor point:
>
> §1: "The process in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry] also requires that
new
> entries are administered by IANA through Expert Review or IETF Standards
> action, which will ensure that the metrics are tightly defined." The
> registration policy defined in I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry is
"Specification
> Required", which requires the review of an expert.
>
[acm]
good catch, fixed.