Re: [ippm] Last Call: 'Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM' to Proposed Standard

At 08:52 PM 3/27/2006, The IESG wrote:
>- 'Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM '
>    <draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-11.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
>iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-04-10.

Lars, Henk, Matt,

Emile Stephan passed a comment to me in-person,
regarding the IPPM Metrics Registry.  He reminds that the IANA section
of the draft should request registration of the metrics,
as is done in the current version of the ippm-multimetrics draft:

9.  IANA Considerations

    Metrics defined in this memo should be registered in the IANA IPPM
    METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry
    [RFC4148].

Emile -- As author of the registry RFC, is the text sufficient?
Or do we need to prepare a template for each new metric,
as RFC 4148 says:

>5.2.  Registration Template
>
>    The following is a proposed template to insert in the IANA
>    considerations section.  For each metric, that section would
>    instantiate the following statement:
>
>       IANA has registed the following metric in the IANA-IPPM-METRICS-
>       REGISTRY-MIB:
>
>        aNewMetricName OBJECT-IDENTITY
>        STATUS       current
>        DESCRIPTION
>           "The identifier for a new metric."
>        REFERENCE
>           "Reference R, section n."
>           ::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn }     -- IANA assigns nn

I don't mind preparing a template for each reordering metric with a
"Metric Name" section. But this seems like a lot of text
to insert at Last Call, although none of it would be controversial.

We might do this in a separate draft, too.
I'm open to opinions and suggestions.

Al

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm