[ippm] New version of the Performance Metrics Registry draft

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 04 October 2013 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25F721F9A70 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRIr33IEOLSa for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1604521F9DC7 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1110; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1380897902; x=1382107502; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=xqgzAR9li4zswmzb0yK3kRDq3QEZws5dBEl/JNODDD4=; b=lrAvrDz/kPW0U+KJ0LAAhnDOqeOI5j6Bc4vY+Fil36qlKtIIdg5xEP4V Ufg8jCMK3jlm5VLKHgMluRYszToonKRkR46dt7KG3Idrph2gEXOgvK2CS rUMSu6avZSdOe8UNAu+iorcyfLLKSPySd0o24SKjCcG5gEaW+FB8hpx/y 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FAETTTlKQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABZgwfDbBZ0gmRAPRYYAwIBAgFLDQgBAYgCmjOhR5N7A5gBhjWLSoMmOg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1033,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="160344950"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2013 14:44:59 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r94EitlE010020 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 14:44:57 GMT
Message-ID: <524ED467.4090704@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:44:55 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [ippm] New version of the Performance Metrics Registry draft
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:49:10 -0000

Dear all,

I posted a new version of the Performance Metrics Registry draft.

                       Performance Metrics Registry
              draft-claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry-01.txt

Abstract

    This document specifies an IANA registry for Performance Metrics, for
    both active monitoring and passive monitoring, along with the initial
    content.  This document also gives a set of guidelines for
    Performance Metrics requesters and reviewers.


What we need is a new performance metrics registry. There are actually 3 
different tasks:
     Task 1:  IANA registry setup
     Task 2: Performance metric guidelines for requester and reviewers
     Task 3: Initial content for the registry
         Task 3.1 perf metrics that are already compliant with the RFC 
6390 template
         Task 3.2 selection of operationally relevant IPPM performance 
metrics

3.2 is out of scope of this document, for now.

This draft provides an experiment on how to map IPDV into the RFC 6390 
template (this is a first attempt).

Please provide your feedback.

Regards, Benoit