Re: [ippm] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro and Alissa,

I'll give this paragraph one more try, taking your comments
into account...  please see below, and feel free to edit!

Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 11:44 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-
> 22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> On December 4, 2019 at 10:31:42 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> 
> Al:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> For the approval of the initial registry point, I think we'll need
> Mirja to comment.
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> ...
> > > (2)
> > >
> > > §8.1 (Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics
> Registry)
> > > defines the following process for entries that are "not yet widely
> > > deployed":
> > >
> > > If the proposed registry entry is defined in an RFC but is not yet
> > > widely deployed, there SHOULD be a statement in the RFC that says the
> > > proposed registry entry is not ready for registration, and use SHOULD
> > > employ a private/experimental ID. It is the responsibility of the
> > > document authors to submit the request to IANA when the proposed
> > > registry entry is ready for official registration.
> > >
> > > Considering the Specification Required policy and the fact that the
> RFC has
> > > already gone through all the reviews required for publication
> (including
> > > expert review, as mentioned in the same section), how will it work for
> the
> > > "authors to submit the request to IANA when the proposed registry
> entry is
> > > ready for official registration"? What specification will be presented
> to
> > > IANA to satisfy the registration requirement? It seems to me that the
> > > statement mentioned above would prevent the official registration in
> the
> > > first place, and that same statement (still present in the RFC) should
> > > prevent a second review of the same document from resulting in an
> official
> > > registration.
> > >
> > > This process needs more discussion and clarity for it to work.
> > [acm]
> > Yes, I see your point. This a paragraph we added at the IANA desk
> > during IETF-106, to resolve a question raised, and it seems we didn't
> > read it critically. Let me suggest several revisions as a paragraph
> > below:
> >
> > If the proposed registry entry is defined in an RFC but is not yet
> > widely deployed, there SHOULD be a statement in the RFC that says the
> > proposed registry entry is not ready for registration because it lacks
> > deployment (in the IANA Considerations Section), and SHOULD employ a
> > private/experimental ID when used in practice. The IANA and Expert
> > reviews of the proposed registry entry take place as normally required,
> > and registration SHALL be held. When the authors are ready to show
> > evidence of widespread deployment, they SHOULD submit the evidence
> > to IANA to be evaluated in consultation with the Performance Metric
> > Experts for registration at that time.
> 
> This new text is not explicit on what "evidence of widespread
> deployment", nor whether that would be considered a specification in
> line with the registration policy.  It also suffers from the point
> that Alissa mentioned in her DISCUSS of leaving the published RFC with
> the "old" text saying that the metric is not ready.
> 
[acm] 

If an RFC-to-be includes a Performance Metric and a proposed Performance 
Metrics Registry entry, but the IANA and Performance Metric Expert review 
determines that one or more of the Section 5 criteria have not been met, 
then the IESG approval process MUST proceed with the proposed Performance 
Metrics Registry entry removed from the text. When the RFC-to-be authors 
are ready to show evidence of meeting the criteria in section 5, they 
SHOULD re-submit the proposed Performance Metrics Registry entry to IANA 
to be evaluated in consultation with the Performance Metric Experts for 
registration at that time.


> 
> 
> Thanks for addressing my other comments.
[acm] 
you're welcome!

> 
> Alvaro.