Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19

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

Hi Mirja - I Think I know what's happening. If a get an email from 
my boss, Maria, while I'm typing, it's namespace re-ordering.

-20 of the Registry memo is posted.
See below,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 4:25 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; IETF IPPM WG
> <[e-mail]>; Michelle Cotton <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19
> 
> Hi Al,
> 
> Okay to all! About the experts. How should we figure out other experts? Do
> have people in mind? Should I approach them, do you want too speak to them
> directly?
[acm] 
I think that the starting place is an open call on the
IPPM list, in combination with a little cajoling. 
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> 
> > On 8. Sep 2019, at 00:09, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> > Catching-up with your comments on the registry draft.
> > Please see replies below, and thanks again for your review.
> > Al
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:44 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Cc: IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>; Michelle Cotton
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I just reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19. Thanks for the
> well-
> >> written document! I have one process question on the following part
> before
> >> we can move ahead:
> >>
> >> Sec 8.1:
> >>  "Submission to IANA MAY be the result of IETF Standards Action, where
> >>   an approved Internet Draft proposes one or more Registered
> >>   Performance Metrics to be added to the Performance Metrics Registry,
> >>   including the text of the proposed Registered Performance Metric(s).”
> >>
> >> Maybe I’m confused but I would think that as soon as a document is
> >> approved by the IESG, it’s too late for an Expert review because an
> >> approved RFC that contains instruction for IANA will usually be
> >> implemented by IANA as approved. I believe what we usually do is to
> >> request the new entry before IESG evaluation and simply document in the
> >> RFC that an registration was performed, or in case of e.g. the port
> >> registry (where however the policy is IETF Review for system ports) we
> ask
> >> the experts for review during the IESG evaluation process and take this
> as
> >> input for the IESG to make a decision on approval (rather than as input
> >> for IANA). I’m cc’ing Michelle, as I understood that she was already
> >> involved in reviewing this document, and she might have further
> >> insights/considerations.
> > [acm]
> > I agree, here's what I changed the working text to read:
> >
> > Submission to IANA MAY be during IESG review (leading to IETF
> > Standards Action), where an Internet Draft proposes one or ...
> >
> >>
> >> Also on experts: Did the group/chairs/authors already consider possible
> >> candidates? If not, is anybody of the author team willing to serve? I
> >> assume having 2 experts should be sufficient, right?
> > [acm]
> > Yes, I assume I'll act as one of the experts, and we'll need a few more
> > who can share the load, especially if a quick response is required.
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Mirja
> >>
> >> P.S.: Two nits:
> >> - sec 7.3.2: "The packet generation stream may require parameters such
> as
> >> the the average packet rate …” -> two “the”
> >> - sec 8.2: "why the existing entry shuold be revised” ->
> s/shuold/should/
> > [acm]
> > thanks, fixed.
> >
> > Other Questions arose:
> >
> > Sorry one more thing on references: There are two normative reference to
> obsoleted RFC (RFC2141 and RFC4148). I think it would be more appropriate
> to make these references informational instead. Also there is a new
> Downref to RFC6248, however, I think that could also be an informational
> reference instead.
> >
> > [acm]
> > I agree, I moved 4148 and 6248 to Info, can't find 2141 in the working
> text,
> > assume I deleted it with unused references.
> >
> > @Bill: as the document shepherd it would be could to point out these
> things in the shepherd write-up. If the authors/group decides to move
> these references to informational, there is no additional action require
> from you. However, if not, the write-up should be updated accordingly.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> > Here are your questions for the registry
> > that came-up during review of initial contents draft:
> >
> >>
> >> And finally one/two/three more general question(s) at the end, that I
> >> probably should also have asked already on my review for draft-ietf-
> ippm-
> >> metric-registry:
> >>
> >> Is it actually intended that basically all the text in this RFC gets
> >> copied into the registry?
> > [acm]
> > Sort of. All the text for each metric (section) is a file that the
> registry
> > entry points to. Registry draft section 10.3 says:
> >
> > The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each registry
> entry. The Registry Entry text SHALL be HTML-ized to aid the reader, with
> links to reference RFCs (similar to the way that Internet Drafts are HTML-
> ized, the same tool can perform the function).
> >
> >> And what is expected to be on the URL page then?
> > [acm]
> > The URL points to a page = one section of the -ippm-initial-registry
> draft.
> > Future URLs might point to text from a section of an RFC for a new
> metric.
> >
> >> Wouldn’t it be necessary to also define a format for that page in order
> to
> >> be of any use?
> > [acm]
> > It's the "full template", filled-out for each registered metric.
> >
> > It really helps to have the mock-up we worked-out with IANA
> > available to see the "running code". I'll send you the mock-up
> > in separate mail. We looked at this in several IPPM sessions
> > over the years, and on this one the header is fairly up to date,
> > but the URLs point to "old" sections of the initial contents draft.
> > Also, the column widths are not ideal in the mock-up.
> >
> > It might help to have a live URL to the mocked-up registry
> > that we can share with others (when this question comes up again,
> > and it will during IESG review, I assure you!).
> >
> > Al