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

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Wed, 11 September 2019 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <acm@research.att.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 75F09120271; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ySkzJdeSOsUw; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CA19120227; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8BKcqSH007495; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:41:42 -0400
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uy7x18kwa-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:41:42 -0400
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x8BKfegZ056444; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:41:41 -0500
Received: from zlp30499.vci.att.com (zlp30499.vci.att.com [135.46.181.149]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x8BKfYNW056273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:41:34 -0500
Received: from zlp30499.vci.att.com (zlp30499.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30499.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 6D7D24013B27; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:41:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30499.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 475ED4013B24; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:41:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x8BKfYgZ026847; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:41:34 -0500
Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (mail-azure.research.att.com [135.207.255.18]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x8BKfSsk026502; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:41:29 -0500
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599F6E4AE8; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:40:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:41:24 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
CC: "draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@iana.org>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19
Thread-Index: AQHVXN15AQy7FexigUuWlNjVu81huacgxm0AgAKS6wCAA623UA==
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:41:23 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0AF6930@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <ACCC5C70-ECA1-47E3-9DBB-22E6F40DE3A7@kuehlewind.net> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0AF4E6B@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <045CC4BE-33B3-4485-892C-16CD4141C110@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <045CC4BE-33B3-4485-892C-16CD4141C110@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [69.141.203.172]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-09-11_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909110185
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/EHoTahmLwW85DTn0HNpFq7_L8vE>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:42:16 -0000

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:ietf@kuehlewind.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 4:25 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>
> Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG
> <ippm@ietf.org>rg>; Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@iana.org>
> 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) <acm@research.att.com>
> 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:ietf@kuehlewind.net]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:44 AM
> >> To: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org
> >> Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>; Michelle Cotton
> >> <michelle.cotton@iana.org>
> >> 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