[ippm] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-01.txt

marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Tue, 16 July 2013 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
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 E859F11E80E6 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.87
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.729, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 tnaRtqgh14SX for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48DC11E80C5 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A83894C99 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:15:47 +0200 (CEST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [163.117.203.99] (unknown [163.117.203.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcelo@smtp02.uc3m.es) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF43B894C8B for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:15:47 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <51E55592.1050304@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:15:46 +0200
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ippm@ietf.org
References: <20130714200900.20014.53545.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130714200900.20014.53545.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130714200900.20014.53545.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelistedACL 131 matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (smtp02.uc3m.es); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:15:47 +0200 (CEST)
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-20018.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.939-7.0-31-1
X-imss-scan-details: No--11.939-7.0-31-1
Subject: [ippm] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-01.txt
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: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:15:55 -0000

Hi,

We have updated the draft to include the comment we received in the 
previous meeting about RFC6390 format on defining new metrics.

This new draft explores this proposed format to see how it would look like.
It is not obvious to me at this point that the registry should have the 
fields defined in RFC6390. I mean, a new metric should have all the 
information required in RFC 6390, but it is far from clear to me that 
the metrci should also have these different explicilty spelled out.

We have updated the draft to reflect this and see how it looks like. I 
am not sure i am convinced by the result though. I would be interested 
to hear from the WG.

Regards, marcelo



-------- Mensaje original --------
Asunto: 	I-D Action: draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-01.txt
Fecha: 	Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:09:00 -0700
De: 	internet-drafts@ietf.org
Responder a: 	internet-drafts@ietf.org
Para: 	i-d-announce@ietf.org



A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.


	Title           : A registry for commonly used metrics. Independent registries
	Author(s)       : Marcelo Bagnulo
                           Trevor Burbridge
                           Sam Crawford
                           Philip Eardley
                           Al Morton
	Filename        : draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-01.txt
	Pages           : 19
	Date            : 2013-07-14

Abstract:
    This document creates a registry for commonly used metrics, defines
    the rules for assignments in the new registry and performs initial
    allocations.  This document proposes one particular registry
    structure with independent registries for each of the fields
    involved.  A companion document draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry
    explores an alternative structure with a single registry with
    multiple sub-registries.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent-01


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt