[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
- [ippm] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-re… marcelo bagnulo braun