Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10.txt

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

Hi Dale,  
please see straight-forward replies below, [acm],
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dale R. Worley
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 9:42 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10.txt
> 
> [e-mail] writes:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Measurement WG of the
> IETF.
> >
> >         Title           : Initial Performance Metrics Registry Entries
> 
> >         Filename        : draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10.txt
> >         Date            : 2019-03-11
> 
> I've started looking at this draft.  It looks admirable for the
> thoroughness and extent of documentation of the registry entries.  But
> it seems like the overall organization could be improved.
> 
> I started reading through section 4, "UDP Round-trip Latency and Loss
> Registry Entries".  That provides much documentation for two metrics,
> 2,000 words in fact.  But what is the reason that all of that text
> should be transcribed into the registry?  It seems to me that a better
> approach is to have the registry limited to the metric name ("UDP
> Round-trip Latency"), its unique idenfiers:
> 
>    [IANA is asked to assign different numeric identifiers to each of the
>    two Named Metrics.]
> 
>    RTDelay_Active_IP-UDP-Periodic_RFCXXXXsecY_Seconds_95Percentile
> 
>    RTLoss_Active_IP-UDP-Periodic_RFCXXXXsecY_Percent_LossRatio
> 
>    URN: Prefix urn:ietf:metrics:perf:<name>
> 
>    URL: http://<TBD by IANA>/<name>
> 
> and a pointer to section 4 of this document for the rest of the
> information.
> 
> The purpose of the URL is unclear, since it seems to be intended that
> the URL be fixed, but there doesn't seem to be any way one can use it to
> fetch a resource.
[acm] 
I'm glad you agree with the registry organization I proposed 
back in 2016 or so. See:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17#section-10.3
I also worked with IANA folks on an html mock-up of the registry,
and shared it at several IPPM sessions. In the Registry, 
the URL will point to major sections of the HTML-ized 
initial-registry draft, to help the reader locate references.

> 
> There is also:
> 
>    Note: Each Registry entry only produces a "raw" output or a
>    statistical summary.  To describe both "raw" and one or more
>    statistics efficiently, the Identifier, Name, and Output Categories
>    can be split and a single section can specify two or more closely-
>    related metrics.
> 
> Be aware that this is a significant open technical point, not a note to
> IANA.
[acm] 
I don't consider this point open. 
All the sections of the initial-registry draft
follow this Note to efficiently express multiple statistics,
or even loss and delay when the methods are closely related.

> 
> Nit-like comments:
> 
> Section 4.1.1 says:
> 
>    IANA is asked to assign different numeric identifiers to each of the
>    two Named Metrics.
> 
> Strictly, this doesn't request that the numbers be different from the
> numbers for the metrics in other sections.  These instructions need to
> be updated to what you're really asking of IANA, that it assign a
> distinct integer to each metric entry, which request would go in section
> 3.  You may also want to specify that they count up from 1, or count up
> from 0, or whatever.
[acm] 
The Instructions for all entries are in the Registry draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17#section-7.1.1
Section 4.1.1 simply indicates that two identifiers are needed.

> 
> Section 4.3.3 has "NA" at the end, which seems to be left over from
> editing.
[acm] 
Actually, sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 are intended for passive
metrics that filter and/or sample the traffic. The filter
section text:
   The measured results based on a filtered version of the packets
   observed, and this section provides the filter details (when
   present).
can be removed, but the NA stays for active metrics.

> 
> Dale
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=YtH7aRHJ27wLFagzZJqyh-
> Zi0uD5ZIDo3CKsejWnai0&s=0Ucrnj-4sX3BpyAGUN070WIUW0ci953i_WsOzbEq1Kw&e=