Re: [ippm] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On December 4, 2019 at 10:31:42 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:

Al:

Hi!

For the approval of the initial registry point, I think we'll need
Mirja to comment.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
...
> > (2)
> >
> > §8.1 (Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry)
> > defines the following process for entries that are "not yet widely
> > deployed":
> >
> > If the proposed registry entry is defined in an RFC but is not yet
> > widely deployed, there SHOULD be a statement in the RFC that says the
> > proposed registry entry is not ready for registration, and use SHOULD
> > employ a private/experimental ID. It is the responsibility of the
> > document authors to submit the request to IANA when the proposed
> > registry entry is ready for official registration.
> >
> > Considering the Specification Required policy and the fact that the RFC has
> > already gone through all the reviews required for publication (including
> > expert review, as mentioned in the same section), how will it work for the
> > "authors to submit the request to IANA when the proposed registry entry is
> > ready for official registration"? What specification will be presented to
> > IANA to satisfy the registration requirement? It seems to me that the
> > statement mentioned above would prevent the official registration in the
> > first place, and that same statement (still present in the RFC) should
> > prevent a second review of the same document from resulting in an official
> > registration.
> >
> > This process needs more discussion and clarity for it to work.
> [acm]
> Yes, I see your point. This a paragraph we added at the IANA desk
> during IETF-106, to resolve a question raised, and it seems we didn't
> read it critically. Let me suggest several revisions as a paragraph
> below:
>
> If the proposed registry entry is defined in an RFC but is not yet
> widely deployed, there SHOULD be a statement in the RFC that says the
> proposed registry entry is not ready for registration because it lacks
> deployment (in the IANA Considerations Section), and SHOULD employ a
> private/experimental ID when used in practice. The IANA and Expert
> reviews of the proposed registry entry take place as normally required,
> and registration SHALL be held. When the authors are ready to show
> evidence of widespread deployment, they SHOULD submit the evidence
> to IANA to be evaluated in consultation with the Performance Metric
> Experts for registration at that time.

This new text is not explicit on what "evidence of widespread
deployment", nor whether that would be considered a specification in
line with the registration policy.  It also suffers from the point
that Alissa mentioned in her DISCUSS of leaving the published RFC with
the "old" text saying that the metric is not ready.



Thanks for addressing my other comments.

Alvaro.