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

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Tue, 27 August 2019 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300BE120073; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 06:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xbATXZRHgUnG; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 06:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 509B5120047; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 06:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=[]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1i2bkx-0007zL-H4; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:43:31 +0200
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Message-Id: <ACCC5C70-ECA1-47E3-9DBB-22E6F40DE3A7@kuehlewind.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:43:30 +0200
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@iana.org>
To: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1566913418;cdbbcfe8;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1i2bkx-0007zL-H4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/SUXjiH8Mdbh93mQcoDuFcdk8IM8>
Subject: [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: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:43:41 -0000

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.

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?


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/