Re: [ippm] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry & draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

Al

To be more concrete:

The IANA website is two levels, and the terminology for some years now
has been Group and Registry.  A well chosed Group name makes the data
easy to find (many of the current Group names are not well chosen:-).

So, I imagine you want to create a new Group but the word Group is not
used in the I-D.  I see several candidates for a Group name
Registry for Performance Metrics
Performance Metric Registry
Performance Metrics Registry
New Performance Metrics Registry
which seem to used interchangeably - perhaps not such a good idea for an
I-D.  And they all use Registry which seems inappropriate for a Group so
perhaps the Group name is something else.

Dale references RFC6924 but I would disagree with him on that.   Calling
urn: the first level, ietf: the second level, then you are creating a
new third level.  RFC6924 created a registry of existing third levels
but I see no template to use there.  RFC2648 created the second level
but, reading it, it is as if the authors imagined that they were
creating all the third level that there would ever be.  Happily, the
authors of RFC3553 used their common sense and created a suitable
template in order to create a new third level; I would expect these I-Ds
to be using something very similar for a new third level.

And as you create a fourth level, perf, I expect to see guidance on what
needs to be provided for further fourth levels - or perhaps none are
anticipated.

I struggle with
The registration procedures for the
   new "perf" URN sub-namespace are Expert Review or IETF Standards
   Action

The latter to me means
      RFC publication, IETF Stream, Standards Track or BCP only.
while the former I interpret as requiring much less.

I also struggle with

Abstract

   This memo defines the Initial Entries for the Performance Metrics
   Registry.  This version includes:

   * removed sections which only contained examples, or a blank outine
   for new metric entries.

   * removed remaining comments (did not require action).


So, the I-Ds contain a lot of technical detail but it is IMHO not yet
tidy enough to go forward.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:05 PM


Hi Tom,

During the five or more early reviews with IANA,
no one has said "On your bike". The very kind IANA
folks understand exactly what their responsibilities
are in this matter. Several of the early reviews
took place after RFC8126 was published. IANA guided
the proposal for a new urn.

Al


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:11 AM
> To: [e-mail]; Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail];
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ippm] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry &
> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tommy Pauly" <tpauly=[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 4:22 PM
>
> > Hello IPPM,
> >
> > We haven't received much feedback to the list on the metrics
registry
> document. Please do take a look at the current revisions of the
> documents, and provide your opinion on whether or not the documents
are
> ready to progress!
>
> I shall probably regret this but my opinion is a firm Not Ready.
>
> You are asking IANA to do what seems like an awful lot of work and
> making it more work than I think you have reason to do so IMHO e.g.
>
> You are asking for urn: registrations but do not follow the procedure
> for registering a new urn:
>
> You are asking for new somethings but do not use the terminology of
> RFC8126
>
> In Initial Registry, your IANA Considerations say
>    IANA is requested to populate The Performance Metric Registry
defined
>    in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry] with the values defined above.
> which seems to be asking IANA to trawl through some 78 pages to find
> some 24 references to IANA and try to understand what is being asked
of
> them,
> while not using a template as is the custom.
>
> If I was IANA, I would say, 'On your bike'; but knowing how IANA love
> rising to a challenge, they may well take it on - but if they do, I
> expect
> that the quality will suffer just because they are being asked
> to do so much
>
> Tom Petch
>
> > Best,
> > Tommy
> >
> > > On Jan 10, 2019, at 8:59 AM, Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello IPPM,
> > >
> > > This email starts our working group last call for the IPPM
> performance metrics registry, and the corresponding initial set of
> registry entries. The authors have indicated that they believe the
> documents are sufficiently mature and complete to go ahead. You can
find
> the details on the documents here:
> > >
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dmetric-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
>
hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=AbiRn6baGSjRECN51G7QSKCcxG5VZBV
yg
> GkWBHJ2GD0&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dmetric-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
>
hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=AbiRn6baGSjRECN51G7QSKCcxG5VZBV
yg
> GkWBHJ2GD0&e=>
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dinitial-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
>
hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=WTBWdz2_4Xd96ikAVC1fjDIfQKrK5gW
Qc
> 0wPVJ28Qvo&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dinitial-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
> hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=WTBWdz2_4Xd96ikAVC1fjDIfQKrK5
gWQc
> 0wPVJ28Qvo&e=>
> > >
> > > Since these are quite large documents, we'll be doing an extended
> adoption call, for several weeks, to give everyone a chance to
> thoroughly read the documents. Please provide your feedback by Friday,
> February 8, 2019.
> > >
> > > Please send your review comments to [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>, indicating whether you believe the draft is
> ready to send up to the IESG and if not, why not.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Tommy (as IPPM co-chair)
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=Wm0u-
>
hwAAYtSx5qwchwEEnyOjHdNSzRNiXgkOA2W2y4&s=br9su24KnXra7yiyf2HRRIhyUXmDlef
Gs
> nuyprDmvqw&e=
> >