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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Al,

I have a couple of comments in-line on this text:

> If an RFC-to-be includes a Performance Metric and a proposed Performance
> Metrics Registry entry, but the IANA and Performance Metric Expert review
> determines that one or more of the Section 5 criteria have not been met,

IANA has no role in evaluating the metrics against the Section 5 criteria, so I think they should be dropped from this sentence.

> then the IESG approval process MUST proceed with the proposed Performance
> Metrics Registry entry removed from the text. When the RFC-to-be authors
> are ready to show evidence of meeting the criteria in section 5, they
> SHOULD re-submit the proposed Performance Metrics Registry entry to IANA
> to be evaluated in consultation with the Performance Metric Experts for
> registration at that time.

For the last sentence I would suggest “Once evidence exists that the Performance Metric meets the criteria in section 5, the proposed Performance Metrics Registry entry SHOULD be submitted … .” The people who write the RFC need not be the same people who later submit the metric to the registry.

Thanks,
Alissa
 

> On Dec 6, 2019, at 1:53 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alvaro and Alissa, and other ADs who supported Alvaro's DISCUSS #2,
> 
> Alvaro and I have come to agreement on revised text,
> please see below.
> 
> Al
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 1:00 PM
>> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-
>> 22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>> 
>> On December 5, 2019 at 7:30:22 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
>> 
>> Al:
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> ...
>>>> On December 4, 2019 at 1:38:07 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> If an RFC-to-be includes a Performance Metric and a proposed
>> Performance
>>>>> Metrics Registry entry, but the IANA and Performance Metric Expert
>> review
>>>>> determines that one or more of the Section 5 criteria have not been
>> met,
>>>>> then the IESG approval process MUST proceed with the proposed
>> Performance
>>>>> Metrics Registry entry removed from the text. When the RFC-to-be
>> authors
>>>>> are ready to show evidence of meeting the criteria in section 5,
>> they
>>>>> SHOULD re-submit the proposed Performance Metrics Registry entry to
>> IANA
>>>>> to be evaluated in consultation with the Performance Metric Experts
>> for
>>>>> registration at that time.
>>>> 
>>>> This text basically says that if the criteria in §5 is not met, then
>>>> the specific entry must not be in the RFC. At some point in the
>>>> future (when the §5 criteria is met), publication of the entry can
>>>> proceed -- presumably in a different RFC.
>>> [acm]
>>> Yes.
>>>> 
>>>> As Alissa mentioned in her DISCUSS, the text needs to be generalized
>>>> to cover specifications from other SDOs. I'm not sure how preventing
>>>> publication would work there.
>>> [acm]
>>> It doesn't apply to other SDOs.
>>> There are process points that only apply to IETF and RFCs-to-be,
>>> such as the one we are discussing.
>>> IANA can receive a request from other SDOs directly, and
>>> we cover those cases separately. IWO, we do not generalize
>>> every instance of RFC to "spec", because IANA review
>>> coincides with IIESG review.
>> 
>> Your answer made go look at §8.1 again and the paragraph we're
>> discussing in context.  Just one suggestion: s/then the IESG approval
>> process MUST proceed with the proposed Performance Metrics Registry
>> entry removed from the text./then the proposed Performance Metrics
>> Registry entry MUST be removed from the text.
>> 
>> I trust that this text will make it into your next update, so I'm
>> clearing my DISCUSS.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Alvaro.
> [acm] 
> Thanks, I've made that change in the working text, and it will appear
> in the next version.  Thanks for clearing your DISCUSS.
> 
> Al
>