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

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]> writes:
> 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 haven't been following this work, but I've done quite a bit of
reviewing for Gen-Art.  And while I suspect the design and technical
work is probably quite solid by this point, I have to agree with Tom
Petch that the *document* isn't.  As he notes, the instructions to IANA
for setting up the registry are really difficult to read if you start
reading at the "IANA Considerations" section with the question, "What is
the structure of the registries?" and "What entries are to be added to
the registries?"

As a first example issue, what are the names of the registries?  I see
the text

   This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics Name
   Element Registry setup.  IANA is requested to create a new set of
   registries for Performance Metric Name Elements called "IETF URN Sub-
   namespace for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements"
   (urn:ietf:metrics:perf).  Each Registry, whose names are listed
   below:

      MetricType:
      [...]

Is the registry name "IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Performance
Metric Name Elements", or is it "MetricType"?  The section really ought
to recite each registry's name, its column names, and the meanings of
the column's values.

In addition, as Tom Petch points out, the documents specify a new
second-level URN namespaces under "ietf".  (See
file:///home/worley/www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xhtml#urn-subnamespaces.)
But the drafts do not reference RFC 6924, which contains the
registration procedures for such second-level namespaces.  However, it
appears there are no particular requirements for this assignment other
than IETF review.

Dale