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

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Thu, 05 December 2019 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E5112004A; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 04:30:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.673
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.673 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.073, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r5R2bv6O80IZ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 04:30:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF3AA120041; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 04:30:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048589.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xB5CQepa002063; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 07:30:21 -0500
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2wq1w6r2my-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 05 Dec 2019 07:30:21 -0500
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xB5CPJrl092952; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:25:20 -0600
Received: from zlp30495.vci.att.com (zlp30495.vci.att.com [135.46.181.158]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xB5CPFqC092810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:25:15 -0600
Received: from zlp30495.vci.att.com (zlp30495.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30495.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 632A84005C3A; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 12:25:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30495.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 409EA4005C39; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 12:25:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xB5CPEhw032371; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:25:15 -0600
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (mail-green.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xB5CP4Hr031307; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:25:04 -0600
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759ADE3740; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 07:21:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 07:25:03 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "ietf@wjcerveny.com" <ietf@wjcerveny.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVqipHrxgugKZKPkmFW2IOU/MO86ep5yjAgACcRAD//8jcEIAAmVIAgACM1nA=
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:25:02 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F0657C@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <157541264931.4734.14501743204777647352.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F05456@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <CAMMESsxeQJGwPW4TjXzQ_bzQKfAmv2taVorpJh2DE4QfRj9ZGQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F05F66@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <CAMMESsxMUe6zG2svzoLmo3=z54j8nQpWypCx8xaRspb39aWWoQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxMUe6zG2svzoLmo3=z54j8nQpWypCx8xaRspb39aWWoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [156.106.224.128]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-12-05_03:2019-12-04,2019-12-05 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1912050104
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/mZ38muL66lwe8c3L-2sjpZhd_pU>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:30:24 -0000

HI Alvaro,
I'll try now to answer your questions.
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 5:35 PM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: ippm@ietf.org; ippm-chairs@ietf.org; ietf@wjcerveny.com; draft-ietf-
> ippm-metric-registry@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-
> 22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> On December 4, 2019 at 1:38:07 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> 
> Al:
> 
> > 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.

> 
> The criteria in §5 talks about "industry interest, or has seen
> deployment", which makes me think about how early allocation would
> work.  If interest/deployment is part of the criteria to be in the
> registry, then early allocation "to facilitate desired or required
> implementation and deployment experience" [rfc7120] would seem to not
> meet the requirement.  Wouldn't it?
[acm] 
We only have mentioned use of private or experimental IDs,
which would facilitate the desired metric and 
measurement deployment and experience,
and in this case the Registry entries are not reviewed
until afterward.

> 
> Do you (authors/WG) see value in documenting private/experimental
> metrics?  I imagine that one way to prove interest/deployment is to
> experiment (vs early allocation).  These would not pass the §5 hurdle,
> but may need to be documented somehow.  In the IETF the WG could limit
> publication to a draft (for example), but in other SDOs an actual
> specification could end up being published...
[acm] 
The WG has been informed of 2 Private Performance Metric Registries 
being constructed and used. One is in Brazil, another is in the BBF. 

> 
> Sorry to add more questions; I just want to make sure all the bases are
> covered.
[acm] 
Thank you.
In this case we are designing a people-process, and we can trust that 
when we designate smart and fair people to administrate it, we will 
only then cover all bases.

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.