Re: [ippm] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-14: (with COMMENT)

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin, thanks for your comments,

Please see [acm] for replies below,
Al

PS these comments seem to be on draft-*-metric registry.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux
> via Datatracker
> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 9:59 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [ippm] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-
> initial-registry-14: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-14: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=j9d1D2N70ml-
> hZ__hTPXVDpfnjLP2KXGLi94XR2wB60&s=1JczrXxQP8NRyLQuhNu5GaboDpGQvlQnFoU16nfn
> -70&e=
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dinitial-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=j9d1D2N70ml-
> hZ__hTPXVDpfnjLP2KXGLi94XR2wB60&s=wtQCcsTIqQjy37EX-e-
> tPzhvIACZkzvqAhqaQ6sWq10&e=
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for this document.
> 
> I only have a couple of comment/questions, and found few nits while
> reading.
> 
>    Performance Metrics Registry MAY use the same
> I'm not sure 2119/8174 language is needed here.
> 
> I'm not sure to understand the Version (of Registry Format) column. All entries
> will have the same number there, right? If this RFC-to-be is updated I guess
> we'll change to version 2. What shall happen to existing entries, will they
> keep Version=1 or adopt Version=2?
[acm] 
I don't expect that the initial-registry draft itself will be updated,
but there may be updates to individual metrics within the draft.

If the metric-registry draft is updated to version 2.0, say by adding a column,
we would indicate new or updated metric entries that follow the with
version 2.0, but the 1.0-compliant entries remain version 1.0.

section 7.1.7 of metric-registry now reads (new sentence appended)

This entry gives the version number for the registry format used. 
Formats complying with this memo MUST use 1.0. The version number 
SHALL NOT change unless a new RFC is published that changes the 
registry format. The version number of registry entries SHALL NOT 
change unless the registry entry is updated (following procedures 
in section 8).


> 
> s/in order to included/in order to be included/
> 
>    As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a
>    registry for its use within one or more protocols.
> This sentence seems a bit hard to parse
[acm] 
I agree, replaced with
As with any IETF registry, the primary intention is to manage 
registration of identifiers for use within one or more protocols.

> 
> s/other form of Performance Metric/other form of Performance Measurement/
> ?
[acm] 
Yes, measurement, thanks!
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=j9d1D2N70ml-
> hZ__hTPXVDpfnjLP2KXGLi94XR2wB60&s=dbj8evyLu-
> rkv53dUiJ1tJPrEgRoJmSeOF9LnbiA3a0&e=