Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22: (with COMMENT)
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Thu, 12 December 2019 23:36 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 BA38112012A; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:36:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 s5xTToFKLd_P; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 7033F120019; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049459.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xBCNZTI0012831; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:36:52 -0500
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2wuy108ccs-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:36:52 -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 xBCNapjc111467; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:36:51 -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 xBCNamau111376 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:36:49 -0600
Received: from zlp30495.vci.att.com (zlp30495.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30495.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 63E134119BA9; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 23:36:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30495.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 3F876400579E; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 23:36:48 +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 xBCNamYX016463; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:36:48 -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 xBCNaf1W016123; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:36:41 -0600
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas1.research.att.com [135.207.255.86]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4997AE2989; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:32:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njmtcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::e881:676b:51b6:905d%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:36:40 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry@ietf.org>, "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "ietf@wjcerveny.com" <ietf@wjcerveny.com>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVq0HE1V7HwhNjpUW0yVWGBH5X46ewg1fggAXLFQCAAIP54A==
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 23:36:40 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F0B3CE@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <157553269383.11096.11664366118558898995.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F0974B@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <20191212045648.GT13890@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20191212045648.GT13890@kduck.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [24.43.232.178]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-12-12_08:2019-12-12,2019-12-12 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1912120182
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/pQflltZ8lFYMyud1xPyYMWDoIUc>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22: (with 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, 12 Dec 2019 23:36:56 -0000
Hi Benjamin, I'll trim this message down to focus on the last few points, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:kaduk@mit.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 11:57 PM > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com> > Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry@ietf.org; > ippm-chairs@ietf.org; ietf@wjcerveny.com; ippm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-metric- > registry-22: (with COMMENT) > > Hi Al, > > Thanks for all the updates. Just a few more notes inline... > ... > > > particular example is the LMAP framework [RFC7594]. Using the > > > LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is used in > the > > > LMAP Control protocol to allow a Controller to request a > > > measurement task to one or more Measurement Agents. In order to > > > > > > nit: please check the grammar of "request a measurement task to". > > [acm] > > Yes, it matches the LMAP control framework. > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7594&d=DwIBAg&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8- > 6zYMI&m=MzVZrMUvKmgZUrc2Qyn-SPWdwhnUOKygq- > TCWAfOpjI&s=o0bDjUeJH_LTfE10Zmgr5u1Gil0KGRd3Yloz5WMbG0A&e= > > I'm not sure that it does ... in common English usage (ignoring any 7594 > jargon), one would "send a request to an agent to perform a measurement > task" or "request an action of an agent" or "request that an agent perform > a task" or "task an agent to perform an operation". While I didn't read > all 50 pages of RFC 7594, some targeted searching fails to find a jargon > usage where "request a task to an agent" has a specific meaning. [acm] ok, probably "schedule a task" would have. I was focusing on the "request" part. Controllers send tasks to measurement agents and they can be refused. Let's try: LMAP Control protocol to allow a Controller to schedule a measurement task for one or more Measurement Agents. > > > > > > > Section 4.2 > > > > > > different (and incompatible) ways. Having a registry would allow > > > both the IETF community and external people to have a single list > of > > > > > > nit: I suggest rephrasing "external people" as needlessly divisive; > > > perhaps "other communities"? > > [acm] > > Sounds better to me. > > > > > > > > Section 7 > > > > > > form of registry extension. The specification defining the new > > > column(s) MUST give guidelines to populate the new column(s) for > > > existing entries (in general). > > > > > > Is "MUST (in general)" really still a "MUST"? > > [acm] > > I think so, we're talking about new columns having a similar > > level of detail in their description as the columns in the > > current registry (future version 2.0). > > I guess that there's a couple ways one could parse this sentence: "in > general" could apply to the way the columns are populated, or to what the > specification defining the new columns has to do. I was reading it in the > second variant, and qualifying a MUST like that is fairly dicey with the > current IESG. But the former parsing is not problematic, and it sounds > like that's what you intended. Perhaps "MUST give general guidelines for > populating" would avoid the misparse, though it may have problems of its > own. [acm] Let's try your suggestion. The specification defining the new column(s) MUST give general guidelines for populating the new column(s) for existing entries. > > > > ... > > > Section 7.3.5 > > > > > > devices. For example, parameters that include an IPv4 address can > be > > > encoded as a 32 bit integer (i.e. binary base64 encoded value) or > ip- > > > address as defined in [RFC6991]. The actual encoding(s) used must > be > > > > > > nit: YANG types are specified distinctly from their possible > encodings; > > > indicating an XML or JSON encoded version of the YANG ip-address would > > > be appropriate here. > > [acm] > > Yes, and we go on in the next sentence to say: > > The actual encoding(s) used must be explicitly defined for each Run- > time parameter. > > Whoops, sorry for missing that. [acm] NP > > > > > > > explicitly defined for each Run-time parameter. IPv6 addresses and > > > options MUST be accomodated, allowing Registered Metrics to be used > > > in either address family. > > > > > > nit: is "either" too limiting, here? > > [acm] > > No, especially for active testing, where we generate the test traffic > > in one address family at a time. > > I meant, we're implicitly saying that IPv4 and IPv6 are the only address > families that anyone will ever care about. IANA has quite a few more than > two that are defined... [acm] I didn't see that coming. I don't read any of the examples of Run-time Parameters as the limiting set in this section. Let's try: IPv6 addresses and options MUST be accommodated, allowing Registered Metrics to be used in *that* address family. *Other address families are permissable.* > > > > ... > > Thanks :) > > -Ben > [acm] Thank you, Ben. I'll be holding these changes in another working version, pending a few more questions from Michelle/IANA. Al
- [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-iet… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… Benjamin Kaduk