Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11

Mirja Kuehlewind <> Mon, 02 September 2019 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1F312011C; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NahN4NElGSV8; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD18A120052; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2001:16b8:2c5b:2300:dc80:f3be:8794:e65e]); authenticated by running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1i4kWe-0005rE-AG; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 13:29:36 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 13:29:35 +0200
Cc: "" <>, IETF IPPM WG <>, Michelle Cotton <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-HE-SMSGID: 1i4kWe-0005rE-AG
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 11:29:47 -0000

Hi Al,

Thanks for the background info. Sorry, I should have explained myself better. However, I don’t have a strong opinion on which status we end up with but I would really like to make sure that the intended status is well explained in the shepherd write-up in order to provided the other ADs the needed background information during IESG review.

My think was that this document does actually not specify any new metric and as the registry only requires “Expert Review”, informational felt more natural for me. However, this is for the working group to decide!


> On 30. Aug 2019, at 22:20, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <> wrote:
> Hi Mirja,
> Thanks for reviewing these two memos, 
> registry and initial contents. They added a lot
> of pages to your review load.
> I don't recollect a list discussion on 
> whether PS or Info, but years ago we decided
> that all metric RFCs would go on the Standards Track,
> and devised ways to evaluate whether they should 
> advance based on testing and ultimately 
> revised text. So, it seemed natural to make these
> "tighter specifications of the original metrics"
> PS, and that's been the status since 00.
> With this background, I'm interested to learn why
> Informational seems the right choice to you,
> and we should all think about the implications 
> of Info or PS for the metrics in this 
> draft-*-initial-registry.
> regards,
> Al
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mirja Kuehlewind []
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 11:47 AM
>> To:
>> Cc: IETF IPPM WG <>rg>; Michelle Cotton
>> <>
>> Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-11
>> Hi authors, hi all,
>> We need to discuss at least one bigger question on the intended status
>> before we  can move ahead. However, as you can seen I have more
>> questions/comments below.
>> The bigger status question first:
>> The intended status is PS. The shepherd write-up does not provide any
>> additional information about why this status is appropriate. I would
>> assume that informational is actually more appropriate. I don’t recall out
>> of my head if/when this was discussed and I thought I rather ask than
>> searching the list archive and minutes… Is this the right status and why?
>> And if so, please reflect in the write-up!
>> And then a couple more (hopefully) quicker comments/questions:
>> - I know this was already reviewed by IANA (Michelle is also cc’ed),
>> however, as far as I can see all Administrative Information (Status,
>> Requestor, Revision, and Revision Date) and maybe even the ID don’t need
>> to be part of the template because IANA will anyway assign them based on
>> the instructions given in draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry. Or did IANA
>> explicitly request to also include these parts?
>> - Then for the Change Controller that should usually be the IESG rather
>> than the IETF. Did IANA comment on that?
>> - And one minor point: I guess the secY part of the name could already be
>> filled out, no? However, I should probably have asked that on review of
>> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry already but I was actually wondering if
>> the decision to include the RFC number and section in the metric name is
>> appropriate. Can you maybe lay out what the reasons for this are (and
>> maybe also explain in the draft as his might come up again during IESG
>> review otherwise)…?
>> Then then on references again:
>> - This draft references two obsoleted RFCs (RFC2679 and RFC2680). I assume
>> this is an oversight and the references need to be updated?
>> - Also given you rely heavily on [Trammell-14], I think this needs to be a
>> normative reference (and maybe [Strowes] as well?). The more stable
>> pointer for [Trammell-14] is actually here:
>> 3A__link.springer.com_chapter_10.1007_978-2D3-2D642-2D54999-2D1-
>> 5F2&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=hwJZg-
>> IdxQ9507aw2mjEKKOSWIEVnc8nwr7B_QiOyCU&s=HSEAeC_uI-vofX5ZWPSCH-R4Ph8Gu618-
>> YtZJ4pTAgE&e=
>> But to be honest the split between normative and informational isn’t
>> actually very clear to me here…?
>> And on the shepherd write-up:
>> It’s indicated that not all authors have replied to the IPR question. This
>> need to be checked and respectively reflected in the shepherd write-up
>> before we can move ahead!
>> And some smaller technical questions/nits:
>> - Is it correct that T0 in section 4 is defined in both subsections 4.3.5
>> and 4.4.2?
>> - Why is an URI given (only) in section 6.1.3?
>>  Also section 7.1.3 and 8.1.3.: http:\\\ ... <name> -> I
>> think this should be:
>> 3A__www.iana.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-
>> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=hwJZg-
>> IdxQ9507aw2mjEKKOSWIEVnc8nwr7B_QiOyCU&s=9PuQd07oTFlEt8tWIDYz4c-
>> qFUd4zpyT_7QeckyeAsc&e=<name>/
>> Some more editorial comments/nits:
>> - I find it actually unnecessary or rather confusing that most (not all)
>> sections start with a sentence/paragraph explaining what the section is
>> about (e.g. "Additional (Informational) details for this entry”). I would
>> think this is sufficiently explained in draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry
>> and does not need to be repeated here (in this already long document).
>> Also note that section 8.6 inconsistently doesn’t have any content while
>> 10.6. says “None.”.
>> - Also these comments in section 7 and 8 are probably supposed to be
>> removed:
>> " <insert name of the output type, raw or a selected summary statistic>”
>> …?
>> - I found this in section 10.2.2: "@@@@@ others??”. I guess there is
>> something missing? Also in this part, I don’t think SYN and FIN should be
>> set at the same time, no? And rather than providing the Kind and Length of
>> the TSopt, I would recommend to provide a pointer to the respective RFC.
>> And finally one/two/three more general question(s) at the end, that I
>> probably should also have asked already on my review for draft-ietf-ippm-
>> metric-registry:
>> Is it actually intended that basically all the text in this RFC gets
>> copied into the registry? And what is expected to be on the URL page then?
>> Wouldn’t it be necessary to also define a format for that page in order to
>> be of any use?
>> Mirja