[lmap] Fwd: New version of the Performance Metrics Registry draft

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 04 October 2013 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4688C21F9C89 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4HCGh8G2LwS4 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9198621F9B21 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4362; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1380898146; x=1382107746; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=PhwOaM9G7jiHYqw00MyofQgrfJacJFL7YI9bmdjnk4o=; b=PC3yeiG210JVOzmc30r+lQ+id0SP8S2GzfjBAJksQyYZLjjwp5acILAb Ie1UZgqkXl+0Vi+/QsTk7gzevy68FVWVxvxv4qp8Sw38RqTuQ3FKSkSWa 2SRsa0LneNugPYycwy8msygiMOxZaoFILY1n9ji3DFfVFy+nIPB0RnB88 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmoFAHfUTlKQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABZgweKD7hDgRoWbQeCJQEBAQRuCg0EDw0DAQIKFg8JAwIBAgE7AggGDQYCAQGIArt+j0AYBoQdA5gBhjWLSoMmOg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.90,1033,1371081600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="160345181"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2013 14:49:05 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r94En2AI011427 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 14:49:03 GMT
Message-ID: <524ED55D.1000400@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:49:01 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "lmap@ietf.org" <lmap@ietf.org>
References: <524ED467.4090704@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <524ED467.4090704@cisco.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <524ED467.4090704@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020209040807050602050702"
Subject: [lmap] Fwd: New version of the Performance Metrics Registry draft
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lmap>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:52:13 -0000

Dear all,

Forwarded here: FYI.
Please comment in the IPPM mailing list.

Regards, Benoit


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	New version of the Performance Metrics Registry draft
Date: 	Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:44:55 +0200
From: 	Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: 	IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>



Dear all,

I posted a new version of the Performance Metrics Registry draft.

                       Performance Metrics Registry
              draft-claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry-01.txt

Abstract

    This document specifies an IANA registry for Performance Metrics, for
    both active monitoring and passive monitoring, along with the initial
    content.  This document also gives a set of guidelines for
    Performance Metrics requesters and reviewers.


What we need is a new performance metrics registry. There are actually 3
different tasks:
     Task 1:  IANA registry setup
     Task 2: Performance metric guidelines for requester and reviewers
     Task 3: Initial content for the registry
         Task 3.1 perf metrics that are already compliant with the RFC
6390 template
         Task 3.2 selection of operationally relevant IPPM performance
metrics

3.2 is out of scope of this document, for now.

This draft provides an experiment on how to map IPDV into the RFC 6390
template (this is a first attempt).

Please provide your feedback.

Regards, Benoit