[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
- [lmap] Fwd: New version of the Performance Metric… Benoit Claise