Re: [manet] draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib and Performance Metrics (UNCLASSIFIED)
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 24 May 2013 09:26 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C6B21F938E; Fri, 24 May 2013 02:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.091
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, TRACKER_ID=2.003]
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 WSGGS42lVeff; Fri, 24 May 2013 02:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4EA21F933B; Fri, 24 May 2013 02:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4O9QDjw014798; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:26:13 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4O9QBpO014773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 May 2013 10:26:12 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>, "'Nguyen, James H CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)'" <james.h.nguyen4.civ@mail.mil>
References: <201305231512.r4NFCMN4006908@irp-view13.cisco.com> <3DC26342A93F204C804384C87DDBECBF3DADF508@ucolhp9k.easf.csd.disa.mil> <519F25A0.70502@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <519F25A0.70502@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:26:10 +0100
Message-ID: <056b01ce5860$bafed290$30fc77b0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_056F_01CE5869.1CC9F150"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFt5VD+u7/ZzOgrC0mFlTA9gvmqaQJjdZgFAly+7hKZrvMTAA==
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib@tools.ietf.org, manet@ietf.org, pm-dir@ietf.org, 'Fred Baker' <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [manet] draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib and Performance Metrics (UNCLASSIFIED)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:26:24 -0000
Hi Benoit, Thanks for cutting me in on this thread. I do think this type of discussion should take place on WG mailing lists so I am copying MANET on this reply. It appears that the phrase "performance metric" causes alarm bells to ring in several fire stations around the world. Although I strongly resent words or phrases being captured for more specific and focused meaning than they deserve, it is also clear that the pain caused by having a hundred firemen show up on your doorstep at 3am is sufficient (unless you like firemen at 3am ;-) to warrant taking Benoit's advice. - Avoid the term "performance metric" unless you mean it in the sense of RFC 6390 (or be prepared to have a fight) - Use the term "performance information" or maybe "performance counters" <VBS> Adrian From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com] Sent: 24 May 2013 09:33 To: Nguyen, James H CIV USARMY CERDEC (US) Cc: Fred Baker; draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib@tools.ietf.org; me; draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib@tools.ietf.org; pm-dir@ietf.org; Adrian Farrel Subject: Re: draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib and Performance Metrics (UNCLASSIFIED) Hi James, draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib authors, Agreed, RFC 6390 doesn't apply here. See the email exchange regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib below, which I reviewed part of the performance metric directorate. Like Ulrich did for draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib, it might better to use "performance information" instead of "performance metrics" in your draft. Benoit, thank you very much for this review. I agree that using the term "performance information" instead of "performance metrics" is a good idea. We will make the change. Best regards Ulrich On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Benoit Claise <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com> <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote: Dear all, I reviewed http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-06, from a performance metric directorate point of view. This draft doesn't contain any reference to RFC6390, but contains "performance metric". Hence this review was triggered. For details about the directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html Definition of Managed Objects for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 Abstract This document defines the Management Information Base (MIB) module for configuring and managing the Optimized Link State Routing protocol version 2 (OLSRv2). The OLSRv2-MIB module is structured into state information, performance metrics, and notifications. This additional state and performance information is useful to troubleshoot problems and performance issues of the routing protocol. Different levels of compliance allow implementers to use smaller subsets of all defined objects, allowing for this MIB module to be deployed on more constrained routers. Basically, all performance metrics come from this table: o olsrv2InterfacePerfTable - records performance counters for each active OLSRv2 interface on this device. selected path to each destination for which any such path is known. This table has AUGMENTS { nhdpInterfacePerfEntry } and as such it is indexed via nhdpIfIndex from the NHDP-MIB. NHDP-MIB is RFC 6779: NhdpInterfacePerfEntry ::= SEQUENCE { nhdpIfHelloMessageXmits Counter32, nhdpIfHelloMessageRecvd Counter32, nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedSize Counter64, nhdpIfHelloMessageRecvdAccumulatedSize Counter64, nhdpIfHelloMessageTriggeredXmits Counter32, nhdpIfHelloMessagePeriodicXmits Counter32, nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedSymmetricNeighborCount Counter32, nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedHeardNeighborCount Counter32, nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedLostNeighborCount Counter32 } This draft contains similar objects in olsrv2InterfacePerfTable : Olsrv2InterfacePerfEntry ::= SEQUENCE { olsrv2IfTcMessageXmits Counter32, olsrv2IfTcMessageRecvd Counter32, olsrv2IfTcMessageXmitAccumulatedSize Counter64, olsrv2IfTcMessageRecvdAccumulatedSize Counter64, olsrv2IfTcMessageTriggeredXmits Counter32, olsrv2IfTcMessagePeriodicXmits Counter32, olsrv2IfTcMessageForwardedXmits Counter32, olsrv2IfTcMessageXmitAccumulatedMPRSelectorCount Counter32 } Personally, I don't believe that those objects should be subject to the RFC 6390 template definition. (Performance Metric Definition Template, section 5.4.4, RFC 6390). First reason: NhdpInterfacePerfEntry, from NHDP-MIB [RFC 6779] was not subject to it Second reason: these objects are not really performance metrics, but mainly basic monitoring objects. Since RFC 6779 uses the term performance information (in the abstract), I would propose that draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib also uses this term, and not the "performance metric". That would avoid some confusion. However, keeping the olsrv2InterfacePerfTable OID name is perfectly fine, for consistency reason with RFC 6779. Regards, Benoit Regards, Benoit Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Fred, There are two counters that are defined for performance metrics. Please see below. As we stated it in Section 9 "Applicability Statement," ECDS-MIB is an extension of SMF-MIB. Thus, ECDS-MIB's inherited SMF-MIB's performance metrics. As I can see, ECDS-MIB does apply 6390's (i), (ii), (iii), and somewhat (iv). Please let me know if you have any suggestion to improve the draft. (i) the degree to which its absence would cause significant loss of information on the behavior or performance of the application or system being measured (ii) the correlation between the Performance Metric, the QoS, and the QoE delivered to the user (person or other application) (iii) the degree to which the Performance Metric is able to support the identification and location of problems affecting service quality (iv) the requirement to develop policies (Service Level Agreement, and potentially Service Level Contract) based on the Performance Metric -- -- E-CDS Performance Group -- ecdsPerformanceGroup OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ecdsMIBObjects 3 } ecdsInEcdsChange OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates how many times the current node is configured to be in E-CDS." ::= { ecdsPerformanceGroup 1 } ecdsCurrentRtrPriValueChange OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates how many times the Router Priority of the current node has been changed." ::= { ecdsPerformanceGroup 2 } James Nguyen US Army CERDEC S&TCD Email: james.h.nguyen4.civ@mail.mil Phone: 443-395-5628 -----Original Message----- From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:12 AM To: draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib@tools.ietf.org Cc: bclaise@cisco.com Subject: draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib and Performance Metrics Hi: I have a question for you. Your document mentions performance metrics. Would you kindly take a look at RFC 6390 to see if any of its considerations apply to it? "No" is an acceptable response, of course; the point is to ask the question. 6390 Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development. A. Clark, B. Claise. October 2011. (Format: TXT=49930 bytes) (Also BCP0170) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
- Re: [manet] draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib and Perfo… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [manet] draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib and Perfo… Benoit Claise
- Re: [manet] draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib and Perfo… Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)