Re: [xrblock] Usage of RFC 6390 in XRBLOCK documents

The major risk with incorporating metric definitions for an existing metric
into an XRBLOCK draft is that this would be a more comprehensive
non-normative definition of a metric that was incompletely defined in some
other IETF, ITU, ISO, IEEE or other standard.

I support the idea of using RFC6390 however believe that we should preface
the definition with a statement that the definition is non-normative and may
need to be updated if the normative standard is modified. We should also
send a liaison statement back to the appropriate standards committee to
suggest that they adopt the template based metric definition that we have
drafted.

Alan

On 12/3/12 7:56 AM, "Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> wrote:

> Most if not all participants in the work of XRBLOCK are probably familiar with
> BCP 170 / RFC 6390 - ' Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric
> Development'. This RFC describes a framework and a process for developing
> Performance Metrics of protocols and applications transported over
> IETF-specified protocols and makes a number of recommendations about the
> definition of new metrics.
> 
> Specifically section 5.4.2 of the RFC defines the normative part of a
> Performance Metric definition, which MUST include the following:
> 
> (i) Metric Name
> (ii) Metric Description
> (iii) Method of Measurement or Calculation
> (iv) Units of Measurement
> (v) Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain
> (vi) Measurement Timing
> 
> In XRBLOCK documents we are re-using definitions of metrics already defined
> somewhere else and normatively refer these documents. We do not intent to
> change this, but we would like to use the list above as a checklist that all
> mandatory information does exist in the definitions of the metrics that we
> refer. Authors can chose whether to use the exact format or terminology used
> by 6390 or not, provided that all necessary information is present.
> 
> In documents that define new metrics (if there will be such document) it will
> be required to include all normative parts of the performance metric
> definition as specified in section 5.4.2 of RFC 6390.
> 
> Please let us know if you see any problem with starting to apply this policy
> immediately. 
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock