IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xrblock] Fwd: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28A821E8050 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 02:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 HXoOASTNI05k for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 02:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E9311E80A5 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 02:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AVH32133; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:50:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:50:08 +0100
Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:50:14 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.43]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:50:11 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] Fwd: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft
Thread-Index: AQHOgswXCrBeN3+Ho0SIto2hlFr8WJlwdnEQ
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:50:10 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B6D084@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <51E41F08.4060407@cisco.com> <51E65CAC.9030900@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51E65CAC.9030900@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.149]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B6D084nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Fwd: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:50:41 -0000

Hi, Benoit:
I think it is useful to provide such performance metrics registry. In most cases, we uses the metrics defined somewhere rather than defining new metrics.
Unfortunately not everyone who writes the PM related draft knows the distinction between using metrics and defining metrics.
Three comments I have:
a. Is performance metrics registry provided for the metrics defined within IETF or metrics defined somewhere else in other SDO?
If the metrics are defined in other SDO, IETF will not provide registry, am I right?
b. Is performance metrics registry provided for the existing metrics defined in IETF existing RFCs or any other new metrics defined in the new IETF RFCs or any drafts that are in RFC Queue?
If you define performance metrics registry for the existing ones? How do you identify them when RFC6390 template hasn't been applied to them?
c. what procedure should I follow if I identify additional set of permanence metrics beyond that is given in the section 4? It is not clear in the draft.

Regards!
-Qin
From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 4:58 PM
To: xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: [xrblock] Fwd: [ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft

Dear all,

You're feedback is welcome regarding this draft.

Regards, Benoit


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:

[ippm] Performance Metrics Registry: new draft

Date:

Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:10:48 +0200

From:

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com><mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>

To:

IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org><mailto:ippm@ietf.org>



Dear all,



Let me introduce

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry/

This draft creates of a new IANA registry, for performance metrics that

follows the RFC6390 template.

And, let's not forget that the IPPM charter mentions: "Metric

definitions will follow the template given in RFC 6390."



Thanks Brian for giving me 10 min to present this draft.



Regards, Benoit.







_______________________________________________

ippm mailing list

ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email