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

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Tue, 04 December 2012 06:19 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.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 A09C421F89F2 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:19:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.339
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qMLmKk7ClW7Y for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:19:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F8F21F89C4 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:19:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z20so1541658dae.31 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:19:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KSPIXVVm2MvnfGujJbFHBNX76PdL0nRXxYEKH/VWByo=; b=PP5F9PvoOAMmzC2vGfofmgPbWp2tlDfUtAZhwazJplKkMkltWnVUX8Z9op/GwLMt5F j3ZRUZrxWGhVqf2qfmSIZrIsHcsFZEZijGqBfH7jwxtX5p5CcZZlTSHscbK3WqSs2CIp qVGMD924J69YuEIdsZtYDzq0S0knlsvya01izxgBuY7zIGcBGZ2c0BHjwaFpOzlZoUrr ar8GzOkuV/Qo5b502PNFNimxMGSUuKoj1SCi6d/KmRykCI9mDdK4ikSbkXLNVS4qosNS Wg8LAEDk5snAaBNyhYfWZ9m5DOfz912mOYCML67a6LRjkUZgJc+gg3qZj5kvhZE+sqs+ yVPA==
Received: by 10.66.77.196 with SMTP id u4mr32120686paw.84.1354601981602; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:19:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ppp-171-96-21-162.revip8.asianet.co.th. [171.96.21.162]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id po10sm452026pbb.20.2012.12.03.22.19.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:19:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50BD95F9.6060606@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:19:37 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121030 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA02DF35@AZ-FFEXMB03.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA02DF35@AZ-FFEXMB03.global.avaya.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Usage of RFC 6390 in XRBLOCK documents
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: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:19:42 -0000

On 12/03/2012 07:56 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) 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.

One question: what does one do if one or more of the items listed above 
is missing  from the definition (e.g. an ISO or IEEE spec) of the metric 
we are referencing?  Leave the item(s) out?  Make it up ourselves (thus 
creating an "IETF" version of the metric by definition incompatible with 
the original)?

>
 >
 > Thanks and Regards,
 >
 > Dan
 >
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________ xrblock mailing list
 > xrblock@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock