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

Hi Qin,
>
> 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?
>
Good question: to be discussed.
>
> 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?
>
We will be discussing this point in IPPM today.
Having an IPPM registry will be required.
>
> 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.
>
What do you propose?

Regards, Benoit
>
> 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
>   
>   
>