Re: [xrblock] Changes to the name of a metric block FOR perf-metric-registry

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <rachel.huang@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 6D95621F8925 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, 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 UnQ8ilHWM-5F for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD8611E81A8 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ATZ02785; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:35:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:35:47 +0100
Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:35:57 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.43]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:35:50 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>, xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] Changes to the name of a metric block FOR perf-metric-registry
Thread-Index: AQHOjgtO5NKxJK+UvU+kxp98RF3bW5l/CN7w
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:35:50 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4585B593@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B236ED6A-4E09-44E5-A700-44528006B7B9@ntt-at.com>
In-Reply-To: <B236ED6A-4E09-44E5-A700-44528006B7B9@ntt-at.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.161.105]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Changes to the name of a metric block FOR perf-metric-registry
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:36:18 -0000

Hi all,

I'm not against changing the name. But I think "perf-metric-registry" has not got consensus yet. For example, someone points out in the IPPM meeting that "Threshold" we are talking about is actually not a metric. It's more like a parameter which provides an input to the system.
So I'm not sure the changing.

Best regards,
Rachel


-----邮件原件-----
发件人: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Shida Schubert
发送时间: 2013年8月1日 0:30
收件人: xrblock
主题: [xrblock] Changes to the name of a metric block FOR perf-metric-registry


All;

 Varun has pointed out that registry in Performance Metric Registry defined in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry-00#section-4
has duplicate names for report blocks that are semantically/syntactically different. 
It's the "Threshold in RTP" and are currently defined both in RFC6958 and in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard although they  should have a unique names. 

 The draft is in RFC Ed-Queue and the name will be swapped with whatever we agree on. 

 If you have a suggestion for a new name, please let me know. 

 Also if you object to changing the name for any reason, please voice it and present a constructive way to resolve the name conflict issues in "perf-metric-registry". 

 Many Thanks
  Shida as co-chair
_______________________________________________
xrblock mailing list
xrblock@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock