Network Working Group                                         M. Bagnulo
Internet-Draft                                                      UC3M
Intended status: Best Current Practice                         B. Claise
Expires: January 4, March 14, 2015                              Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                              P. Eardley
                                                                      BT
                                                               A. Morton
                                                               AT&T Labs
                                                            July 3,
                                                               A. Akhter
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                      September 10, 2014

                    Registry for Performance Metrics
                   draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-00
                   draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-01

Abstract

   This document specifies the common aspects of defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics, both active and passive categories. Metrics.
   This document also gives a set of guidelines for Registered
   Performance Metric requesters and reviewers.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, March 14, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2   3
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3   4
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Design Considerations for the Registry and Registered Metrics   7
     5.1.  Interoperability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8   7
     5.2.  Criteria for Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  Single point of reference for Performance metrics . . . .   9   8
     5.4.  Side benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt  . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Why this Attempt Will Succeed?  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Common Columns  Defintion of the Performance Metric Registry  . . . . . .  11 . .  10
     7.1.  Identifier  Summary Category  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       7.1.1.  Identifier  . . .  11
     7.2.  Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       7.1.2.  Name  . . . . . . . .  11
     7.3.  URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.1.3.  URI . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.4.  Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.1.4.  Description . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.5.  Requester . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.2.  Metric Definition Category  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.6.  Revision .  14
       7.2.1.  Reference Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.2.2.  Fixed Parameters  . . . . . . .  13
     7.7.  Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.3.  Method of Measurement Category  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.8.  Description . .  15
       7.3.1.  Reference Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.3.2.  Packet Generation Stream  . . .  13
     7.9.  Reference Specification(s) . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.3.3.  Traffic Filter  . . . .  13
   8.  The Life-Cycle of Registered Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  The Process for Review by the Performance Metric Experts   13
     8.2.  Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . .  16
       7.3.4.  Sampling distribution . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.3.  Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Performance Metric Registry and other Registries
       7.3.5.  Run-time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. Security considerations
       7.3.6.  Role  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. IANA Considerations
     7.4.  Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   12. Acknowledgments
       7.4.1.  Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   13. References
       7.4.2.  Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       7.4.3.  Reference . . . .  17
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     13.2.  Informative References  18
       7.4.4.  Metric Units  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses
     7.5.  Admisnitratvie information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.5.1.  Status  . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Open Issues

   1.   Many aspects of the Naming convention are TBD, and need
        discussion.  For example, we have distinguished RTCP-XR metrics
        as End-Point (neither active nor passive in the traditional
        sense, so not Act_ or Pas_).  Even though we may not cast all
        naming conventions in stone at the start, it will be helpful to
        look at several examples of passive metric names now.

   2.   We should expand on the different roles and responsibilities of
        the Performance Metrics Experts versus the Performance Metric
        Directorate.  At . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.5.2.  Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.5.3.  Revision  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.5.4.  Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     7.6.  Comments and Remarks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  The Life-Cycle of Registered Metrics  . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.1.  Adding new Performance Metrics to the Registry  . . . . .  19
     8.2.  Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.3.  Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics  . . . . . . .  21
   9.  Performance Metric Registry and other Registries  . . . . . .  22
   10. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25

1.  Open Issues

   1.  Many aspects of the Naming convention are TBD, and need
       discussion.  For example, we have distinguished RTCP-XR metrics
       as End-Point (neither active nor passive in the traditional
       sense, so not Act_ or Pas_).  Even though we may not cast all
       naming conventions in stone at the start, it will be helpful to
       look at several examples of passive metric names now.

   2.  We should expand on the different roles and responsibilities of
       the Performance Metrics Experts versus the Performance Metric
       Directorate.  At least, the Performance Metric Directorate one
        should be expanded. --- (v7) If these are different entities,
        our only concern Directorate one
       should be expanded. --- (v7) If these are different entities, our
       only concern is the role of the "PM Experts".

   3.  Revised Registry Entries: Keep for history (deprecated) or
       Delete?

   4.  Need to include an example for a name for a passive metric

   5.  Definition of Parameter needs more work?

   6.  Whether the name of the metric should contain the version of the
       metric

   7.  reserve some values for examples and private use?

   8.  should we define a "type" column with the possible values
       "active" "passive" "hybrid" "endpoint"? if we go for all 4 of
       them, we should define the corresponding prefixes for the metric
       name (at this point only the pas and act are defined)

   9.  URL: should we include a URL link in each registry entry with a
       URL specific to the entry that links to a different text page
       that contains all the details of the registry entry as in
       http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-
       registry.xhtml#ns

2.  Introduction

   The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and
   applications transported over its protocols.  Performance metrics are
   such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that
   [RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development.

   The definition and use of Performance Metrics in the IETF happens in
   various working groups (WG), most notably:

      The "IP Performance Metrics" (IPPM) WG is the WG primarily
      focusing on Performance Metrics definition at the IETF.

      The "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework"
      (XRBLOCK) WG recently specified many Performance Metrics related
      to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611],
      which establishes a framework to allow new information to be
      conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined
      in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
      [RFC3550].

      The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance
      Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking
      technologies.

      The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) WG Information elements
      related to Performance Metrics are currently proposed.

      The "Performance Metrics for Other Layers" (PMOL) concluded WG,
      defined some Performance Metrics related to Session Initiation
      Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035].

   It is expected that more Performance Metrics will be defined in the
   future, not only IP-based metrics, but also metrics which are
   protocol-specific and application-specific.

   However, despite the importance of Performance Metrics, there are two
   related problems for the industry.  First, how to ensure that when
   one party requests another party to measure (or report or in some way
   act on) a particular Performance Metric, then both parties have
   exactly the same understanding of what Performance Metric is being
   referred to.  Second, how to discover which Performance Metrics have
   been specified, so as to avoid developing new Performance Metric that
   is very similar.  The problems can be addressed by creating a
   registry of performance metrics.  The usual way in which IETF
   organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   (IANA) registries, and there is currently no Performance Metrics
   Registry maintained by the IANA.

   This document therefore creates a Performance Metrics Registry.  It
   also provides best practices on how to define new or updated entries
   in the Performance Metrics Registry.

3.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

   The terms Performance Metric and Performance Metrics Directorate are
   defined in [RFC6390], and copied over in this document for the
   readers convenience.

   Performance Metric:  A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure
      of performance, specific to an IETF-specified protocol or specific
      to an application transported over an IETF-specified protocol.
      Examples of Performance Metrics are the FTP response time for a
      complete file download, the DNS response time to resolve the IP
      address, a database logging time, etc.

   Registered Performance Metric:  A Registered Performance Metric (or
      Registered Metric) is a Performance Metric expressed as an entry
      in the role Performance Metric Registry, and comprised of a
      specifically named metric which has met all the "PM Experts".

   3.   RTCP-XR metrics are currently referred to as "end-point", registry review
      criteria, is under the curation of IETF Performance Metrics
      Experts, and
        have aspects whose changes are controlled by IANA.

   Performance Metrics Registry:  The IANA registry containing
      Registered Performance Metrics.  In this document, it is also
      called simply "Registry".

   Proprietary Registry:  A set of metrics that are similar registered in a
      proprietary registry, as opposed to active (the measured stream
        characteristics are known Performance Metrics Registry.

   Performance Metrics Experts:  The Performance Metrics Experts is a priori and measurement commonly
        takes place at the end-points
      group of experts selected by the path) and passive (there is
        no additional traffic dedicated IESG to measurement, validate the Performance
      Metrics before updating the Performance Metrics Registry.  The
      Performance Metrics Experts work closely with IANA.

   Performance Metrics Directorate:  The Performance Metrics Directorate
      is a directorate that provides guidance for Performance Metrics
      development in the
        exception IETF.  The Performance Metrics Directorate
      should be composed of experts in the RTCP report packets themselves).  We have one
        example expressing an end-point metric performance community,
      potentially selected from the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),
      Benchmarking Methodology (BMWG), and Performance Metrics for Other
      Layers (PMOL) WGs.

   Parameter:  An input factor defined as a variable in the active sub-
        registry memo.

   4.   Revised Registry Entries: Keep for history (deprecated) definition
      of a metric.  A numerical or
        Delete?

   5.   Need to include an example for other specified factor forming one of
      a name for set that defines a passive metric

   6.   Definition of Parameter needs more work?

   7.   Whether or sets the name conditions of the its
      operation.  All Input Parameters must be known to measure using a
      metric should contain and interpret the version of results.  Although Input Parameters do
      not change the
        metric

   8.   Suppression Flag for fundamental nature of the metrics, does it belong to metric's definition, some
      have substantial influence on the
        registry?  If yes, is ti part network property being assessed
      and interpretation of the core or the active one?

   9.   Endpoint metric: I think we need either to remove it from results.

         Consider the
        draft or to properly define it.  Currently case of packet loss in the draft we have
        it following two cases.
         The first case is packet loss as background loss where the
         parameter set includes a equal to passive very sparse Poisson stream, and active but it is not defined, which
        seems incoherent.

   10.  URL: should we include a URL link in each registry entry with a
        URL specific to only
         characterizes the entry that links times when packets were lost.  Actual user
         streams likely see much higher loss at these times, due to a different text page
        that contains all the details of the registry entry as in
        http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-
        registry.xhtml#ns

2.  Introduction

   The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and
   applications transported over its protocols.  Performance metrics are
   such an important part tail
         drop or radio errors.  The second case is packet loss as
         inverse of Throughput where the operations of IETF protocols that
   [RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development.

   The definition parameter set includes a very
         dense, bursty stream, and use of Performance Metrics in characterizes the IETF happens loss experienced by
         a stream that approximates a user stream.  These are both "loss
         metrics", but the difference in
   various working groups (WG), most notably:

      The "IP Performance Metrics" (IPPM) WG is interpretation of the WG primarily
      focusing results
         is highly dependent on Performance Metrics definition at the IETF.

      The "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework"
      (XRBLOCK) WG recently specified many Performance Metrics related
      to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611],
      which establishes a framework to allow new information Parameters (at least), to be
      conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined
      in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
      [RFC3550].

      The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance
      Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking
      technologies.

      The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) WG Information elements
      related to Performance Metrics
         extreme where we are currently proposed.

      The "Performance Metrics for Other Layers" (PMOL) concluded WG,
      defined some Performance Metrics related actually using loss to Session Initiation
      Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035].

   It infer its
         compliment: delivered throughput.

   Active Measurement Method:  Methods of Measurement conducted on
      traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is expected
      generated for that more Performance Metrics will be defined in the
   future, reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics
      are known a priori.  An Internet user's host can generate active
      measurement traffic (virtually all typical user-generated traffic
      is not only IP-based metrics, dedicated to active measurement, but also metrics which are
   protocol-specific and application-specific.

   However, despite it can produce such
      traffic with the importance necessary application operating).

   Passive Measurement Method:  Methods of Performance Metrics, there are two
   related problems for Measurement conducted on
      network traffic, generated either from the industry.  First, how to ensure that when
   one party requests another party to measure (or report end users or in some way
   act on) a particular Performance Metric, then both parties have
   exactly the same understanding from
      network elements.  One characteristic of what Performance Metric Passive Measurement
      Methods is being
   referred to.  Second, how to discover which Performance Metrics have
   been specified, so as to avoid developing new Performance Metric that
   is very similar.  The problems can sensitive information may be addressed by creating observed, and as a
   registry of performance metrics.  The usual way
      consequence, stored in which IETF
   organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   (IANA) registries, and there is currently no Performance Metrics
   Registry maintained by the IANA.

   This document therefore proposes the creation measurement system.

   Hybrid Measurement Method:  Methods of Measurement which use a Performance
   Metrics Registry.  It also provides best practices on how to define
   new or updated entries in the Performance Metrics Registry.

3.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
      combination of Active Measurement and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119]. Passive Measurement methods.

4.  Scope

   The terms Performance Metric and Performance Metrics Directorate are
   defined in [RFC6390], and copied over in intended audience of this document for the
   readers convenience.

   Performance Metric:  A Performance Metric is includes those who prepare and
   submit a quantitative measure
      of performance, specific to an IETF-specified protocol or specific
      to an application transported over an IETF-specified protocol.
      Examples of Performance Metrics are the FTP response time request for a
      complete file download, the DNS response time to resolve the IP
      address, a database logging time, etc. Registered Performance Metric:  A Registered Metric, and for the
   Performance Metric (or
      Registered Metric) is Experts who review a request.

   This document specifies a Performance Metric expressed as an entry Metrics Registry in the IANA.  This
   Performance Metric Registry, and comprised of a
      specifically named metric which has met all the registry review
      criteria, Registry is under the curation of IETF applicable to Performance Metrics
      Experts, and whose changes are controlled by IANA.
   issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, from end-point
   calculation or any other form of Performance Metrics Registry:  The IANA Metric.  This registry containing
      Registered Performance Metrics.  In this document, it
   is also
      called simply "Registry".

   Proprietary Registry:  A set of metrics that are registered in a
      proprietary registry, as opposed designed to encompass Performance Metrics Registry.

   Performance Metrics Experts:  The Performance Metrics Experts is a
      group of experts selected by developed throughout the IESG to validate
   IETF and especially for the following existing working groups: IPPM,
   XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG.  This document analyzes an prior attempt to
   set up a Performance
      Metrics before updating Metric Registry, and the Performance Metrics Registry.  The
      Performance Metrics Experts work closely with IANA.

   Performance Metrics Directorate:  The Performance Metrics Directorate
      is reasons why this design
   was inadequate [RFC6248].  Finally, this document gives a directorate that provides guidance set of
   guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate
   Registered Performance Metrics
      development in Metrics.

   This document makes no attempt to populate the IETF.  The Performance Metrics Directorate Registry with initial
   entries.  It does provides a few examples that are merely
   illustrations and should not be composed of experts included in the performance community,
      potentially selected from registry at this
   point in time.

   Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best
   Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026].

5.  Design Considerations for the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),
      Benchmarking Methodology (BMWG), Registry and Performance Registered Metrics

   In this section, we detail several design considerations that are
   relevant for Other
      Layers (PMOL) WGs.

   Parameter:  An input factor defined as a variable in understanding the definition motivations and expected use of the
   Performance Metric Registry.

5.1.  Interoperability

   As any IETF registry, the primary use for a metric.  A numerical or other specified factor forming registry is to manage a
   namespace for its use within one or more protocols.  In this
   particular case of
      a set the Performance Metric Registry, there are two
   types of protocols that defines a metric or sets will use the conditions values defined in the Registry
   for their operation:

   o  Control protocol: this type of its
      operation.  All Input Parameters must be known protocols is used to measure allow one
      entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using a
      specific metric and interpret the results.  Although Input Parameters do
      not change the fundamental nature of the metric's definition, some
      have substantial influence on the network property being assessed
      and interpretation of defined by the results.

         Consider Registry.  One particular example
      is the case of packet loss in LMAP framework [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework].  Using the following two cases.
         The first case LMAP
      terminology, the Registry is packet loss as background loss where used in the
         parameter set includes LMAP Control protocol to
      allow a very sparse Poisson stream, and only
         characterizes the times when packets were lost.  Actual user
         streams likely see much higher loss at these times, due Controller to tail
         drop request a measurement task to one or radio errors.  The second case is packet loss as
         inverse more
      Measurement Agents.  In order to enable this use case, the entries
      of Throughput where the parameter set includes Performance Metric Registry must be well enough defined to
      allow a very
         dense, bursty stream, and characterizes Measurement Agent implementation to trigger a specific
      measurement task upon the loss experienced by reception of a stream control protocol message.
      This requirements heavily constrains the type of entries that approximates a user stream.  These are both "loss
         metrics", but
      acceptable for the difference in interpretation Performance Metric Registry.

   o  Report protocol: This type of the protocols is used to allow an entity
      to report measurement results to another entity.  By referencing
      to a specific Performance Metric Registry, it is highly dependent on the Parameters (at least), possible to
      properly characterize the
         extreme where we are actually using loss measurement result data being
      transferred.  Using the LMAP terminology, the Registry is used in
      the Report protocol to infer its
         compliment: delivered throughput.

   Active allow a Measurement Method:  Methods Agent to report
      measurement results to a Collector.

5.2.  Criteria for Registered Performance Metrics

   It is neither possible nor desirable to populate the Registry with
   all combinations of Measurement conducted input parameters of all Performance Metrics.  The
   Registered Performance Metrics should be:

   1.  interpretable by the user.

   2.  implementable by the software designer,

   3.  deployable by network operators, without major impact on
      traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is
      generated
       networks,

   4.  accurate, for that reason alone, interoperability and whose traffic characteristics
      are known a priori.  An Internet user's host can generate active
      measurement traffic (virtually all typical user-generated traffic
      is not dedicated to active measurement, but deployment across vendors,

   5.  Operational useful, so that it can produce such
      traffic with has significant industry interest
       and/or has seen deployment,

   6.  Sufficiently tightly defined, so that changing Parameters does
       not change the necessary application operating).

   Passive Measurement Method:  Methods fundamental nature of Measurement conducted on
      network traffic, generated either from the end users or from
      network elements.  One characteristic of Passive Measurement
      Methods is that sensitive information may be observed, and as a
      consequence, stored in measurement, nor change
       the measurement system.

   Hybrid Measurement Method:  Methods practicality of Measurement which use its implementation.

   In essence, there needs to be evidence that a
      combination of Active Measurement candidate Registry
   entry has significant industry interest, or has seen deployment, and Passive Measurement methods.

4.  Scope

   The
   there is agreement that the candidate Registered Metric serves its
   intended audience purpose.

5.3.  Single point of this document includes those who prepare and
   submit a request reference for a Registered Performance Metric, and metrics

   A Registry for the Performance Metric Experts who review a request.

   This document specifies metrics serves as a single point of
   reference for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups
   in the IETF.  As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that
   define Performance Metrics Registry in IANA.  This
   Performance Metric Registry the IETF and it is applicable hard to Performance Metrics
   issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, or from end-
   point calculation. keep track
   of all them.  This registry is designed to encompass
   performance results in multiple definitions of similar metrics developed throughout
   that attempt to measure the IETF and especially for same phenomena but in slightly different
   (and incompatible) ways.  Having a Registry would allow both the following existing working groups: IPPM, XRBLOCK, IPFIX, IETF
   community and
   BMWG.  This document analyzes an prior attempt external people to set up have a single list of relevant
   Performance Metric Registry, Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where
   appropriate).  The single list is also an essential aspect of
   communication about metrics, where different entities that request
   measurements, execute measurements, and report the reasons why this design was
   inadequate [RFC6248].  Finally, this document gives results can
   benefit from a set common understanding of
   guidelines for requesters the referenced metric.

5.4.  Side benefits

   There are a couple of side benefits of having such a Registry.
   First, the Registry could serve as an inventory of useful and expert reviewers used
   metrics, that are normally supported by different implementations of candidate
   Registered Performance Metrics.

   This document serves
   measurement agents.  Second, the results of the metrics would be
   comparable even if they are performed by different implementations
   and in different networks, as the foundation for further work.  It
   specifies metric is properly defined.  BCP
   176 [RFC6576] examines whether the set of columns describing common aspects necessary for
   all entries results produced by independent
   implementations are equivalent in the Performance Metrics Registry.

   Two documents describing sub-registries will be developed separately:
   one context of evaluating the
   completeness and clarity of metric specifications.  This BCP defines
   the standards track advancement testing for Active Registered Metrics (active) IPPM metrics,
   and another one for the Passive
   Registered Metrics.  Indeed, Active and Passive Performance Metrics
   appear same process will likely suffice to have different characteristics that must be documented in
   their respective sub-registies.  For example, Active Performance
   Methods must specify the packet stream characteristics they generate
   and measure, so it is essential determine whether
   Registry entries are sufficiently well specified to include the stream specifications result in the
   comparable (or equivalent) results.  Registry entry.  In entries which have
   undergone such testing SHOULD be noted, with a reference to the case of Passive test
   results.

6.  Performance Metrics,
   there is Metric Registry: Prior attempt

   There was a need previous attempt to specify the sampling distribution in the Registry.
   While define a metric registry RFC 4148
   [RFC4148].  However, it would was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because
   it was "found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM
   metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when
   characterizing a metric exactly" which led to force the definition of the Registry
   field to include both types RFC4148 registry
   having "very few users, if any".

   A couple of distributions in interesting additional quotes from RFC 6248 might help
   understand the same Registry
   column, we believe it is cleaner and clearer issues related to have separated sub-
   registries with different columns that have a narrow definition.

   It registry.

   1.  "It is possible that future Performance Metrics use Hybrid Measurement
   methods, and it may not believed to be possible feasible or even useful to register hybrid metrics in one
       every possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and
       Stream parameters using the current structure of the two planned sub-registries (active or passive), or it may IPPM Metrics
       Registry."

   2.  "The registry structure has been found to be
   efficient insufficiently
       detailed to define a third sub-registry with unique columns.  The uniquely identify IPPM metrics."

   3.  "Despite apparent efforts to find current design with sub-registries allows for growth, and this is a
   recognized option for extension.

   This document makes or even future users,
       no attempt one responded to populate the Registry with initial
   entries.

   Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best
   Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026].

5.  Design Considerations call for interest in the Registry and Registered Metrics

   In this section, we detail several design considerations that are
   relevant for understanding RFC 4148
       registry during the motivations and expected use second half of 2010."

   The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each entry
   in the
   Performance Metric Registry.

5.1.  Interoperability

   As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage with only a
   namespace for its use within one or more protocols.  In this
   particular case of few variable Parameters to be specified
   by the Performance Metric Registry, there are two
   types of protocols measurement designer, if any.  The idea is that will use the values defined entries in the
   Registry
   for their operation:

   o  Control protocol: this type represent different measurement methods which require input
   parameters to set factors like source and destination addresses
   (which do not change the fundamental nature of protocols the measurement).  The
   downside of this approach is used to allow one
      entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using that it could result in a
      specific metric defined by large number
   of entries in the Registry.  One particular example
      is the LMAP framework [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework].  Using the LMAP
      terminology, the Registry  We believe that less is used more in the LMAP Control protocol this
   context - it is better to
      allow have a Controller to request reduced set of useful metrics rather
   than a measurement task to one or more
      Measurement Agents.  In order to enable this use case, the entries large set of metrics with questionable usefulness.  Therefore
   this document defines that the Performance Metric Registry must be only includes metrics that
   are well enough defined and that have proven to
      allow a Measurement Agent implementation be operationally useful.  In
   order to trigger guarantee these two characteristics we require that a specific
      measurement task upon the reception set of a control protocol message.
      This requirements heavily constrains
   experts review the type allocation request to verify that the metric is
   well defined and it is operationally useful.

6.1.  Why this Attempt Will Succeed?

   The Registry defined in this document addresses the main issues
   identified in the previous attempt.  As we mention in the previous
   section, one of entries the main issues with the previous registry was that
   the metrics contained in the registry were too generic to be useful.
   In this Registry, the Registry requests are
      acceptable for evaluated by an expert
   group, the Performance Metric Registry.

   o  Report protocol: This type of protocols Metrics Experts, who will make sure that the
   metric is used to allow an entity
      to report measurement results to another entity.  By referencing properly defined.  This document provides guidelines to
   assess if a specific Performance Metric Registry, it metric is possible to properly characterize defined.

   Another key difference between this attempt and the previous one is
   that in this case there is at least one clear user for the Registry:
   the measurement result data being
      transferred.  Using LMAP framework and protocol.  Because the LMAP terminology, protocol will use
   the Registry is used values in its operation, this actually helps to
   determine if a metric is properly defined.  In particular, since we
   expect that the Report LMAP control protocol to allow will enable a Measurement Agent controller to report
   request a measurement results agent to perform a Collector.

5.2.  Criteria for Registered measurement using a given
   metric by embedding the Performance Metrics

   It Metric Registry value in the
   protocol, a metric is properly specified if it is defined well-enough
   so that it is neither possible nor desirable (and practical) to populate implement the Registry metric in the
   measurement agent.  This was clearly not the case for the previous
   attempt: defining a metric with
   all combinations an undefined P-Type makes its
   implementation unpractical.

7.  Defintion of input parameters the Performance Metric Registry

   In this section we define the columns of all the Performance Metrics.  The Metric
   Registry.  This registry will contain all Registered Performance
   Metrics should be:

   1.  interpretable by the user.

   2.  implementable by the software designer,

   3.  deployable by network operators, without major impact on the
       networks,

   4.  accurate, for interoperability including active, passive, hybrid, endpoint metrics and deployment across vendors,

   5.  Operational useful, so any
   other type of performance metric that can be envisioned.  Because of
   that, it has significant industry interest
       and/or has seen deployment,

   6.  Sufficiently tightly defined, so may be the case that changing Parameters does
       not change some of the fundamental nature columns defined are not
   applicable for a given type of metric.  If this is the measurement, nor change case, the practicality of its implementation.
   column(s) SHOULD be populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable).
   However, the "NA" value MUST NOT be used any any metric in the
   following columns: Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester,
   Revision, Revision Date, Description and Reference Specification.
   Moreover, In essence, there needs to addition, it may be evidence possible that in the future, a candidate Registry
   entry has significant industry interest, or has seen deployment, and
   there is agreement new
   type of metric requires additional columns.  Should that be the candidate Registered Metric serves its
   intended purpose.

5.3.  Single point of reference case,
   it is possible to add new columns to the registry.  The specification
   defining the new column(s) MUST define how to populate the new
   column(s) for existing entries.

   The columns of the Performance metrics

   A Metric Registry for Performance metrics are defined next.  The
   columns are grouped into "Categories" to facilitate the use of the
   registry.  Categories are described at the 3.x heading level, and
   columns are at the 3.x.y heading level.  The Figure below illustrates
   this organization.  An entry (row) therefore gives a complete
   description of a Registered Metric.

   Each column serves as a single point check-list item and helps to avoid omissions
   during registration and expert review.  In some cases an entry (row)
   may have some columns without specific entries, marked Not Applicable
   (NA).

 Registry Categories and Columns, shown as
                                                        Category
                                                        ------------------
                                                        Column |  Column |

        Summary
        -------------------------------
        ID | Name | URI | Description |

        Metric Definition
        -----------------------------------------
        Reference Definition | Fixed Parameters |

        Method of
   reference Measurement
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reference Method | Packet Generation | Traffic | Sampling     | Run-time | Role |
                         | Stream            | Filter  | distribution | Param    |      |

        Output
        -----------------------------------------
        | Type | Reference  | Data   | Units |
        |      | Definition | Format |       |

        Administrative information
        ----------------------------------
        Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date |

        Comments and Remarks
        --------------------

7.1.  Summary Category

7.1.1.  Identifier

   A numeric identifier for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups
   in the IETF.  As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that
   define Registered Performance Metrics in Metric.  This
   identifier MUST be unique within the IETF and it Performance Metric Registry.

   The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is hard a 16-bit
   integer (range 0 to keep track
   of all them.  This results in multiple definitions of similar metrics
   that attempt 65535).  When adding newly Registered Performance
   Metrics to measure the same phenomena but in slightly different
   (and incompatible) ways.  Having a Registry would allow both Performance Metric Registry, IANA SHOULD assign the IETF
   community and external people
   lowest available identifier to have a single list of relevant the next Registered Performance Metrics defined by
   Metric.

7.1.2.  Name

   As the IETF (and others, where
   appropriate).  The single list is also an essential aspect name of
   communication about metrics, where different entities that request
   measurements, execute measurements, and report the results can
   benefit from a common understanding of Registered Performance Metric is the referenced metric.

5.4.  Side benefits

   There are first thing a couple of side benefits of having such
   potential implementor will use when determining whether it is
   suitable for a Registry.
   First, the Registry could serve given application, it is important to be as an inventory of useful precise
   and used
   metrics, that are normally supported by different implementations of
   measurement agents.  Second, the results descriptive as possible.  New names of the metrics would Registered Performance
   Metrics:

   1.  "MUST be
   comparable even if they are performed by different implementations
   and in different networks, as the metric is properly defined.  BCP
   176 [RFC6576] examines whether chosen carefully to describe the results produced by independent
   implementations are equivalent in Registered Performance
       Metric and the context of evaluating the
   completeness and clarity of metric specifications.  This BCP defines in which it will be used."

   2.  "MUST be unique within the standards track advancement testing Performance Metric Registry."

   3.  "MUST use capital letters for (active) IPPM metrics,
   and the same process will likely suffice to determine whether
   Registry entries are sufficiently well specified to result in
   comparable (or equivalent) results.  Registry entries which have
   undergone such testing SHOULD first letter of each component
       . All other letters MUST be noted, with lowercase, even for acronyms.
       Exceptions are made for acronyms containing a reference to mixture of
       lowercase and capital letters, such as 'IPv4' and 'IPv6'."

   4.  "MUST use '_' between each component composing the test
   results.

6. Registered
       Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt

   There was a previous attempt to name."

   5.  "MUST start with prefix Act_ for active measurement Registered
       Performance Metric."

   6.  "MUST start with prefix Pas_ for passive monitoring Registered
       Performance Metric."

   7.  Other types of metrics should define a metric registry RFC 4148
   [RFC4148].  However, it was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because
   it was "found proper prefix for
       identifying the type.

   8.  The remaining rules for naming are left to be insufficiently detailed the Performance
       Experts to uniquely identify IPPM
   metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when
   characterizing determine as they gather experience, so this is an
       area of planned update by a future RFC.

   An example is "Act_UDP_Latency_Poisson_99mean" for a active
   monitoring UDP latency metric exactly" which led to the RFC4148 registry
   having "very few users, if any".

   A couple using a Poisson stream of interesting additional quotes from RFC 6248 might help
   understand packets and
   producing the issues related to 99th percentile mean as output.

7.1.3.  URI

   The URI column MUST contain a URI [RFC 3986] that registry.

   1.  "It uniquely identified
   the metric.  The URI is not believed to be feasible or even useful a URN [RFC 2141].  The URI is automatically
   generated by prepending the prefix urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric: to register
       every possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and
       Stream parameters using
   the current structure metric name.  The resulting URI is globally unique.

7.1.4.  Description

   A Registered Performance Metric Description is a written
   representation of a particular Registry entry.  It supplements the IPPM Metrics
       Registry."

   2.  "The registry structure has been found to be insufficiently
       detailed
   metric name to uniquely identify IPPM metrics."

   3.  "Despite apparent efforts help Registry users select relevant Registered
   Performance Metrics.

7.2.  Metric Definition Category

   This category includes columns to find current or even future users,
       no one responded prompt all necessary details
   related to the call for interest in metric definition, including the RFC 4148
       registry during the second half reference and
   values of 2010."

   The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each entry input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open
   in the registry with only RFC but have a few variable Parameters to be specified particular value defined by the measurement designer, if any. performance
   metric.

7.2.1.  Reference Definition

   This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant
   section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any
   supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition
   for implementations.  The idea reference needs to be an immutable
   document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is that entries likely to
   be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a
   specification.

7.2.2.  Fixed Parameters

   Fixed Parameters are input factors whose value must be specified in
   the
   Registry represent different Registry.  The measurement methods which require input
   parameters to set factors like source and destination addresses
   (which do not change system uses these values.

   Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
   descriptive template, a sub-set of the fundamental nature Parameters will be designated
   as Fixed Parameters.  For example, for active metrics, Fixed
   Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention
   "packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport
   protocol, payload length, TTL, etc.  An example for passive metrics
   is for RTP packet loss calculation that relies on the measurement).  The
   downside validation of this approach a
   packet as RTP which is that it could result in a large number
   of entries in multi-packet validation controlled by
   MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550].  Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL
   values can alter the Registry.  We believe that less is more in loss report and this
   context - it is better to have a reduced value could be set of useful metrics rather
   than as a large set of metrics with questionable usefulness.  Therefore
   this document defines that the
   fixed parameter

   A Parameter which is Fixed for one Registry only includes metrics that
   are well defined and that have proven to entry may be operationally useful.  In
   order to guarantee these two characteristics we require that designated
   as a set Run-time Parameter for another Registry entry.

7.3.  Method of
   experts review the allocation request Measurement Category

   This category includes columns for references to verify that relevant sections of
   the metric is
   well defined RFC(s) and it is operationally useful.

6.1.  Why this Attempt Will Succeed?

   The Registry defined in this document addresses the main issues
   identified in the previous attempt.  As we mention in the previous
   section, one any supplemental information needed to ensure an
   unambiguous method for implementations.

7.3.1.  Reference Method

   This entry provides references to relevant sections of the main issues with the previous registry was that RFC(s)
   describing the metrics contained in method of measurement, as well as any supplemental
   information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for
   implementations referring to the registry were too generic RFC text.

   Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or
   actual code that could be useful.
   In this Registry, the Registry requests are evaluated by used for an expert
   group, the Performance Metrics Experts, who will make sure that the
   metric is properly defined. unambigious implementation.

7.3.2.  Packet Generation Stream

   This document provides guidelines column applies to metrics that generate traffic for measurement
   purposes including but not necessarily limited to
   assess if a metric Active metrics.
   The generated traffic is properly defined.

   Another key difference between referred as stream and this attempt columns describe
   its characteristics.  Principally, two different streams are used in
   IPPM metrics, Poisson distributed as described in [RFC2330] and
   Periodic as described in [RFC3432].  Both Poisson and Periodic have
   their own unique parameters, and the previous one relevant set of values is
   that
   specified in this case there is at least one clear user column.

   Each entry for this column contains the Registry: following information:

   o  Value: The name of the LMAP framework packet stream scheduling discipline

   o  Stream Parameters: The values and protocol.  Because formats of input factors for
      each type of stream.  For example, the LMAP protocol will use average packet rate and
      distribution truncation value for streams with Poisson-distributed
      inter-packet sending times.

   o  Reference: the Registry values in its operation, this actually helps to
   determine if specification where the stream is defined

   The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling,
   where a metric single atomic measurement is properly defined.  In particular, since we
   expect that the LMAP control protocol will enable conducted.  Each atomic
   measurement could consist of sending a controller single packet (such as a DNS
   request) or sending several packets (for example, to request a measurement agent to perform
   webpage).  Other streams support a measurement using series of atomic measurements in a given
   metric by embedding
   "sample", with a schedule defining the Performance Metric Registry value timing between each
   transmitted packet and subsequent measurement.

7.3.3.  Traffic Filter

   This column applies to metrics that observe packets flowing in the
   protocol, a metric is properly specified if it is defined well-enough
   so
   wire i.e. that it is possible (and practical) not specifically addressed to implement the metric measurement
   agent.  This includes but is not limited to Passive Metrics.  The
   filter specifies the traffic constraints that the passive measurement
   method used is valid (or invalid) for.  This includes valid packet
   sampling ranges, width of valid traffic matches (eg. all traffic on
   interface, UDP packets packets in a flow (eg. same RTP session).

   It is possible that the measurement agent.  This was clearly method may not the case for the previous
   attempt: defining have a metric specific
   limitation.  However, this specific registry entry with an undefined P-Type makes its
   implementation unpractical.

7.  Common Columns it's
   combination of the Performance Metric Registry fixed parameters implies restrictions.  These
   restrictions would be listed in this field.

7.3.4.  Sampling distribution

   The Performance Metric Registry is composed sampling distribution defines out of two sub-registries:
   the registry for Active Performance Metrics and the registry for
   Passive Performance Metrics.  The rationale for having two sub-
   registries (as opposed to having a single registry for all metrics)
   is because the set packets that match
   the traffic filter, which one of registry columns must support unambiguous
   registry entries, and there those are fundamental differences in the
   methods to collect active and passive metrics and the required input
   parameters.  Forcing them into a single, generalized registry would
   result in a less meaningful structure actually used for some entries in the
   registry.  Nevertheless, it
   measurement.  One possibility is desirable "all" which implies that all packets
   matching the two sub-registries
   share the same structure as much as possible.  In particular, both
   registries will share Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other
   sampling strategies.  It includes the following columns: the identifier and the
   name, information:

      Value: the requester, the revision, the revision date and the
   description.  All these fields are described below.  The design name of
   these two sub-registries is work-in-progress.

7.1.  Identifier

   A numeric identifier for the Registered Performance Metric.  This
   identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry and
   sub-registries.

   The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is a 16-bit
   integer (range 0 to 65535).  When adding newly Registered Performance
   Metrics sampling distribution

      Parameters: if any.

      Reference definition: pointer to the Performance Metric Registry, IANA SHOULD assign specification where the
   lowest available identifier to
      sampling distribution is properly defined.

7.3.5.  Run-time Parameters

   Run-Time Parameters are input factors that must be determined,
   configured into the next active monitoring Registered
   Performance Metric, measurement system, and reported with the highest available identifier to results
   for the next
   passive monitoring Registered Performance Metric.

7.2.  Name

   As context to be complete.  However, the name values of a Registered Performance Metric these
   parameters is not specified in the first thing a
   potential implementor will use when determining whether it is
   suitable for a given application, it is important Registry, rather these parameters
   are listed as an aid to the measurement system implementor or user
   (they must be left as precise variables, and descriptive supplied on execution).

   Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as possible.  New names part of their
   descriptive template, a sub-set of Registered Performance
   Metrics:

   1.  "MUST be chosen carefully to describe the Registered Performance
       Metric and the context in which it Parameters will be used."

   2.  "MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry (including
       sub-registries)."

   3.  "MUST use capital letters for the first letter designated
   as Run-Time Parameters.

   A Data Format of each component
       . All other letters MUST Run-time Parameter SHALL be lowercase, even for acronyms.
       Exceptions are made for acronyms containing a mixture specified in this
   column, to simplify the control and implementation of
       lowercase measurement
   devices.

   Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement
   point designations, start times and capital letters, such as 'IPv4' end times for measurement, and 'IPv6'."

   4.  "MUST use '_' between each component composing
   other information essential to the Registered
       Performance Metric name."

   5.  "MUST start with prefix Act_ for method of measurement.

7.3.6.  Role

   In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined
   e.g. on a one-way packet delay active measurement, there is one
   measurement Registered
       Performance Metric."

   6.  "MUST start with prefix Pass_ for passive monitoring Registered
       Performance Metric."  AL COMMENTS: how about just 3 letters agent that generates the packets and the other one that
   receives the packets.  This column contains the name of the role for
       consistency: "Pas_"

   7.  The remaining rules
   this particular entry.  In the previous example, there should be two
   entries int he registry, one for naming are left each role, so that when a
   measurement agent is instructed to perform the Performance
       Experts one way delay source
   metric know that it is supposed to determine as they gather experience, so generate packets.  The values for
   this is an
       area field are defined in the reference method of planned update by measurement.

7.4.  Output Category

   For entries which involve a future RFC.

   An example is "Act_UDP_Latency_Poisson_99mean" for stream and many singleton measurements, a active
   monitoring UDP latency metric using
   statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to
   a Poisson stream single value.  If the complete set of packets and
   producing measured singletons is
   output, this will be specified here.

   Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the 99th percentile mean as output.

   >>>> NEED passive naming examples.

7.3.  URI

   The URI reference metric
   definition, while others allow several output types or statistics.

7.4.1.  Value

   This column MUST contain a URI [RFC 3986] the name of the output type.  The output type
   defines the type of result that uniquely identified the metric. metric produces.  It can be the
   raw results or it can be some form of statistic.  The URI is specification
   of the output type must define the format of the output.  In some
   systems, format specifications will simplify both measurement
   implementation and collection/storage tasks.  Note that if two
   different statistics are required from a URN [RFC 2141].  The URI single measurement (for
   example, both "Xth percentile mean" and "Raw"), then a new output
   type must be defined ("Xth percentile mean AND Raw").

7.4.2.  Data Format

   This column provides the data format for the output.  It is automatically
   generated by prepending provided
   to simplify the prefix urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric: communication with collection systems and
   implementation of measurement devices.

7.4.3.  Reference

   This column contains a pointer to the metric name.  The resulting URI specification where the output
   type is defined

7.4.4.  Metric Units

   The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension
   or units of measure.  This column provides the units.

   When a sample of singletons (see [RFC2330] for definitions of these
   terms) is globally unique.

7.4. collected, this entry will specify the units for each
   measured value.

7.5.  Admisnitratvie information

7.5.1.  Status

   The status of the specification of this Registered Performance
   Metric.  Allowed values are 'current' and 'deprecated'.  All newly
   defined Information Elements have 'current' status.

7.5.

7.5.2.  Requester

   The requester for the Registered Performance Metric.  The requester
   MAY be a document, such as RFC, or person.

7.6.

7.5.3.  Revision

   The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric, starting at 0
   for Registered Performance Metrics at time of definition and
   incremented by one for each revision.

7.7.

7.5.4.  Revision Date

   The date of acceptance or the most recent revision for the Registered
   Performance Metric.

7.8.  Description

   A Registered Performance Metric Description is a written
   representation of a particular Registry entry.  It supplements the
   metric name to help Registry users select relevant Registered
   Performance Metrics.

7.9.  Reference Specification(s)

   Registry entries that follow the common columns must provide the
   reference specification(s) on

7.6.  Comments and Remarks

   Besides providing additional details which the Registered Performance Metric
   is based. do not appear in other
   categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen
   issues to be addressed by simply updating this Informational entry.

8.  The Life-Cycle of Registered Metrics

   Once a Performance Metric or set of Performance Metrics has been
   identified for a given application, candidate Registry entry
   specifications in accordance with Section X 7 are submitted to IANA to
   follow the process for review by the Performance Metric Experts, as
   defined below.  This process is also used for other changes to the
   Performance Metric Registry, such as deprecation or revision, as
   described later in this section.

   It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Registry entry
   seek review in the relevant IETF working group, or offer the
   opportunity for review on the WG mailing list.

8.1.  The Process for Review by the  Adding new Performance Metric Experts Metrics to the Registry

   Requests to change Registered Metrics in the Performance Metric
   Registry or a linked sub-registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to a
   designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed by
   the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review
   RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry.  The
   Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as
   compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable
   Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently
   defined set of Registered Performance Metrics.

   Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in
   this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA.

   The Performance Metric Experts should endeavor to complete referred
   reviews in a timely manner.  If the request is acceptable, the
   Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, which
   changes the Performance Metric Registry.  If the request is not
   acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts can coordinate with the
   requester to change the request to be compliant.  The Performance
   Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject
   clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright.

   This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the
   Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus.  Specifically,
   any Registered Metrics that were added with IETF consensus require
   IETF consensus for revision or deprecation.

   Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in
   Section 7 of RFC5226.

8.2.  Revising Registered Performance Metrics

   A request for Revision is ONLY permissible when the changes maintain
   backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Registry
   entry describing a Registered Metric (entries with lower revision
   numbers, but the same Identifier and Name).

   The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metric Registry is
   to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Metric is 'current' or
   'deprecated'.

   In addition, no policy is defined for revising IANA Performance
   Metric entries or addressing errors therein.  To be certain, changes
   and deprecations within the Performance Metric Registry are not
   encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent possible.  However,
   in recognition that change is inevitable, the provisions of this
   section address the need for revisions.

   Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance
   Metric definition to IANA, as in Section X, identifying the existing
   Registry entry.

   The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing
   changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of
   interoperability problems; Performance Metric Experts must work to
   maintain interoperability above all else.  Changes to Registered
   Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way;
   necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow
   interoperability with unchanged implementations must result in the
   creation of a new Registered Metric and possibly the deprecation of
   the earlier metric.

   A change to a Registered Performance Metric is held to be backward-
   compatible only when:

   1.  "it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only
       editorial; or"

   2.  "it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's
       definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent
       the Registered Performance Metric's usage as originally defined;
       or"

   3.  "it corrects missing information in the metric definition without
       changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity'
       semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics
       value); or"

   4.  "it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself
       corrected."

   5.  "BENOIT: NOTE THAT THERE ARE MORE RULES IN RFC 7013 SECTION 5 BUT
       THEY WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE ACTIVE/PASSIVE DRAFTS.  TO BE
       DISCUSSED."

   If a change is deemed permissible by the Performance Metric Experts,
   IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry.  The
   requester of the change is appended to the requester in the Registry.

   Each Registered Performance Metric in the Registry has a revision
   number, starting at zero.  Each change to a Registered Performance
   Metric following this process increments the revision number by one.

   COMMENT: Al (and Phil) think we should keep old/revised entries as-
   is, marked as deprecated >>>> Since any revision must be inter-
   operable according to the criteria above, there is no need for the
   Performance Metric Registry to store information about old revisions.

   When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the
   Performance Metric Registry, the date of acceptance of the most
   recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the
   Registry for that Registered Performance Metric.

   Where applicable, additions to Registry entries in the form of text
   Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such additions may
   not constitute a revision according to this process.

8.3.  Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics

   Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered
   Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation.  A Registered
   Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when:

   1.  "the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or
       shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in
       Section Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or"

   2.  "the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was
       itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation
       method; or"

   A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the
   Performance Metric Expert for review, as in Section 'The Process for
   Review by the Performance Metric Experts'.  When deprecating an
   Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the
   Performance Metric Registry must be updated to explain the
   deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics
   created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric.

   The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented
   upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any
   revision.

   The use of deprecated Registered Metrics should result in a log entry
   or human-readable warning by the respective application.

   Names and Metric ID of deprecated Registered Metrics must not be
   reused.

9.  Performance Metric Registry and other Registries

   BENOIT: TBD.

   THE BASIC IDEA IS THAT PEOPLE COULD DIRECTLY DEFINE PERF.  METRICS IN
   OTHER EXISTING REGISTRIES, FOR SPECIFIC PROTOCOL/ENCODING.  EXAMPLE:
   IPFIX.  IDEALLY, ALL PERF.  METRICS SHOULD BE DEFINED IN THIS
   REGISTRY AND REFERS TO FROM OTHER REGISTRIES.

10.  Security considerations

   This draft doesn't introduce any new security considerations for the
   Internet.  However, the definition of Performance Metrics may
   introduce some security concerns, and should be reviewed with
   security in mind.

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics
   Registry setup.  IANA is requested to create a new Registry for
   Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics".

   This Performance Metrics Registry contains two sub registries once
   for active and another one for Passive Performance Metrics.  These
   sub registries are not defined in this document.  However, these two
   sub registries MUST contain Metrics" with the common
   columns defined in Section 7.

   New assignments for Performance Metric Registry will be administered
   by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a
   group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, appointed by the
   IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors.  The
   experts will initially be drawn from the Working Group Chairs and
   document editors of the Performance Metrics Directorate [performance-
   metrics-directorate].

   This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix
   urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric for the purpose of generating URIs for
   registered metrics.

12.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading
   some brainstorming sessions on this topic.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2330]  Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
              "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
              1998.

   [RFC4148]  Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
              Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC6248]  Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics
              (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, April
              2011.

   [RFC6390]  Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
              Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
              October 2011.

   [RFC6576]  Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP
              Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing",
              BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
              3986, January 2005.

   [RFC2141]  Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.

13.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3611]  Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
              Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November
              2003.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC6035]  Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich,
              "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice
              Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
              Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
              Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for large-scale
              measurement platforms (LMAP)", draft-ietf-lmap-
              framework-07
              framework-08 (work in progress), June August 2014.

   [RFC5477]  Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
              Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
              RFC 5477, March 2009.

   [RFC5102]  Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J.
              Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export",
              RFC 5102, January 2008.

   [RFC6792]  Wu, Q., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use of the
              RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792, November 2012.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
              Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.

   [RFC3393]  Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
              Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
              November 2002.

   [RFC6776]  Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information
              Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an
              RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776, October 2012.

   [RFC7003]  Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol
              (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap Discard
              Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, September 2013.

   [RFC3432]  Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
              performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
              November 2002.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC5481]  Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
              Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.

Authors' Addresses

   Marcelo Bagnulo
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad 30
   Leganes, Madrid  28911
   SPAIN

   Phone: 34 91 6249500
   Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
   URI:   http://www.it.uc3m.es

   Benoit Claise
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De Kleetlaan 6a b1
   1831 Diegem
   Belgium

   Email: bclaise@cisco.com

   Philip Eardley
   British Telecom
   BT
   Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich
   ENGLAND

   Email: philip.eardley@bt.com

   Al Morton
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue South
   Middletown, NJ
   USA

   Email: acmorton@att.com
   Aamer Akhter
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   RTP, NC 27709
   USA

   Email: aakhter@cisco.com