draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-03.txt 
Network Working Group M. Bagnulo Network Working Group M. Bagnulo
Internet-Draft UC3M Internet-Draft UC3M
Intended status: Best Current Practice B. Claise Intended status: Best Current Practice B. Claise
Expires: August 20, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: January 7, 2016 Cisco Systems, Inc.
P. Eardley P. Eardley
BT BT
A. Morton A. Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
A. Akhter A. Akhter
Cisco Systems, Inc. Consultant
February 16, 2015 July 6, 2015
Registry for Performance Metrics Registry for Performance Metrics
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-02 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-03
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This document defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics.
This document also gives a set of guidelines for Registered This document also gives a set of guidelines for Registered
Performance Metric requesters and reviewers. Performance Metric requesters and reviewers.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . 6 5. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics . . . . 7 5.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics . . . . 8
5.3. Side benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Side benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration . . . . . . . . 8 6. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration . . . . . . . . 8
7. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Defintion of the Performance Metric Registry . . . . . . . . 10 8. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Summary Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. Summary Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1.1. Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1.1. Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1.2. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1.2. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1.3. URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1.3. URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1.4. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1.4. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Metric Definition Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. Metric Definition Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3. Method of Measurement Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.3. Method of Measurement Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.3.1. Reference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.3.1. Reference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.3.2. Packet Generation Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.3.2. Packet Generation Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.3.3. Traffic Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.3.3. Traffic Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.3.4. Sampling distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.3.4. Sampling Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.3.5. Run-time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.3.5. Run-time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3.6. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.3.6. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.4. Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.4. Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.4.1. Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.4.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.4.2. Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.4.2. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.5. Administrative information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.5. Administrative information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. The Life-Cycle of Registered Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. The Life-Cycle of Registered Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Registry . . . . . 17 9.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Registry . . . . . 18
9.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 19
9.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 20 9.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 20
10. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Open Issues 1. Open Issues
1. Define the Filter column subcolumns, i.e. how filters are 1. Define the Filter column subcolumns, i.e. how filters are
expressed. expressed.
2. Need to include an example for a name for a passive metric 2. Need to include an example for a passive metric
3. Shall we remove the definitions of active and passive? If we 3. Shall we remove the definitions of active and passive? If we
remove it, shall we keep all the related comments in the draft? remove it, shall we keep all the related comments in the draft?
4. URL: should we include a URL link in each registry entry with a 4. 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 URL specific to the entry that links to a different text page
that contains all the details of the registry entry as in that contains all the details of the registry entry as in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml- http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-
registry.xhtml#ns registry.xhtml#ns
5. As discussed between Marcelo and Benoit, modify "defines" in the
Parameter definition. Reasoning: the distinction between a new
performance metric and a parameter is not clear. If it's defined
as a variable, is it a new perf metric? "All Parameters must be
known to measure using a metric": well, if it's a new perf
metric, we don't have the problem. And state what the parameter
is the example.
6. As discussed between Marcelo and Benoit, can we find a Parameter
for passive monitoring? The sampling distribution is a fixed
Parameter, right? Because it's needed "to interpret the
results", as mentioned in the Parameter definition.
7. We miss a new Parameter section that explains the link between
Parameters, Fixed Parameters, Run-time Parameters, and
potentially stream parameters. We must also add in this section
that "Differences in values for a fixed parameters implies a new
registry entries"
8. The double definitions are annoying: Registered Performance
Metric = Registered Metric, and Performance Metrics Registry =
Registry. I (Benoit) am in favor to only keep a single
definition (the longest one), and be consistent
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and
applications transported over its protocols. Performance metrics are applications transported over its protocols. Performance metrics are
such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that
[RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development. [RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development.
The definition and use of Performance Metrics in the IETF happens in The definition and use of Performance Metrics in the IETF happens in
various working groups (WG), most notably: various working groups (WG), most notably:
skipping to change at page 4, line 9 skipping to change at page 4, line 30
to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611], to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611],
which establishes a framework to allow new information to be which establishes a framework to allow new information to be
conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined
in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
[RFC3550]. [RFC3550].
The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance
Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking
technologies. technologies.
The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) WG Information elements The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) concluded WG specified an
related to Performance Metrics are currently proposed. IANA process for new Information Elements. Some Performance
Metrics related Information Elements are proposed on regular
basis.
The "Performance Metrics for Other Layers" (PMOL) concluded WG, The "Performance Metrics for Other Layers" (PMOL) concluded WG,
defined some Performance Metrics related to Session Initiation defined some Performance Metrics related to Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035]. Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035].
It is expected that more Performance Metrics will be defined in the It is expected that more Performance Metrics will be defined in the
future, not only IP-based metrics, but also metrics which are future, not only IP-based metrics, but also metrics which are
protocol-specific and application-specific. protocol-specific and application-specific.
However, despite the importance of Performance Metrics, there are two However, despite the importance of Performance Metrics, there are two
related problems for the industry. First, how to ensure that when related problems for the industry. First, how to ensure that when
one party requests another party to measure (or report or in some way one party requests another party to measure (or report or in some way
act on) a particular Performance Metric, then both parties have act on) a particular Performance Metric, then both parties have
exactly the same understanding of what Performance Metric is being exactly the same understanding of what Performance Metric is being
referred to. Second, how to discover which Performance Metrics have referred to. Second, how to discover which Performance Metrics have
been specified, so as to avoid developing new Performance Metric that been specified, so as to avoid developing new Performance Metric that
is very similar. The problems can be addressed by creating a is very similar, but not quite inter-operable. The problems can be
registry of performance metrics. The usual way in which IETF addressed by creating a registry of performance metrics. The usual
organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned Numbers Authority way in which IETF organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned
(IANA) registries, and there is currently no Performance Metrics Numbers Authority (IANA) registries, and there is currently no
Registry maintained by the IANA. Performance Metrics Registry maintained by the IANA.
This document therefore creates a Performance Metrics Registry. It This document therefore creates an IANA-maintained Performance
also provides best practices on how to specify new entries or update Metrics Registry. It also provides best practices on how to specify
ones in the Performance Metrics Registry. new entries or update ones in the Performance Metrics Registry.
3. Terminology 3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure
of performance, targeted to an IETF-specified protocol or targeted of performance, targeted to an IETF-specified protocol or targeted
skipping to change at page 5, line 19 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
defined in this document in order to included in the registry. defined in this document in order to included in the registry.
Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing
Registered Performance Metrics. In this document, it is also Registered Performance Metrics. In this document, it is also
called simply "Registry". called simply "Registry".
Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a
proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry. proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry.
Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a
group of experts selected by the IESG to validate the Performance group of designated experts [RFC5226] selected by the IESG to
Metrics before updating the Performance Metrics Registry. The validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance
Performance Metrics Experts work closely with IANA. Metrics Registry. The Performance Metrics Experts work closely
with IANA.
Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition
of a metric. A numerical or other specified factor forming one of of a Performance Metric. A numerical or other specified factor
a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions of its forming one of a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions
operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a metric of its operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a
and interpret the results. Although Parameters do not change the metric and interpret the results. Although Parameters do not
fundamental nature of the metric's definition, some have change the fundamental nature of the Performance Metric's
substantial influence on the network property being assessed and definition, some have substantial influence on the network
interpretation of the results. property being assessed and interpretation of the results.
Consider the case of packet loss in the following two active Note: Consider the case of packet loss in the following two
measurement cases. The first case is packet loss as background Active Measurement Method cases. The first case is packet loss
loss where the parameter set includes a very sparse Poisson as background loss where the parameter set includes a very
stream, and only characterizes the times when packets were sparse Poisson stream, and only characterizes the times when
lost. Actual user streams likely see much higher loss at these packets were lost. Actual user streams likely see much higher
times, due to tail drop or radio errors. The second case is loss at these times, due to tail drop or radio errors. The
packet loss as inverse of Throughput where the parameter set second case is packet loss as inverse of throughput where the
includes a very dense, bursty stream, and characterizes the parameter set includes a very dense, bursty stream, and
loss experienced by a stream that approximates a user stream. characterizes the loss experienced by a stream that
These are both "loss metrics", but the difference in approximates a user stream. These are both "loss metrics", but
interpretation of the results is highly dependent on the the difference in interpretation of the results is highly
Parameters (at least), to the extreme where we are actually dependent on the Parameters (at least), to the extreme where we
using loss to infer its compliment: delivered throughput. are actually using loss to infer its compliment: delivered
throughput.
Active Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on Active Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on
traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is
generated for that reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics generated for that reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics
are known a priori. Examples of Active Measurement Methods are are known a priori. Examples of Active Measurement Methods are
the the measurement methods for the One way delay metric defined the measurement methods for the One way delay metric defined in
in [RFC2679] and the one for round trip delay defined in [RFC2679] and the one for round trip delay defined in [RFC2681].
[RFC2681].
Passive Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on Passive Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on
network traffic, generated either from the end users or from network traffic, generated either from the end users or from
network elements. One characteristic of Passive Measurement network elements. One characteristic of Passive Measurement
Methods is that sensitive information may be observed, and as a Methods is that sensitive information may be observed, and as a
consequence, stored in the measurement system. consequence, stored in the measurement system.
Hybrid Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement which use a
combination of Active Measurement and Passive Measurement methods.
4. Scope 4. Scope
This document is meant for two different audiences. For those This document is meant for two different audiences. For those
defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides
specifications and best practices to be used in deciding which specifications and best practices to be used in deciding which
Registered Metrics are useful for a measurement study, instructions Registered Metrics are useful for a measurement study, instructions
for writing the text for each column of the Registered Metrics, and for writing the text for each column of the Registered Metrics, and
information on the supporting documentation required for the new information on the supporting documentation required for the new
Registry entry (up to and including the publication of one or more Registry entry (up to and including the publication of one or more
RFCs or I-Ds describing it). For the appointed Performance Metrics RFCs or I-Ds describing it). For the appointed Performance Metrics
Experts and for IANA personnel administering the new IANA Performance Experts and for IANA personnel administering the new IANA Performance
Metric Registry, it defines a set of acceptance criteria against Metric Registry, it defines a set of acceptance criteria against
which these proposed Registry Entries should be evaluated. which these proposed Registered Performance Metrics should be
evaluated.
This document specifies a Performance Metrics Registry in IANA. This This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics
Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other
issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, from end-point form of Performance Metric. This registry is designed to encompass
calculation or any other form of Performance Metric. This registry Performance Metrics developed throughout the IETF and especially for
is designed to encompass Performance Metrics developed throughout the the technologies specified in the following working groups: IPPM,
IETF and especially for the following existing working groups: IPPM,
XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an prior attempt to XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an prior attempt to
set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design
was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of
guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate
Registered Performance Metrics. Registered Performance Metrics.
This document makes no attempt to populate the Registry with initial This document makes no attempt to populate the Registry with initial
entries. It does provides a few examples that are merely entries. It does provides a few examples that are merely
illustrations and should not be included in the registry at this illustrations and should not be included in the registry at this
point in time. point in time.
skipping to change at page 7, line 23 skipping to change at page 7, line 44
o Control protocol: this type of protocols is used to allow one o Control protocol: this type of protocols is used to allow one
entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using a entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using a
specific metric defined by the Registry. One particular example specific metric defined by the Registry. One particular example
is the LMAP framework [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]. Using the LMAP is the LMAP framework [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]. Using the LMAP
terminology, the Registry is used in the LMAP Control protocol to terminology, the Registry is used in the LMAP Control protocol to
allow a Controller to request a measurement task to one or more allow a Controller to request a measurement task to one or more
Measurement Agents. In order to enable this use case, the entries Measurement Agents. In order to enable this use case, the entries
of the Performance Metric Registry must be well enough defined to of the Performance Metric Registry must be well enough defined to
allow a Measurement Agent implementation to trigger a specific allow a Measurement Agent implementation to trigger a specific
measurement task upon the reception of a control protocol message. measurement task upon the reception of a control protocol message.
This requirements heavily constrains the type of entries that are This requirement heavily constrains the type of entries that are
acceptable for the Performance Metric Registry. acceptable for the Performance Metric Registry.
o Report protocol: This type of protocols is used to allow an entity o Report protocol: This type of protocols is used to allow an entity
to report measurement results to another entity. By referencing to report measurement results to another entity. By referencing
to a specific Performance Metric Registry, it is possible to to a specific Performance Metric Registry, it is possible to
properly characterize the measurement result data being properly characterize the measurement result data being reported.
transferred. Using the LMAP terminology, the Registry is used in Using the LMAP terminology, the Registry is used in the Report
the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report measurement
measurement results to a Collector. results to a Collector.
5.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics 5.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics
A Registry for Performance Metrics serves as a single point of A Performance Metrics Registry serves as a single point of reference
reference for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups in the
in the IETF. As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that IETF. As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that define
define Performance Metrics in the IETF and it is hard to keep track Performance Metrics in the IETF and it is hard to keep track of all
of all them. This results in multiple definitions of similar metrics them. This results in multiple definitions of similar Performance
that attempt to measure the same phenomena but in slightly different Metrics that attempt to measure the same phenomena but in slightly
(and incompatible) ways. Having a Registry would allow both the IETF different (and incompatible) ways. Having a Registry would allow
community and external people to have a single list of relevant both the IETF community and external people to have a single list of
Performance Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where relevant Performance Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where
appropriate). The single list is also an essential aspect of appropriate). The single list is also an essential aspect of
communication about metrics, where different entities that request communication about Performance Metrics, where different entities
measurements, execute measurements, and report the results can that request measurements, execute measurements, and report the
benefit from a common understanding of the referenced metric. results can benefit from a common understanding of the referenced
Performance Metric.
5.3. Side benefits 5.3. Side benefits
There are a couple of side benefits of having such a Registry. There are a couple of side benefits of having such a Registry.
First, the Registry could serve as an inventory of useful and used First, the Registry could serve as an inventory of useful and used
metrics, that are normally supported by different implementations of Performance Metrics, that are normally supported by different
measurement agents. Second, the results of measurements using the implementations of measurement agents. Second, the results of
metrics would be comparable even if they are performed by different measurements using the Performance Metrics would be comparable even
implementations and in different networks, as the metric is properly if they are performed by different implementations and in different
defined. BCP 176 [RFC6576] examines whether the results produced by networks, as the Performance Metric is properly defined. BCP 176
independent implementations are equivalent in the context of [RFC6576] examines whether the results produced by independent
evaluating the completeness and clarity of metric specifications. implementations are equivalent in the context of evaluating the
This BCP defines the standards track advancement testing for (active) completeness and clarity of metric specifications. This BCP defines
IPPM metrics, and the same process will likely suffice to determine the standards track advancement testing for (active) IPPM metrics,
whether Registry entries are sufficiently well specified to result in and the same process will likely suffice to determine whether
comparable (or equivalent) results. Registry entries which have Registered Performance Metrics are sufficiently well specified to
undergone such testing SHOULD be noted, with a reference to the test result in comparable (or equivalent) results. Registered Performance
results. Metrics which have undergone such testing SHOULD be noted, with a
reference to the test results.
6. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration 6. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration
It is neither possible nor desirable to populate the Registry with It is neither possible nor desirable to populate the Registry with
all combinations of input parameters of all Performance Metrics. The all combinations of Parameters of all Performance Metrics. The
Registered Performance Metrics should be: Registered Performance Metrics should be:
1. interpretable by the user. 1. interpretable by the user.
2. implementable by the software designer, 2. implementable by the software designer,
3. deployable by network operators,
3. deployable by network operators, without major impact on the
networks,
4. accurate, for interoperability and deployment across vendors, 4. accurate, for interoperability and deployment across vendors,
5. Operationally useful, so that it has significant industry 5. Operationally useful, so that it has significant industry
interest and/or has seen deployment, interest and/or has seen deployment,
6. Sufficiently tightly defined, so that different values for the 6. Sufficiently tightly defined, so that different values for the
Run-time Parameters does not change the fundamental nature of the Run-time Parameters does not change the fundamental nature of the
measurement, nor change the practicality of its implementation. measurement, nor change the practicality of its implementation.
In essence, there needs to be evidence that a candidate Registry In essence, there needs to be evidence that a candidate Registered
entry has significant industry interest, or has seen deployment, and Performance Metric has significant industry interest, or has seen
there is agreement that the candidate Registered Metric serves its deployment, and there is agreement that the candidate Registered
intended purpose. Performance Metric serves its intended purpose.
7. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt 7. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt
There was a previous attempt to define a metric registry RFC 4148 There was a previous attempt to define a metric registry RFC 4148
[RFC4148]. However, it was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because [RFC4148]. However, it was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because
it was "found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM it was "found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM
metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when
characterizing a metric exactly" which led to the RFC4148 registry characterizing a metric exactly" which led to the RFC4148 registry
having "very few users, if any". having "very few users, if any".
skipping to change at page 9, line 29 skipping to change at page 9, line 44
Stream parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metrics Stream parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metrics
Registry." Registry."
2. "The registry structure has been found to be insufficiently 2. "The registry structure has been found to be insufficiently
detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics." detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics."
3. "Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, 3. "Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users,
no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148 no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148
registry during the second half of 2010." registry during the second half of 2010."
The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each entry The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each
in the registry with only a few variable (Run-time) Parameters to be Registered Performance Metric with only a few variable (Run-time)
specified by the measurement designer, if any. The idea is that Parameters to be specified by the measurement designer, if any. The
entries in the Registry stem from different measurement methods which idea is that entries in the Registry stem from different measurement
require input (Run-time) parameters to set factors like source and methods which require input (Run-time) parameters to set factors like
destination addresses (which do not change the fundamental nature of source and destination addresses (which do not change the fundamental
the measurement). The downside of this approach is that it could nature of the measurement). The downside of this approach is that it
result in a large number of entries in the Registry. There is could result in a large number of entries in the Registry. There is
agreement that less is more in this context - it is better to have a agreement that less is more in this context - it is better to have a
reduced set of useful metrics rather than a large set of metrics, reduced set of useful metrics rather than a large set of metrics,
some with with questionable usefulness. Therefore this document some with with questionable usefulness.
defines that the Registry only includes metrics that are well defined
and that have proven to be operationally useful. In order to assure
these two characteristics, a set of experts are required to review
the allocation request to verify that the metric is well defined and
it is operationally useful.
7.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed 7.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed
The Registry defined in this document addresses the main issues As mentioned in the previous section, one of the main issues with the
identified in the previous attempt. As we mention in the previous previous registry was that the metrics contained in the registry were
section, one of the main issues with the previous registry was that too generic to be useful. This document specifies stricter criteria
the metrics contained in the registry were too generic to be useful. for performance metric registration (see section 6), and imposes a
In this Registry, the Registry requests are evaluated by an expert group of Performance Metrics Experts that will provide guidelines to
group, the Performance Metrics Experts, who will make sure that the assess if a Performance Metric is properly specified.
metric is properly defined. This document provides guidelines to
assess if a metric is properly defined.
Another key difference between this attempt and the previous one is 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: that in this case there is at least one clear user for the Registry:
the LMAP framework and protocol. Because the LMAP protocol will use the LMAP framework and protocol. Because the LMAP protocol will use
the Registry values in its operation, this actually helps to the Registry values in its operation, this actually helps to
determine if a metric is properly defined. In particular, since we determine if a metric is properly defined. In particular, since we
expect that the LMAP control protocol will enable a controller to expect that the LMAP control protocol will enable a controller to
request a measurement agent to perform a measurement using a given request a measurement agent to perform a measurement using a given
metric by embedding the Performance Metric Registry value in the metric by embedding the Performance Metric Registry value in the
protocol, a metric is properly specified if it is defined well-enough protocol, a metric is properly specified if it is defined well-enough
so that it is possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the so that it is possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the
measurement agent. This was the failure of the previous attempt: a measurement agent. This was the failure of the previous attempt: a
registry entry with an undefined Type-P (section 13 of RFC 2330 registry entry with an undefined Type-P (section 13 of RFC 2330
[RFC2330]) allows implementation to be ambiguous. [RFC2330]) allows implementation to be ambiguous.
8. Defintion of the Performance Metric Registry 8. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry
In this section we define the columns of the Performance Metric In this section we define the columns of the Performance Metric
Registry. This registry will contain all Registered Performance Registry. This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to
Metrics including active, passive, hybrid, endpoint metrics and any Performance Metrics issued from Active Measurement, Passive
other type of performance metric that can be envisioned. Because of Measurement, and any other form of Performance Metric. Because of
that, it may be the case that some of the columns defined are not that, it may be the case that some of the columns defined are not
applicable for a given type of metric. If this is the case, the applicable for a given type of metric. If this is the case, the
column(s) SHOULD be populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable). column(s) SHOULD be populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable).
However, the "NA" value MUST NOT be used by any metric in the However, the "NA" value MUST NOT be used by any metric in the
following columns: Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester, following columns: Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester,
Revision, Revision Date, Description and Reference Specification. Revision, Revision Date, Description. In addition, it may be
Moreover, In addition, it may be possible that in the future, a new possible that, in the future, a new type of metric requires
type of metric requires additional columns. Should that be the case, additional columns. Should that be the case, it is possible to add
it is possible to add new columns to the registry. The specification new columns to the registry. The specification defining the new
defining the new column(s) must define how to populate the new column(s) must define how to populate the new column(s) for existing
column(s) for existing entries. entries.
The columns of the Performance Metric Registry are defined next. The The columns of the Performance Metric Registry are defined next. The
columns are grouped into "Categories" to facilitate the use of the columns are grouped into "Categories" to facilitate the use of the
registry. Categories are described at the 8.x heading level, and registry. Categories are described at the 8.x heading level, and
columns are at the 8.x.y heading level. The Figure below illustrates columns are at the 8.x.y heading level. The Figure below illustrates
this organization. An entry (row) therefore gives a complete this organization. An entry (row) therefore gives a complete
description of a Registered Metric. description of a Registered Metric.
Each column serves as a check-list item and helps to avoid omissions Each column serves as a check-list item and helps to avoid omissions
during registration and expert review. during registration and expert review.
Registry Categories and Columns, shown as Registry Categories and Columns, shown as
Category Category
------------------ ------------------
Column | Column | Column | Column |
Summary Summary
------------------------------- -------------------------------
ID | Name | URI | Description | Identifier | Name | URI | Description |
Metric Definition Metric Definition
----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
Reference Definition | Fixed Parameters | Reference Definition | Fixed Parameters |
Method of Measurement Method of Measurement
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference | Packet | Traffic | Sampling | Run-time | Role | Reference | Packet | Traffic | Sampling | Run-time | Role |
Method | Generation | Filter | dist. | Param | | Method | Generation | Filter | Distribution | Parameters | |
| Stream | | Stream |
Output Output
----------------------------- -----------------------------
| Type | Reference | Units | | Type | Reference | Units |
| | Definition | | | | Definition | |
Administrative information Administrative Information
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date | Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date |
Comments and Remarks Comments and Remarks
-------------------- --------------------
8.1. Summary Category 8.1. Summary Category
8.1.1. Identifier 8.1.1. Identifier
A numeric identifier for the Registered Performance Metric. This A numeric identifier for the Registered Performance Metric. This
identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry. identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry.
The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is a 16-bit The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is a 16-bit
integer (range 0 to 65535). When adding newly Registered Performance integer (range 0 to 65535). When adding newly Registered Performance
skipping to change at page 12, line 19 skipping to change at page 12, line 21
suitable for a given application, it is important to be as precise suitable for a given application, it is important to be as precise
and descriptive as possible. and descriptive as possible.
New names of Registered Performance Metrics: New names of Registered Performance Metrics:
1. "MUST be chosen carefully to describe the Registered Performance 1. "MUST be chosen carefully to describe the Registered Performance
Metric and the context in which it will be used." Metric and the context in which it will be used."
2. "MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry." 2. "MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry."
3. "MUST use capital letters for the first letter of each component 3. "MUST use capital letters for the first letter of each component.
. All other letters MUST be lowercase, even for acronyms. All other letters MUST be lowercase, even for acronyms.
Exceptions are made for acronyms containing a mixture of Exceptions are made for acronyms containing a mixture of
lowercase and capital letters, such as 'IPv4' and 'IPv6'." lowercase and capital letters, such as 'IPv4' and 'IPv6'."
4. MUST use '_' between each component of the Registered Performance 4. MUST use '_' between each component of the Registered Performance
Metric name. Metric name.
5. MUST start with prefix Act_ for active measurement Registered 5. MUST start with prefix Act_ for active measurement Registered
Performance Metric. Performance Metric.
6. MUST start with prefix Pas_ for passive monitoring Registered 6. MUST start with prefix Pas_ for passive monitoring Registered
Performance Metric. Performance Metric.
7. Other types of metrics should define a proper prefix for 7. Other types of Performance Metric should define a proper prefix
identifying the type. for identifying the type.
8. The remaining rules for naming are left for the Performance 8. Some examples of names of passive metrics might be:
Experts to determine as they gather experience, so this is an Pas_L3_L4_Octets (Layer 3 and 4 level accounting of bytes
area of planned update by a future RFC. observed), Pas_DNS_RTT (Round Trip Time of in DNS query response
of observed traffic), and Pas_L3_TCP_RTT (Passively observed
round trip time in TCP handshake organized with L3 addresses)
9. The remaining rules for naming are left for the Performance
Metric Experts to 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 An example is "Act_UDP_Latency_Poisson_99mean" for a active
monitoring UDP latency metric using a Poisson stream of packets and monitoring UDP latency metric using a Poisson stream of packets and
producing the 99th percentile mean as output. producing the 99th percentile mean as output.
8.1.3. URI 8.1.3. URI
The URI column MUST contain a URI [RFC 3986] that uniquely identified The URI column MUST contain a URI [RFC3986] that uniquely identified
the metric. The URI is a URN [RFC 2141]. The URI is automatically the Registered Performance Metric. The URI is a URN [RFC2141]. The
generated by prepending the prefix urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric: to URI is automatically generated by prepending the prefix
the metric name. The resulting URI is globally unique. urn:ietf:params:ippm:metric: to the metric name. The resulting URI
is globally unique.
8.1.4. Description 8.1.4. Description
A Registered Performance Metric Description is a written A Registered Performance Metric description is a written
representation of a particular Registry entry. It supplements the representation of a particular Registry entry. It supplements the
metric name to help Registry users select relevant Registered Registered Performance Metric name to help Registry users select
Performance Metrics. relevant Registered Performance Metrics.
8.2. Metric Definition Category 8.2. Metric Definition Category
This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details
related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and
values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open
in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance
metric. metric.
8.2.1. Reference Definition 8.2.1. Reference Definition
skipping to change at page 13, line 32 skipping to change at page 13, line 40
This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant
section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any
supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition
for implementations. The reference needs to be an immutable for implementations. The reference needs to be an immutable
document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is likely to document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is likely to
be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a
specification. specification.
8.2.2. Fixed Parameters 8.2.2. Fixed Parameters
Fixed Parameters are input factors whose value must be specified in Fixed Parameters are Paremeters whose value must be specified in the
the Registry. The measurement system uses these values. Registry. The measurement system uses these values.
Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated
as Fixed Parameters. For example, for active metrics, Fixed as Fixed Parameters. For example, for active metrics, Fixed
Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention
"packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport "packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport
protocol, payload length, TTL, etc. An example for passive metrics protocol, payload length, TTL, etc. An example for passive metrics
is for RTP packet loss calculation that relies on the validation of a is for RTP packet loss calculation that relies on the validation of a
packet as RTP which is a multi-packet validation controlled by packet as RTP which is a multi-packet validation controlled by
MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550]. Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550]. Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL
skipping to change at page 14, line 23 skipping to change at page 14, line 28
This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s) This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s)
describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental
information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for
implementations referring to the RFC text. implementations referring to the RFC text.
Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or
actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation. actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation.
8.3.2. Packet Generation Stream 8.3.2. Packet Generation Stream
This column applies to metrics that generate traffic for a part of This column applies to Performance Metrics that generate traffic for
their Measurement Method purposes including but not necessarily a part of their Measurement Method purposes including but not
limited to Active metrics. The generated traffic is referred as necessarily limited to Active metrics. The generated traffic is
stream and this columns describe its characteristics. referred as stream and this columns describe its characteristics.
Each entry for this column contains the following information: Each entry for this column contains the following information:
o Value: The name of the packet stream scheduling discipline o Value: The name of the packet stream scheduling discipline
o Stream Parameters: The values and formats of input factors for o Stream Parameters: The values and formats of input factors for
each type of stream. For example, the average packet rate and each type of stream. For example, the average packet rate and
distribution truncation value for streams with Poisson-distributed distribution truncation value for streams with Poisson-distributed
inter-packet sending times. inter-packet sending times.
skipping to change at page 15, line 7 skipping to change at page 15, line 11
measurements in a "sample", with a schedule defining the timing measurements in a "sample", with a schedule defining the timing
between each transmitted packet and subsequent measurement. between each transmitted packet and subsequent measurement.
Principally, two different streams are used in IPPM metrics, Poisson Principally, two different streams are used in IPPM metrics, Poisson
distributed as described in [RFC2330] and Periodic as described in distributed as described in [RFC2330] and Periodic as described in
[RFC3432]. Both Poisson and Periodic have their own unique [RFC3432]. Both Poisson and Periodic have their own unique
parameters, and the relevant set of values is specified in this parameters, and the relevant set of values is specified in this
column. column.
8.3.3. Traffic Filter 8.3.3. Traffic Filter
This column applies to metrics that observe packets flowing through This column applies to Performance Metrics that observe packets
(the device with) the measurement agent i.e. that is not necessarily flowing through (the device with) the measurement agent i.e. that is
addressed to the measurement agent. This includes but is not limited not necessarily addressed to the measurement agent. This includes
to Passive Metrics. The filter specifies the traffic that is but is not limited to Passive Metrics. The filter specifies the
measured. This includes protocol field values/ranges, such as traffic that is measured. This includes protocol field values/
address ranges, and flow or session identifiers. ranges, such as address ranges, and flow or session identifiers.
8.3.4. Sampling distribution The traffic filter itself depends on needs of the metric itself and a
balance of operators measurement needs and user's need for privacy.
Mechanics for conveying the filter criteria might be the BPF (Berkley
Packet Filter) or PSAMP [RFC5475] Property Match Filtering which
reuses IPFIX [RFC7012]. An example BPF string for matching TCP/80
traffic to remote destination net 192.0.2.0/24 would be "dst net
192.0.2.0/24 and tcp dst port 80". More complex filter engines might
be supported by the implementation that might allow for matching
using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology.
8.3.4. Sampling Distribution
The sampling distribution defines out of all the packets that match The sampling distribution defines out of all the packets that match
the traffic filter, which one of those are actually used for the the traffic filter, which one of those are actually used for the
measurement. One possibility is "all" which implies that all packets measurement. One possibility is "all" which implies that all packets
matching the Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other matching the Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other
sampling strategies. It includes the following information: sampling strategies. It includes the following information:
Value: the name of the sampling distribution Value: the name of the sampling distribution
Parameters: if any. Parameters: if any.
Reference definition: pointer to the specification where the Reference definition: pointer to the specification where the
sampling distribution is properly defined. sampling distribution is properly defined.
Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection are
documented in the PSAMP (Packet Sampling) [RFC5475], while the
Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting, [RFC5474] provides more
background information. The sampling distribution parameters might
be expressed in terms of the Information Model for Packet Sampling
Exports, [RFC5477], and the Flow Selection Techniques, [RFC7014].
8.3.5. Run-time Parameters 8.3.5. Run-time Parameters
Run-Time Parameters are input factors that must be determined, Run-Time Parameters are Parameters that must be determined,
configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results
for the context to be complete. However, the values of these for the context to be complete. However, the values of these
parameters is not specified in the Registry, rather these parameters parameters is not specified in the Registry (like the Fixed
are listed as an aid to the measurement system implementor or user Parameters), rather these parameters are listed as an aid to the
(they must be left as variables, and supplied on execution). measurement system implementer or user (they must be left as
variables, and supplied on execution).
Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated
as Run-Time Parameters. as Run-Time Parameters.
Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement
point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and
other information essential to the method of measurement. other information essential to the method of measurement.
8.3.6. Role 8.3.6. Role
In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined
e.g. on a one-way packet delay active measurement, there is one e.g. on a one-way packet delay active measurement, there is one
measurement agent that generates the packets and the other one that measurement agent that generates the packets and the other one that
receives the packets. This column contains the name of the role for receives the packets. This column contains the name of the role for
this particular entry. In the previous example, there should be two this particular entry. In the previous example, there should be two
entries int he registry, one for each role, so that when a entries in the registry, one for each role, so that when a
measurement agent is instructed to perform the one way delay source measurement agent is instructed to perform the one way delay source
metric know that it is supposed to generate packets. The values for metric know that it is supposed to generate packets. The values for
this field are defined in the reference method of measurement. this field are defined in the reference method of measurement.
8.4. Output Category 8.4. Output Category
For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a
statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to
a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is
output, this will be specified here. output, this will be specified here.
Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric
definition, while others allow several output types or statistics. definition, while others allow several output types or statistics.
8.4.1. Value 8.4.1. Type
This column contain the name of the output type. The output type This column contain the name of the output type. The output type
defines the type of result that the metric produces. It can be the defines the type of result that the metric produces. It can be the
raw results or it can be some form of statistic. The specification raw results or it can be some form of statistic. The specification
of the output type must define the format of the output. In some of the output type must define the format of the output. In some
systems, format specifications will simplify both measurement systems, format specifications will simplify both measurement
implementation and collection/storage tasks. Note that if two implementation and collection/storage tasks. Note that if two
different statistics are required from a single measurement (for different statistics are required from a single measurement (for
example, both "Xth percentile mean" and "Raw"), then a new output example, both "Xth percentile mean" and "Raw"), then a new output
type must be defined ("Xth percentile mean AND Raw"). type must be defined ("Xth percentile mean AND Raw").
8.4.2. Reference 8.4.2. Reference Definition
This column contains a pointer to the specification where the output This column contains a pointer to the specification where the output
type is defined type is defined
8.4.3. Metric Units 8.4.3. Metric Units
The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension
or units of measure. This column provides the units. or units of measure. This column provides the units.
When a sample of singletons (see [RFC2330] for definitions of these When a sample of singletons (see [RFC2330] for definitions of these
skipping to change at page 18, line 44 skipping to change at page 19, line 24
'deprecated'. 'deprecated'.
In addition, no policy is defined for revising IANA Performance In addition, no policy is defined for revising IANA Performance
Metric entries or addressing errors therein. To be certain, changes Metric entries or addressing errors therein. To be certain, changes
and deprecations within the Performance Metric Registry are not and deprecations within the Performance Metric Registry are not
encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent possible. However, encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent possible. However,
in recognition that change is inevitable, the provisions of this in recognition that change is inevitable, the provisions of this
section address the need for revisions. section address the need for revisions.
Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance
Metric definition to IANA, as in Section X, identifying the existing Metric definition to IANA, as in Section 8, identifying the existing
Registry entry. Registry entry.
The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing
changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of
interoperability problems; Performance Metric Experts must work to interoperability problems; Performance Metric Experts must work to
maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to Registered maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to Registered
Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way; Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way;
necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow
interoperability with unchanged implementations must result in the interoperability with unchanged implementations must result in the
creation of a new Registered Metric and possibly the deprecation of creation of a new Registered Metric and possibly the deprecation of
skipping to change at page 19, line 36 skipping to change at page 20, line 17
If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the
Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document, Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document,
IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry. The IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry. The
requester of the change is appended to the requester in the Registry. requester of the change is appended to the requester in the Registry.
Each Registered Performance Metric in the Registry has a revision Each Registered Performance Metric in the Registry has a revision
number, starting at zero. Each change to a Registered Performance number, starting at zero. Each change to a Registered Performance
Metric following this process increments the revision number by one. 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 When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the
Performance Metric Registry, the date of acceptance of the most Performance Metric Registry, the date of acceptance of the most
recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the
Registry for that Registered Performance Metric. Registry for that Registered Performance Metric.
Where applicable, additions to Registry entries in the form of text Where applicable, additions to Registered Performance Metrics in the
Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such additions may form of text Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such
not constitute a revision according to this process. additions may not constitute a revision according to this process.
Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the
registry for archival purposes. The older entries are kept with all registry for archival purposes. The older entries are kept with all
fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status
field that is changed to "Deprecated". field that is changed to "Deprecated".
9.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics 9.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics
Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered
Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A Registered Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A Registered
skipping to change at page 20, line 22 skipping to change at page 20, line 46
1. "the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or 1. "the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or
shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in
Section Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or" Section Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or"
2. "the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was 2. "the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was
itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation
method; or" method; or"
A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the
Performance Metric Expert for review, as in Section 'The Process for Performance Metric Expert for review. When deprecating an
Review by the Performance Metric Experts'. When deprecating an
Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the
Performance Metric Registry must be updated to explain the Performance Metric Registry must be updated to explain the
deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics
created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric. created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric.
The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented
upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any
revision. revision.
The use of deprecated Registered Metrics should result in a log entry The use of deprecated Registered Metrics should result in a log entry
or human-readable warning by the respective application. or human-readable warning by the respective application.
Names and Metric ID of deprecated Registered Metrics must not be Names and Metric ID of deprecated Registered Metrics must not be
reused. reused.
Deprecated metric entries are kept in the registry for archival The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified, except
purposes. The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified the version, revision date, and the status field (changed to
(version, revision date) except for the status field that is changed "Deprecated").
to "Deprecated".
10. Security considerations 10. Security considerations
This draft doesn't introduce any new security considerations for the This draft doesn't introduce any new security considerations for the
Internet. However, the definition of Performance Metrics may Internet. However, the definition of Performance Metrics may
introduce some security concerns, and should be reviewed with introduce some security concerns, and should be reviewed with
security in mind. security in mind.
11. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 21, line 37 skipping to change at page 22, line 14
12. Acknowledgments 12. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading
some brainstorming sessions on this topic. some brainstorming sessions on this topic.
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
1998. 1998.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics [RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005. Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics [RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, April (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, April
2011. 2011.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
October 2011. October 2011.
[RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP [RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing", Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing",
BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012. BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 13.2. Informative References
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
[RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997. [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
13.2. Informative References [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
2003. November 2002.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich, [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
"Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November
Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010. 2003.
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework] [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for large-scale
measurement platforms (LMAP)", draft-ietf-lmap- [RFC5474] Duffield, N., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A.,
framework-10 (work in progress), January 2015. Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for Packet
Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474, March 2009.
[RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
Selection", RFC 5475, March 2009.
[RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G. [RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports", Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
RFC 5477, March 2009. RFC 5477, March 2009.
[RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J. [RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export", Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.
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 [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010. Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation [RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich,
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice
November 2002. Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010.
[RFC6776] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information [RFC6776] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information
Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an
RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776, October 2012. RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776, October 2012.
[RFC6792] Wu, Q., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use of the
RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792, November 2012.
[RFC7003] Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol [RFC7003] Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap Discard (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap Discard
Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, September 2013. Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, September 2013.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network [RFC7012] Claise, B. and B. Trammell, "Information Model for IP Flow
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, September 2013.
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.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way [RFC7014] D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999. Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, September 2013.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999. Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", draft-ietf-
lmap-framework-14 (work in progress), April 2015.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Marcelo Bagnulo Marcelo Bagnulo
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad 30 Av. Universidad 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911 Leganes, Madrid 28911
SPAIN SPAIN
Phone: 34 91 6249500 Phone: 34 91 6249500
skipping to change at page 24, line 29 skipping to change at page 25, line 21
Al Morton Al Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South 200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown, NJ Middletown, NJ
USA USA
Email: acmorton@att.com Email: acmorton@att.com
Aamer Akhter Aamer Akhter
Cisco Systems, Inc. Consultant
7025 Kit Creek Road 118 Timber Hitch
RTP, NC 27709 Cary, NC
USA USA
Email: aakhter@cisco.com Email: aakhter@gmail.com
 End of changes. 84 change blocks. 
262 lines changed or deleted 307 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/