draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-18.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19.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: September 12, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: September 29, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc.
P. Eardley P. Eardley
BT BT
A. Morton A. Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
A. Akhter A. Akhter
Consultant Consultant
March 11, 2019 March 28, 2019
Registry for Performance Metrics Registry for Performance Metrics
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-18 draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the format for the IANA Performance Metrics This document defines the format for the IANA Performance Metrics
Registry. This document also gives a set of guidelines for Registry. This document also gives a set of guidelines for
Registered Performance Metric requesters and reviewers. Registered 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 September 12, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
skipping to change at page 3, line 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 9
7.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . 24 8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . 24
8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics 8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 25 8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 25
8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 26 8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 27
9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.1. New Namespace Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10.1. Registry Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 12, line 43 skipping to change at page 12, line 43
Comments and Remarks Comments and Remarks
-------------------- --------------------
7.1. Summary Category 7.1. Summary Category
7.1.1. Identifier 7.1.1. 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 Metrics Registry. identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metrics Registry.
The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is a 16-bit The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is an unbounded
integer (range 0 to 65535). integer (range 0 to infinity).
The Identifier 0 should be Reserved. The Identifier values from The Identifier 0 should be Reserved. The Identifier values from
64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use. 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use.
When adding newly Registered Performance Metrics to the Performance When adding newly Registered Performance Metrics to the Performance
Metrics Registry, IANA SHOULD assign the lowest available identifier Metrics Registry, IANA SHOULD assign the lowest available identifier
to the new Registered Performance Metric. to the new Registered Performance Metric.
If a Performance Metrics Expert providing review determines that If a Performance Metrics Expert providing review determines that
there is a reason to assign a specific numeric identifier, possibly there is a reason to assign a specific numeric identifier, possibly
skipping to change at page 15, line 9 skipping to change at page 15, line 9
of octets in the Payload)) of octets in the Payload))
SustainedBurst (Capacity test, worst case) SustainedBurst (Capacity test, worst case)
StandingQueue (test of bottleneck queue behavior) StandingQueue (test of bottleneck queue behavior)
SubTypeMethod values are separated by a hyphen "-" character, SubTypeMethod values are separated by a hyphen "-" character,
which indicates that they belong to this element, and that their which indicates that they belong to this element, and that their
order is unimportant when considering name uniqueness. order is unimportant when considering name uniqueness.
o Spec: RFC that specifies this entry in the form RFCXXXXsecY, such o Spec: RFC number and major section number that specifies this
as RFC7799sec3. Note: this is not the Primary Reference Registry entry in the form RFCXXXXsecY, such as RFC7799sec3.
specification for the metric definition; it will contain the Note: the RFC number is not the Primary Reference specification
placeholder "RFCXXXXsecY" until the RFC number is assigned to the for the metric definition, such as [RFC7679] for One-way Delay; it
specifying document, and would remain blank in private registry will contain the placeholder "RFCXXXXsecY" until the RFC number is
entries without a corresponding RFC. assigned to the specifying document, and would remain blank in
private registry entries without a corresponding RFC.
o Units: The units of measurement for the output, such as: o Units: The units of measurement for the output, such as:
Seconds Seconds
Ratio (unitless) Ratio (unitless)
Percent (value multiplied by 100) Percent (value multiplied by 100)
Logical (1 or 0) Logical (1 or 0)
skipping to change at page 16, line 34 skipping to change at page 16, line 36
as described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]. as described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry].
Note that private registries following the format described here Note that private registries following the format described here
SHOULD use the prefix "Priv_" on any name to avoid unintended SHOULD use the prefix "Priv_" on any name to avoid unintended
conflicts (further considerations are described in section 10). conflicts (further considerations are described in section 10).
Private registry entries usually have no specifying RFC, thus the Private registry entries usually have no specifying RFC, thus the
Spec: element has no clear interpretation. Spec: element has no clear interpretation.
7.1.3. URIs 7.1.3. URIs
The URIs column MUST contain a URI [RFC3986] that uniquely identifies The URIs column MUST contain a URL [RFC3986] and uniquely identifies
the metric. This URI is a URN [RFC2141]. The URI is automatically and locates the metric entry so it is accessible through the
generated by prepending the prefix Internet. The URL points to a file containing all the human-readable
information for one registry entry. The URL SHALL reference a target
urn:ietf:metrics:perf: file that is HTML-formated and contains URLs to referenced sections
of HTML-ized RFCs. These target files for different entries can be
to the metric name. The resulting URI is globally unique. more easily edited and re-used when preparing new entries. The exact
form of the URL for each target file will be determined by IANA and
The URIs column MUST contain a second URI which is a URL [RFC3986] reside on "iana.org". The major sections of
and uniquely identifies and locates the metric entry so it is [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] provide an example of a target file
accessible through the Internet. The URL points to a file containing in HTML form (sections 4 and higher).
all the human-readable information for one registry entry. The URL
SHALL reference a target file that is HTML-formated and contains URLs
to referenced sections of HTML-ized RFCs. These target files for
different entries can be more easily edited and re-used when
preparing new entries. The exact form of the URL for each target
file will be determined by IANA and reside on "iana.org". The major
sections of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] provide an example of a
target file in HTML form (sections 4 and higher).
7.1.4. Description 7.1.4. Description
A Registered Performance Metric description is a written A Registered Performance Metric description is a written
representation of a particular Performance Metrics Registry entry. representation of a particular Performance Metrics Registry entry.
It supplements the Registered Performance Metric name to help It supplements the Registered Performance Metric name to help
Performance Metrics Registry users select relevant Registered Performance Metrics Registry users select relevant Registered
Performance Metrics. Performance Metrics.
7.1.5. Reference 7.1.5. Reference
skipping to change at page 24, line 23 skipping to change at page 24, line 23
deprecation or revision, as described later in this section. deprecation or revision, as described later in this section.
It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Performance It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Performance
Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working
group, or offer the opportunity for review on the working group group, or offer the opportunity for review on the working group
mailing list. mailing list.
8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry 8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry
Requests to add Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance Requests to add Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance
Metrics Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to Metrics Registry SHALL be submitted to IANA, which forwards the
a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed request to a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts)
by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review appointed by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the
[RFC8126]policy defined for the Performance Metrics Registry. The Expert Review [RFC8126]policy defined for the Performance Metrics
Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as Registry. The Performance Metric Experts review the request for such
compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable things as compliance with this document, compliance with other
Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently applicable Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the
defined set of Registered Performance Metrics. currently defined set of Registered Performance Metrics.
Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in Submission to IANA MAY be the result of IETF Standards Action, where
this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA. an approved Internet Draft proposes one or more Registered
Performance Metrics to be added to the Performance Metrics Registry,
including the text of the proposed Registered Performance Metric(s).
Authors of proposed Registered Performance Metrics SHOULD review
compliance with the specifications in this document to check their
submissions before sending them to IANA.
At least one Performance Metric Expert should endeavor to complete At least one Performance Metric Expert should endeavor to complete
referred reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, referred reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable,
the Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, and the Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, and
IANA updates the Performance Metrics Registry. If the request is not IANA updates the Performance Metrics Registry. If the request is not
acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts MAY coordinate with the acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts MAY coordinate with the
requester to change the request to be compliant, otherwise IANA SHALL requester to change the request to be compliant, otherwise IANA SHALL
coordinate resolution of issues on behalf of the expert. The coordinate resolution of issues on behalf of the expert. The
Performance Metric Experts MAY choose to reject clearly frivolous or Performance Metric Experts MAY choose to reject clearly frivolous or
inappropriate change requests outright, but such exceptional inappropriate change requests outright, but such exceptional
skipping to change at page 25, line 22 skipping to change at page 25, line 28
Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric
(entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and (entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and
Name). Name).
The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metrics Registry The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metrics Registry
is to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Performance Metric is to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Performance Metric
is 'current' or 'deprecated'. is 'current' or 'deprecated'.
In addition, no policy is defined for revising the Performance Metric In addition, no policy is defined for revising the Performance Metric
entries in the IANA Regsirty or addressing errors therein. To be entries in the IANA Regsirty or addressing errors therein. To be
certain, changes and deprecations within the Performance Metrics clear, changes and deprecations within the Performance Metrics
Registry are not encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent Registry are not encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent
possible. However, in recognition that change is inevitable, the possible. However, in recognition that change is inevitable, the
provisions of this section address the need for revisions. provisions of this 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 8, identifying the existing Metric definition to IANA, as in Section 8.1, identifying the
Performance Metrics Registry entry. existing Performance Metrics Registry entry, and explaining how and
why the existing entry shuold be revised.
The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing The primary requirement in the definition of procedures 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 measurement interoperability problems; the Performance Metric Experts
maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to Registered must work to maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to
Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way; Registered Performance Metrics may only be done in an interoperable
necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow way; 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 Performance Metric and possibly the creation of a new Registered Performance Metric (with a new Name,
replacing the RFCXXXXsecY portion of the name) and possibly the
deprecation of the earlier metric. deprecation of the earlier metric.
A change to a Registered Performance Metric SHALL be determined to be A change to a Registered Performance Metric SHALL be determined to be
backward-compatible only when: backward-compatible only when:
1. it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only 1. it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only
editorial; or editorial; or
2. it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's 2. it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's
definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent
skipping to change at page 26, line 13 skipping to change at page 26, line 21
or or
3. it corrects missing information in the metric definition without 3. it corrects missing information in the metric definition without
changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity' changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity'
semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics
value); or value); or
4. it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself 4. it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself
corrected. corrected.
If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the If a Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible and backward-
Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document, compatible by the Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules
IANA makes the change in the Performance Metrics Registry. The in this document, IANA SHOULD execute the change(s) in the
requester of the change is appended to the requester in the Performance Metrics Registry. The requester of the change is
Performance Metrics Registry. appended to the original requester in the Performance Metrics
Registry. The Name of the revised Registered Performance Metric,
including the RFCXXXXsecY portion of the name, SHALL remain unchamged
(even when the change is the result of IETF Standards Action; the
revised registry entry SHOULD reference the new RFC in an appropriate
category and column).
Each Registered Performance Metric in the Performance Metrics Each Registered Performance Metric in the Performance Metrics
Registry has a revision number, starting at zero. Each change to a Registry has a revision number, starting at zero. Each change to a
Registered Performance Metric following this process increments the Registered Performance Metric following this process increments the
revision number by one. revision number by one.
When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the
Performance Metrics Registry, the date of acceptance of the most Performance Metrics 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.
skipping to change at page 27, line 38 skipping to change at page 28, line 7
This draft defines a registry structure, and does not itself This draft defines a registry structure, and does not itself
introduce any new security considerations for the Internet. The introduce any new security considerations for the Internet. The
definition of Performance Metrics for this registry may introduce definition of Performance Metrics for this registry may introduce
some security concerns, but the mandatory references should have some security concerns, but the mandatory references should have
their own considerations for secuity, and such definitions should be their own considerations for secuity, and such definitions should be
reviewed with security in mind if the security considerations are not reviewed with security in mind if the security considerations are not
covered by one or more reference standards. covered by one or more reference standards.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This document requests the following IANA Actions. With the background and processes described in earlier sections, this
document requests the following IANA Actions. Note that mock-ups of
10.1. New Namespace Assignments the implementation of this set of requests have been prepared with
IANA's help during development of this memo, and have been captured
in the Proceedings of IPPM working group sessions.
This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix 10.1. Registry Group
urn:ietf:metrics for the purpose of generating URIs for metrics in
general. The registration procedure for the new "metrics" URN sub-
namespace is IETF Review.
This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix The new registry group SHALL be named, "PERFORMANCE METRICS Group".
urn:ietf:metrics:perf for the purpose of generating URIs for
Registered Performance Metrics. The registration procedures for the
new "perf" URN sub-namespace are Expert Review or IETF Standards
Action, and coordinated with the entries added to the New Performance
Metrics Registry (see below).
10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements 10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements
This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics Name This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics Name
Element Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new set of Element Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new set of
registries for Performance Metric Name Elements called "IETF URN Sub- registries for Performance Metric Name Elements called "Registered
namespace for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements" Performance Metric Name Elements". Each Registry, whose names are
(urn:ietf:metrics:perf). Each Registry, whose names are listed listed below:
below:
MetricType: MetricType:
Method: Method:
SubTypeMethod: SubTypeMethod:
Spec: Spec:
Units: Units:
Output: Output:
will contain the current set of possibilities for Performance Metrics will contain the current set of possibilities for Performance Metrics
Registry Entry Names. Registry Entry Names.
To populate the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Performance To populate the Registered Performance Metric Name Elements at
Metric Name Elements at creation, the IANA is asked to use the lists creation, the IANA is asked to use the lists of values for each name
of values for each name element listed in Section 7.1.2. The Name element listed in Section 7.1.2. The Name Elements in each registry
Elements in each registry are case-sensitive. are case-sensitive.
When preparing a Metric entry for Registration, the developer SHOULD When preparing a Metric entry for Registration, the developer SHOULD
choose Name elements from among the registered elements. However, if choose Name elements from among the registered elements. However, if
the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, it may be the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, it may be
necessary to propose a new Name element to properly describe the necessary to propose a new Name element to properly describe the
metric, as described below. metric, as described below.
A candidate Metric Entry RFC or document for Expert Review would A candidate Metric Entry RFC or document for Expert Review would
propose one or more new element values required to describe the propose one or more new element values required to describe the
unique entry, and the new name element(s) would be reviewed along unique entry, and the new name element(s) would be reviewed along
with the metric entry. New assignments for IETF URN Sub-namespace with the metric entry. New assignments for Registered Performance
for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements will be administered Metric Name Elements will be administered by IANA through Expert
by IANA through Expert Review [RFC8126], i.e., review by one of a Review [RFC8126], i.e., review by one of a group of experts, the
group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed by the IESG upon
by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. recommendation of the Transport Area Directors.
10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry 10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry
This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics
Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for
Performance Metrics called "Performance Metrics Registry". This Performance Metrics called "Performance Metrics Registry". This
Registry will contain the following Summary columns: Registry will contain the following Summary columns:
Identifier: Identifier:
skipping to change at page 29, line 38 skipping to change at page 29, line 44
defined in section Section 7. defined in section Section 7.
The "Identifier" 0 should be Reserved. "The Identifier" values from The "Identifier" 0 should be Reserved. "The Identifier" values from
64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use. 64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use.
Names starting with the prefix Priv_ are reserved for private use, Names starting with the prefix Priv_ are reserved for private use,
and are not considered for registration. The "Name" column entries and are not considered for registration. The "Name" column entries
are further defined in section Section 7. are further defined in section Section 7.
The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each
registry entry, and the linked text may be the URN itself. The registry entry. The Registry Entry text SHALL be HTML-ized to aid
template shall be HTML-ized to aid the reader, with links to the reader, with links to reference RFCs (similar to the way that
reference RFCs (similar to the way that Internet Drafts are HTML- Internet Drafts are HTML-ized, the same tool can perform the
ized, the same tool can perform the function). function).
The "Reference" column will include an RFC, an approved specification The "Reference" column will include an RFC number, an approved
from another standards body, or the contact person. specification designator from another standards body, or the contact
person.
New assignments for Performance Metrics Registry will be administered New assignments for Performance Metrics Registry will be administered
by IANA through Expert Review [RFC8126], i.e., review by one of a by IANA through Expert Review [RFC8126], i.e., review by one of a
group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed
by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors, or by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors, or
by Standards Action. The experts can be initially drawn from the by Standards Action. The experts can be initially drawn from the
Working Group Chairs, document editors, and members of the Working Group Chairs, document editors, and members of the
Performance Metrics Directorate, among other sources of experts. Performance Metrics Directorate, among other sources of experts.
Extensions of the Performance Metrics Registry require IETF Standards Extensions of the Performance Metrics Registry require IETF Standards
skipping to change at page 31, line 37 skipping to change at page 31, line 47
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]
Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza, Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza,
"Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf- "Initial Performance Metrics Registry Entries", draft-
ippm-initial-registry-09 (work in progress), December ietf-ippm-initial-registry-10 (work in progress), March
2018. 2019.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679, Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>. September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681, Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>. September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
94 lines changed or deleted 94 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/