draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-00.txt   draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Intended status: Standards Track June 30, 2010 Intended status: Standards Track July 1, 2010
Expires: January 1, 2011 Expires: January 2, 2011
RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete
draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-00 draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-01
Abstract Abstract
This memo recommends that RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) This memo recommends that RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
Registry be reclassified as Historic, and the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry be reclassified as Historic, and the IANA IPPM Metrics
Registry itself be withdrawn from use. The current registry Registry itself be withdrawn from use. The current registry
structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely
identify IPPM metrics. identify IPPM metrics.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 January 1, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the 2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the
corresponding IANA registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 corresponding IANA registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework [RFC2330] describes The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework [RFC2330] describes
several ways to record options and metric parameter settings, in several ways to record options and metric parameter settings, in
order to account for sources of measurement variability. For order to account for sources of measurement variability. For
example, Section 13 of[RFC2330] describes the notion of "Type P" so example, Section 13 of[RFC2330] describes the notion of "Type P" so
that metrics can be specified in general, but the specifics (such as that metrics can be specified in general, but the specifics (such as
payload length in octets and protocol type) can replace P to payload length in octets and protocol type) can replace P to
disambiguate the results. disambiguate the results.
skipping to change at page 3, line 28 skipping to change at page 3, line 28
appreciated. Further, some of the early metric definitions only appreciated. Further, some of the early metric definitions only
indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in [RFC2679], indicate Poisson streams [RFC2330] (see the metrics in [RFC2679],
[RFC2680], and [RFC3393]), but later work standardized the methods [RFC2680], and [RFC3393]), but later work standardized the methods
for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], adding to the variability for Periodic Stream measurements [RFC3432], adding to the variability
possible when characterizing a metric exactly. possible when characterizing a metric exactly.
It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register every It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register every
possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and Stream possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and Stream
parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metric Registry. parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metric Registry.
The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few, if any users.
Evidence of this provided by the fact that one registry entry was
syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published.
The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that document instead of
"::=". It took eight months before someone complained that a parser
found the error. Even the original registry author agrees that the
current registry is not efficient, and has submitted a proposal to
effectively create a new registry
[draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext-00, work in progress].
2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the corresponding 2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the corresponding
IANA registry IANA registry
Due to the ambiguities between the current metrics registrations and Due to the ambiguities between the current metrics registrations and
the metrics used, and the apparent minimal adoption of the registry the metrics used, and the apparent minimal adoption of the registry
in practice, this memo RECOMMENDS that: in practice, this memo RECOMMENDS that:
o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Historic o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Historic
o the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry o the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry
It is assumed that parties who wish to establish a replacement It is assumed that parties who wish to establish a replacement
registry function will work to specify such a registry. registry function will work to specify such a registry.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This memo and its recommendations have no known impact on the This memo and its recommendations have no known impact on the
security of the Internet. security of the Internet (especially if there is a a zombie
apocalypse on the day it is published).
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
Metrics defined in IETF are typically registered in the IANA IPPM Metrics defined in IETF are typically registered in the IANA IPPM
METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry
[RFC4148]. However, areas for improvement of this registry have been [RFC4148]. However, areas for improvement of this registry have been
identified, and the registry structure has to be revisited when there identified, and the registry structure has to be revisited when there
is consensus to do so. is consensus to do so.
The current consensus is to withdraw the IPPM Metrics Registry, as The current consensus is to withdraw the IPPM Metrics Registry, as
originally described in [RFC4148]. originally described in [RFC4148].
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Henk Uijterwaal suggested additional rationale for the recommendation
in this memo.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[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.
[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, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
May 1998. May 1998.
skipping to change at page 4, line 42 skipping to change at page 5, line 9
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
November 2002. November 2002.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002. November 2002.
[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.
[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
October 2009.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[Stats] "None", . [....] "None", .
Author's Address Author's Address
Al Morton Al Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South 200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748 Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571 Phone: +1 732 420 1571
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 28 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/