draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-02.txt   draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-03.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 October 25, 2010 Obsoletes: 4148 (if approved) January 10, 2011
Expires: April 28, 2011 Updates: 4737, 5560, 5644, 6049
(if approved)
Intended status: Informational
Expires: July 14, 2011
RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete
draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-02 draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-03
Abstract Abstract
This memo recommends that RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) This memo reclassifies RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
Registry be reclassified as Historic, and the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry as Obsolete, and withdraws the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry
Registry itself be withdrawn from use. The current registry itself from use because it is obsolete. 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. Despite apparent efforts to find current or identify IPPM metrics. Despite apparent efforts to find current or
even future users, no one has responded to the third quarter of 2010 even future users, no one has responded to the call for interest in
call for interest in the RFC 4148 registry. the RFC 4148 registry during the second half of 2010.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 April 28, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the 2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the corresponding IANA
corresponding IANA registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 registry as Obsolete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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. The IPPM Metrics Registry is believed to have very few users, if any.
Evidence of this provided by the fact that one registry entry was Evidence of this provided by the fact that one registry entry was
syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published. syntactically incorrect for months after [RFC5644] was published.
The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that document instead of The text ":=" was used for the metrics in that document instead of
"::=". It took eight months before someone complained that a parser "::=". It took eight months before someone offered that a parser
found the error. Even the original registry author agrees that the found the error. Even the original registry author agrees that the
current registry is not efficient, and has submitted a proposal to current registry is not efficient, and has submitted a proposal to
effectively create a new registry effectively create a new registry.
[draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext-00, work in progress].
Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, no one Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, no one
has responded to the third quarter of 2010 call for interest in the has responded to the second half of 2010 call for interest in the RFC
RFC 4148 registry. Therefore, the IETF could now declare the 4148 registry. Therefore, the IETF now declares the registry
registry Historic without any further reservations. Obsolete without any further reservations.
When a registry is declared Historic, it simply prevents IANA from When a registry is designated Obsolete, it simply prevents IANA from
registering new objects, in this case new metrics. So, even if a registering new objects, in this case new metrics. So, even if a
registry user was eventually found, they could continue to use the registry user was eventually found, they could continue to use the
current registry and its contents will continue to be available. current registry and its contents will continue to be available.
2. Recommendation to Reclassify RFC 4148 and Withdraw the corresponding The most recently published memo that added metrics to the registry
IANA registry is [RFC6049]. This memo updates all previous memos that registered
new metrics, including [RFC4737] and [RFC5560], so that the
registry's Obsolete status will be evident.
2. Action to Reclassify RFC 4148 and the corresponding IANA registry as
Obsolete
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, it is required that:
o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Historic o the IETF reclassify [RFC4148] as Obsolete.
o the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry o the IANA withdraw the current IPPM Metrics Registry from further
updates and note that it too is Obsolete.
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 (especially if there is a zombie apocalypse security of the Internet (especially if there is a zombie apocalypse
on the day it is published; humans will have many more security on the day it is published; humans will have many more security
issues to worry about stemming from the rise of the un-dead). issues to worry about stemming from the rise of the un-dead).
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
Metrics defined in IETF are typically registered in the IANA IPPM Metrics defined in IETF have been typically registered in the IANA
METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry IPPM 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 working group consensus to do so.
The current consensus is to withdraw the IPPM Metrics Registry, as The current consensus is to designate the IPPM Metrics Registry,
originally described in [RFC4148]. originally described in [RFC4148], as Obsolete.
The DESCRIPTION of the registry MIB should be modified as follows,
and the first two sentences should be included on any IANA-maintained
web-page describing this registry or its contents (with the RFC
number of this memo replacing "XXXX"):
DESCRIPTION
"With the approval and publication of RFC XXXX, this module is
designated Obsolete.
The registry will no longer be updated, and the current contents will
be maintained as-is on the day that RFC XXXX was published.
The original Description text follows below:
This module defines a registry for IP Performance Metrics.
... "
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Henk Uijterwaal suggested additional rationale for the recommendation Henk Uijterwaal suggested additional rationale for the recommendation
in this memo. 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 [RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
6.2. Informative References
[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.
[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, September 1999. Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999. Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
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 [RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005. S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
November 2006.
[RFC5560] Uijterwaal, H., "A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric",
RFC 5560, May 2009.
[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance [RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644, Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
October 2009. October 2009.
6.2. Informative References [RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011.
[....] "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. 24 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 73 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/