Label Switched Path (LSP) Data Path Delay Metrics in Generalized MPLS and MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm-08

[Ballot discuss]
I am not sure that milliseconds is a reasonable unit to use in these metrics.  I have no experience with MPLS, but we are measuring microseconds if not nanoseconds in my work, so I was surprised that milliseconds are what people want to do these measurements in.  I'm happy to clear this DISCUSS if you can confirm that's really the intent and that a finer-grained unit isn't necessary.

[Ballot comment]
About the "application" discussion, this is copied from my email on the topic:
----------------------
Brian says:
>> I agree with Stephen's comment about the oddness of having
>> "application developers" mentioned in the abstract.  I can't
>> see them really caring if MPLS, Ethernet, or carrier pigeons
>> are used to move their data as long as the data is moving.

Adrian says:
> What an application is depends where you are in the stack,
> doesn't it?
>
> An application in this context is the thing what uses an LSP.
> Can you think of a better term?  "User" has sometimes been used,
> but I hate to think of you expecting to find a human using an LSP.

Barry says:
Why not "LSP application", throughout?  And a definition could be put
into Section 2 if someone thinks it's needed:

'In this document, "LSP application" refers to the thing what uses LSP.'

...or something more explanatory and less flippant.
----------------------

[Ballot comment]
About the "application" discussion, this is copied from my email on the topic:
----------------------
Brian says:
>> I agree with Stephen's comment about the oddness of having "application
>> developers" mentioned in the abstract.  I can't see them really caring if
>> MPLS, Ethernet, or carrier pigeons are used to move their data as long as
>> the data is moving.

Adrian says:
> What an application is depends where you are in the stack, doesn't it?
>
> An application in this context is the thing what uses an LSP. Can you think
> of a better term?  "User" has sometimes been used, but I hate to think of
> you expecting to find a human using an LSP.

Barry says:
Why not "LSP application", throughout?  And a definition could be put
into Section 2 if someone thinks it's needed:

  In this document, "LSP application" refers to the thing what uses LSP.

...or something more explanatory and less flippant.
----------------------

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Brian and Stephen regarding "applications": As we use that word in the IETF, I can't imagine applications using this technology (or anything having to do with MPLS). If you mean something specific by "applications", you should probably explain that.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Stephen's comment about the oddness of having "application developers" mentioned in the abstract.  I can't see them really caring if MPLS, Ethernet, or carrier pigeons are used to move their data as long as the data is moving.

[Ballot comment]
Why does the document describe units as a _real_ number of milliseconds? (π milliseconds doesn't seem useful).
Are you trying to discourage implementations from quantizing on whole milliseconds?
If so, how much sub-millisecond precision do you want to maintain?

[Ballot comment]

- Is this really for general application developers as the abstract
implies? Seems odd. How'd they know that MPLS was even in use?  I'm
sure you know who this is intended for, but it wasn't clear to this
reader.

- p4: Could you add a reference for UNI? Maybe rfc 4208?

- p4, typo: s/complements/complement/

- 5.4 and elsewhere: I don't get how the metric can be ms or
undefined. If you tell me RRFD=20 how'd I know if that's ms or
bananas? That's probably just my ignorance of metrics, but if this
were intended for general application developers, I suspect they'd
have the same problem.

- p23, very nice typo: s/potion/portion/ but maybe leave it in:-)

- section 12: perhaps you should say that applications ought not trust
in these statistics too much as they could be fooled.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Label Switched Path (LSP) Data Path Delay Metrics in Generalized MPLS/ MPLS-TE Networks) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Label Switched Path (LSP) Data Path Delay Metrics in Generalized MPLS/
  MPLS-TE Networks'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The IETF last
call has been extended because it spans the IETF-84 meeting.

Abstract

  When setting up a label switched path (LSP) in Generalized MPLS and
  MPLS/TE networks, the completion of the signaling process does not
  necessarily mean that the cross connection along the LSP have been
  programmed accordingly and in a timely manner.  Meanwhile, the
  completion of signaling process may be used by applications as
  indication that data path has become usable.  The existence of this
  delay and the possible failure of cross connection programming, if
  not properly treated, will result in data loss or even application
  failure.  Characterization of this performance can thus help
  designers to improve the application model and to build more robust
  applications.  This document defines a series of performance metrics
  to evaluate the connectivity of data path in the signaling process.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Standards Track.
> Why is this the proper type of RFC?

It defines test methodology and metrics of the kind defined in
[RFC2679], [RFC2681] and [RFC5814], all of which are Standards
Track.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

>
>
> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document defines a series of performance metrics to
evaluate the availability of data path during the signaling
process. The metrics defined in this document complements the
control plane metrics defined in [RFC5814]. These metrics can
be used to verify the conformance of implementations against
related specifications, as elaborated in [RFC6383].

> Working Group Summary
>
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
> example, was there controversy about particular points or
> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
> rough?

No. Document was a result of discussions that took place related
to RFC5814. There were no objections raised to it's publication.

> Document Quality
>
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
> implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
> merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
> e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
> there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
> what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
> review, on what date was the request posted?
>

Implementation status is unknown (as is often the case), but
contributors include a number of different types of vendors and
carriers. Al Morton commented on the document while it was being
moved through the working group. He also reviewed it as a member
of the Performance Metrics Directorate.

>
> Personnel
>
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
> Director?

Lou Berger is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the
Area Director.

>
> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
> the IESG.


To document was reviewed a number of times as it progressed
through the WG, as well as during WG last call. The document is
ready for publication.

>
>
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
>

No concerns.

>
> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
> took place.

The document was reviewed by the Performance Metrics Directorate
(Al Morton).

> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.

No concerns.

> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

No.

> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG supports this document, but not may are passionate about it.

> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

No issues.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?

Yes.

> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
> references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
> If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
> Last Call procedure.

No.

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
> listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
> part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
> other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
> explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
> document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
> Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
> identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
> detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
> allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
> reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

Not applicable.

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
> useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

Not applicable.

> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.