Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-05

[Ballot comment]
I read through the referenced security considerations sections and don't see mention of privacy considerations to the observed traffic flows (even if it is limited information).  I also didn't see mention of the use of performance related traffic measurement for network reconnaissance.  I *think* the scope may be limited within an administrative domain, but am not entirely clear if that is the case from the draft or charter, which could alleviate concerns.

[Ballot comment]
Robert Sparks made some editorial suggestions in his Gen-ART review:

---

Introduction, 3rd paragraph: What are the "proposed extensions"? Is this
sentence trying to say "There are proposed extensions to allow methodologies
to fulfill the continuity requirement stated in section 6.2, but it is impossible
to guarantee that they can do so?"

Bullet 2 in block 1. of section 3: The first sentence is a fragment, and is
confusing. Should this bullet read "Payload content optimization (compression
or format conversion) in intermediate segments breaks the convention of
payload correspondence when correlating measurements are made at different
points in a path."? (That is, delete ". This" and change "made"->"are made".)

There are inconsistent styles used in the subsections of section 4 that cause
the main points to be a little hard to pull out of the text:

* in 4.1, you quote the new definition. Visually, that implies you're quoting
another source, like you do above it for the old definition. I suggest doing
something else to set this apart from the rest of the text - perhaps an
indented block?

* Whatever you do there, consider doing the same in the other sections.
Highlight "we deprecate continuity" in 4.2, for example.

* 4.4's point seems buried. Would it be correct to say (and would it help
highlight the point): "Conservative measurements in these environments
may not be possible."?

Consider changing the heading text for 4.1 to 4.5 to highlight the
change or observation you're making. That would help drive the point
of the document in the ToC. Something like this (I'm sure I've blown
the capitalization).

4.1.  Revised Definition Of Repeatability
4.2.  Continuity is not an Appropriate Alternative Criterion
4.3.  Metrics Should be Actionable
4.4.  It May Not be Possible to be Conservative
4.5.  Spatial and Temporal Composition May Bias Sampling
4.6.  Truncate the Tails of Poisson Deistrubutions

In the conclusion, break the last (very long) sentence out
into its own paragraph.

[Ballot comment]
Section 3.1.2:

"This payload content could be either
  generated by a random device or by using part of a compressed file
  (e.g., a part of a ZIP compressed archive)."

Not sure what is meant by a random device. Surely the same device originally emitting the test traffic could emit traffic less likely to be compressed?

I was also surprised that this section does not discuss the rise in transport layer encryption, which I would expect to counteract the push towards in-network optimization in some cases.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

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

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM'
  as Informational RFC

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 2014-05-12. 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.

Abstract


  To obtain repeatable results in modern networks, test descriptions
  need an expanded stream parameter framework that also augments
  aspects specified as Type-P for test packets.  This memo updates the
  IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC 2330 with advanced
  considerations for measurement methodology and testing.  The existing
  framework mostly assumes deterministic connectivity, and that a
  single test stream will represent the characteristics of the path
  when it is aggregated with other flows.  Networks have evolved and
  test stream descriptions must evolve with them, otherwise unexpected
  network features may dominate the measured performance.  This memo
  describes new stream parameters for both network characterization and
  support of application design using IPPM metrics.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update/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)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational, as this document updates an informational RFC (RFC 2330).  The RFC type is indicated on the title page header.

(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

To obtain repeatable results in modern networks, test descriptions need an expanded stream parameter framework that also augments aspects specified as Type-P for test packets.  This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework, RFC 2330, with advanced considerations for measurement methodology and testing.  The existing framework mostly assumes deterministic connectivity, and that a single test stream will represent the characteristics of the path when it is aggregated with other flows.  Networks have evolved and test stream descriptions must evolve with them, otherwise unexpected network features may dominate the measured performance.  This memo describes new stream parameters for both network characterization and support of application design using IPPM metrics.

Working Group Summary

This draft was first introduced to the working group in October 2012. Support for the draft was indicated at meetings with no dissents.

Document Quality

As an update to the IPPM Framework, this document adds new and updated considerations for stream parameters.

As documented, other topics in the IPPM Framework which might be updated or augmented are deferred to future work.  This includes the topics of passive and various forms of of hybrid active/passive measurements.

Personnel
The document shepherd was Bill Cerveny. The responsible area director is Spencer Dawkins.

(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.

The document shepherd reviewed the document as a “-02” draft and reviewed the changes which constitute “-03” and “-04”.

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

No.

According to the draft, Rudiger Geib, Matt Mathis and Konstantinos Pentikousis contributed comments on the draft. Konstantinos Pentikousis provided an extensive technical review on the draft.  Ann Cerveny provided editorial review and comments.

(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.

No review from a broader perspective is required.

(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.

There are no specific concerns or issues. Note however, as stated in the scope of the document, this document is a partial update of RFC2330 and not a comprehensive update:

“The scope is to update key sections of [RFC2330], adding considerations that will aid the development of new measurement methodologies intended for today's IP networks.  Specifically, this memo describes useful stream parameters in addition to the information in Section 11.1 of [RFC2330] and described in [RFC3432] for periodic streams.

“The memo also provides new considerations to update the criteria for metrics in section 4 of [RFC2330], the measurement methodology in section 6.2 of [RFC2330], and other topics related to the quality of metrics and methods (see section 4).

“Other topics in [RFC2330] which might be updated or augmented are deferred to future work.  This includes the topics of passive and various forms of of hybrid active/passive measurements.”

(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, each author confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures required.

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

No IPR disclosure has been filed.

(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?

At the IETF89 meeting, approximately 6 people (by a show of hands) indicated their support for the document.

(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, there haven't been any threats of appeals

(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 valid nits were identified with “-04” of the document.

An invalid nit was identified with “-04”, for which it was claimed that the RFC being updated was not identified as such in the abstract.  The RFC being updated is indicated in the abstract, but the idnits program didn’t parse this information correctly.

(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?

None exist.

(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.

This draft is intended to be published as an informational RFC and as such, does not have downward normative references.

(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.

This document is an update to the IPPM Framework, RFC 2330.

(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).

There are no IANA considerations.

(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.

There are no new IANA registries specific to this document.

(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.

No part of this document has been written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.