IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing
draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC
Document Type RFC Internet-Draft (ippm WG)
Authors Ruediger Geib  , Al Morton  , Reza Fardid  , Alexander Steinmitz 
Last updated 2020-01-21 (latest revision 2011-11-30)
Replaces draft-geib-ippm-metrictest
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 6576 (Best Current Practice)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Wesley Eddy
IESG note Henk Uijterwaal (henk@uijterwaal.nl) is the document shepherd.
Send notices to (None)
Internet Engineering Task Force                             R. Geib, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                          Deutsche Telekom
Intended status: BCP                                           A. Morton
Expires: June 1, 2012                                          AT&T Labs
                                                               R. Fardid
                                                    Cariden Technologies
                                                            A. Steinmitz
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                       November 29, 2011

                   IPPM standard advancement testing
                     draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05

Abstract

   This document specifies tests to determine if multiple independent
   instantiations of a performance metric RFC have implemented the
   specifications in the same way.  This is the performance metric
   equivalent of interoperability, required to advance RFCs along the
   standards track.  Results from different implementations of metric
   RFCs will be collected under the same underlying network conditions
   and compared using statistical methods.  The goal is an evaluation of
   the metric RFC itself; whether its definitions are clear and
   unambiguous to implementors and therefore a candidate for advancement
   on the IETF standards track.  This document is an Internet Best
   Current Practice.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the

Geib, et al.              Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      IPPM standard advancement testing      November 2011

   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Basic idea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Verification of conformance to a metric specification  . . . .  7
     3.1.  Tests of an individual implementation against a metric
           specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Test setup resulting in identical live network testing
           conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Tests of two or more different implementations against
           a metric specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.4.  Clock synchronisation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     3.5.  Recommended Metric Verification Measurement Process  . . . 17
     3.6.  Proposal to determine an "equivalence" threshold for
           each metric evaluated  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   4.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   5.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Appendix A.  An example on a One-way Delay metric validation . . . 23
     A.1.  Compliance to Metric specification requirements  . . . . . 23
     A.2.  Examples related to statistical tests for One-way Delay  . 25
   Appendix B.  Anderson-Darling K-sample Reference and 2 sample
                C++ code  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   Appendix C.  Glossary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Show full document text