Skip to main content

Active Performance Metric Sub-Registry

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (ippm WG)
Authors Al Morton , Marcelo Bagnulo , Philip Eardley
Last updated 2014-09-03 (Latest revision 2014-07-04)
Replaces draft-mornuley-ippm-registry-active
Replaced by RFC 8911
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Expired & archived
plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex
Stream WG state Dead WG Document
Other - see Comment Log
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at:


This memo defines the Active Performance Metrics sub-registry of the Performance Metric Registry. This sub-registry will contain Active Performance Metrics, especially those defined in RFCs prepared in the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group of the IETF, and possibly applicable to other IETF metrics. Three aspects make IPPM metric registration difficult: (1) Use of the Type-P notion to allow users to specify their own packet types. (2) Use of flexible input variables, called Parameters in IPPM definitions, some of which determine the quantity measured and others of which should not be specified until execution of the measurement. (3) Allowing flexibility in choice of statistics to summarize the results on a stream of measurement packets. This memo proposes a way to organize registry entries into columns that are well-defined, permitting consistent development of entries over time (a column may marked NA if it is not applicable for that metric). The design is intended to foster development of registry entries based on existing reference RFCs, whilst each column serves as a check-list item to avoid omissions during the registration process. Every entry in the registry, before IANA action, requires Expert review as defined by concurrent IETF work in progress "Registry for Performance Metrics" (draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry). The document contains two examples: a registry entry for an active Performance Metric entry based on RFC3393 and RFC5481, and a registry entry for an end-point Performance Metric based on RFC 7003. The examples are for Informational purposes and do not create any entry in the IANA registry.


Al Morton
Marcelo Bagnulo
Philip Eardley

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)