Skip to main content

Application Performance Measurement MIB
draft-ietf-rmonmib-apm-mib-12

Yes

(Bert Wijnen)

No Objection

(Alex Zinin)
(Allison Mankin)
(Bill Fenner)
(Harald Alvestrand)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Ned Freed)
(Randy Bush)
(Russ Housley)
(Steven Bellovin)
(Thomas Narten)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2003-10-02) Unknown
No further objection given Ted's DISCUSS. Considering that the optimal architecture envisioned by the document is one where there is an agent in every enterprise desktop reporting the target and outcome of all network transactions to a centralized server... there do seem to be serious end-user privacy concerns.
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ned Freed Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Randy Bush Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2003-09-30) Unknown
Going through the HTTP example in some detail, I found it hard to understand
how I would use this data in the presence of services built on top of HTTP.  The
URL matching algorithm seems designed to allow an administrator to say something
like "maps.cgi?" as a prefix will have a different exception processing than
"zipcode.cgi?".That seems reasonable for exception reporting, for some level
of understanding of the likely inputs.  apmThroughputExceptionMinTime
seems, however, seems likely to obscure more than it reveals, since it makes
a presumption about the "fixed" transaction costs.  The transaction costs
include things like handshake, which are dependent on outside factors and do not
seem to be fixed at all.
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown