@techreport{mornulo-ippm-registry-columns-01,
    number =    {draft-mornulo-ippm-registry-columns-01},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mornulo-ippm-registry-columns/01/},
    author =    {Marcelo Bagnulo and Al Morton and Philip Eardley},
    title =     {{A(nother) Registry for Performance Metrics}},
    pagetotal = 24,
    year =      2013,
    month =     oct,
    day =       21,
    abstract =  {This memo investigates a scheme to organize registry entries, especially those defined in RFCs prepared in the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group of the IETF, and applicable to all 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 which determine the quantity measured and others 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. Specifically, this memo proposes a way to organize registry entries into columns that are well- defined, permiting consistent development of entries over time. Also, this fosters development of registry entries based on existing reference RFCs for performance metrics, and requires expert review for every entry before IANA action. This version contains an example registry entry for a passive endpoint metric based on RFC7003, an example active metric entry based on RFC3393 and RFC5481, and an example pure passive metric based on RFC5472. Also, this version *continues* to allow blank entries in columns which have no applicability to a specific metric, or class of metrics. This is preferred to more general registry organization because each column serves as a check-list item and helps to avoid omissions during registration and expert review.},
}