Network Working Group M. Bagnulo
Internet-Draft UC3M
Intended status: Best Current Practice B. Claise
Expires: September 5, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc.
P. Eardley
BT
A. Morton
AT&T Labs
A. Akhter
Consultant
March 4, 2018
Registry for Performance Metrics
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-14
Abstract
This document defines the format for the Performance Metrics registry
and defines the IANA Registry for Performance Metrics. This document
also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric
requesters and reviewers.
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 https://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 September 5, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics . . . . 8
4.3. Side benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration . . . . . . . . 9
6. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Summary Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.1. Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.2. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1.4. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.5. Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.6. Change Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.7. Version (of Registry Format) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Metric Definition Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3. Method of Measurement Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3.1. Reference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.3.3. Traffic Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.3.4. Sampling Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.3.5. Run-time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.3.6. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.4. Output Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.4.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.4.2. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.4.4. Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.5. Administrative information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.1. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.2. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.3. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5.4. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
7.6. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . 23
8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . 24
8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics . . . . . . . 26
9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.1. New Namespace Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Introduction
The IETF specifies and uses Performance Metrics of protocols and
applications transported over its protocols. Performance metrics are
such an important part of the operations of IETF protocols that
[RFC6390] specifies guidelines for their development.
The definition and use of Performance Metrics in the IETF happens in
various working groups (WG), most notably:
The "IP Performance Metrics" (IPPM) WG is the WG primarily
focusing on Performance Metrics definition at the IETF.
The "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework"
(XRBLOCK) WG recently specified many Performance Metrics related
to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611],
which establishes a framework to allow new information to be
conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined
in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
[RFC3550].
The "Benchmarking Methodology" WG (BMWG) defined many Performance
Metrics for use in laboratory benchmarking of inter-networking
technologies.
The "IP Flow Information eXport" (IPFIX) concluded WG specified an
IANA process for new Information Elements. Some Performance
Metrics related Information Elements are proposed on regular
basis.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
The "Performance Metrics for Other Layers" (PMOL) concluded WG,
defined some Performance Metrics related to Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035].
It is expected that more Performance Metrics will be defined in the
future, not only IP-based metrics, but also metrics which are
protocol-specific and application-specific.
However, despite the importance of Performance Metrics, there are two
related problems for the industry. First, how to ensure that when
one party requests another party to measure (or report or in some way
act on) a particular Performance Metric, then both parties have
exactly the same understanding of what Performance Metric is being
referred to. Second, how to discover which Performance Metrics have
been specified, so as to avoid developing new Performance Metric that
is very similar, but not quite inter-operable. The problems can be
addressed by creating a registry of performance metrics. The usual
way in which IETF organizes namespaces is with Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) registries, and there is currently no
Performance Metrics Registry maintained by the IANA.
This document therefore requests that IANA create and maintain a
Performance Metrics Registry, according to the maintenance procedures
and the Performance Metrics Registry format defined in this memo.
Although the Registry format is primarily for use by IANA, any other
organization that wishes to create a Performance Metrics Registry MAY
use the same format for their purposes. The authors make no
guarantee of the format's applicability to any possible set of
Performance Metrics envisaged by other organizations, but encourage
others to apply it. In the remainder of this document, unless we
explicitly say so, we will refer to the IANA-maintained Performance
Metrics Registry as simply the Performance Metrics Registry.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
Performance Metric: A Performance Metric is a quantitative measure
of performance, targeted to an IETF-specified protocol or targeted
to an application transported over an IETF-specified protocol.
Examples of Performance Metrics are the FTP response time for a
complete file download, the DNS response time to resolve the IP
address, a database logging time, etc. This definition is
consistent with the definition of metric in [RFC2330] and broader
than the definition of performance metric in [RFC6390].
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
Registered Performance Metric: A Registered Performance Metric is a
Performance Metric expressed as an entry in the Performance Metric
Registry, administered by IANA. Such a performance metric has met
all the registry review criteria defined in this document in order
to included in the registry.
Performance Metrics Registry: The IANA registry containing
Registered Performance Metrics.
Proprietary Registry: A set of metrics that are registered in a
proprietary registry, as opposed to Performance Metrics Registry.
Performance Metrics Experts: The Performance Metrics Experts is a
group of designated experts [RFC5226] selected by the IESG to
validate the Performance Metrics before updating the Performance
Metrics Registry. The Performance Metrics Experts work closely
with IANA.
Parameter: An input factor defined as a variable in the definition
of a Performance Metric. A numerical or other specified factor
forming one of a set that defines a metric or sets the conditions
of its operation. All Parameters must be known to measure using a
metric and interpret the results. There are two types of
Parameters, Fixed and Run-time parameters. For the Fixed
Parameters, the value of the variable is specified in the
Performance Metrics Registry entry and different Fixed Parameter
values results in different Registered Performance Metrics. For
the Run-time Parameters, the value of the variable is defined when
the metric measurement method is executed and a given Registered
Performance Metric supports multiple values for the parameter.
Although Run-time Parameters do not change the fundamental nature
of the Performance Metric's definition, some have substantial
influence on the network property being assessed and
interpretation of the results.
Note: Consider the case of packet loss in the following two
Active Measurement Method cases. The first case is packet loss
as background loss where the Run-time Parameter set includes a
very sparse Poisson stream, and only characterizes the times
when packets were lost. Actual user streams likely see much
higher loss at these times, due to tail drop or radio errors.
The second case is packet loss as inverse of throughput where
the Run-time Parameter set includes a very dense, bursty
stream, and characterizes the loss experienced by a stream that
approximates a user stream. These are both "loss metrics", but
the difference in interpretation of the results is highly
dependent on the Run-time Parameters (at least), to the extreme
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
where we are actually using loss to infer its compliment:
delivered throughput.
Active Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on
traffic which serves only the purpose of measurement and is
generated for that reason alone, and whose traffic characteristics
are known a priori. The complete definition of Active Methods is
specified in section 3.4 of[RFC7799]. Examples of Active
Measurement Methods are the measurement methods for the One way
delay metric defined in [RFC7679] and the one for round trip delay
defined in [RFC2681].
Passive Measurement Method: Methods of Measurement conducted on
network traffic, generated either from the end users or from
network elements that would exist regardless whether the
measurement was being conducted or not. The complete definition
of Passive Methods is specified in section 3.6 of [RFC7799]. One
characteristic of Passive Measurement Methods is that sensitive
information may be observed, and as a consequence, stored in the
measurement system.
Hybrid Measurement Method: Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement
that use a combination of Active Methods and Passive Methods, to
assess Active Metrics, Passive Metrics, or new metrics derived
from the a priori knowledge and observations of the stream of
interest. The complete definition of Hybrid Methods is specified
in section 3.8 of [RFC7799].
3. Scope
This document is meant mainly for two different audiences. For those
defining new Registered Performance Metrics, it provides
specifications and best practices to be used in deciding which
Registered Performance Metrics are useful for a measurement study,
instructions for writing the text for each column of the Registered
Performance Metrics, and information on the supporting documentation
required for the new Performance Metrics Registry entry (up to and
including the publication of one or more RFCs or I-Ds describing it).
For the appointed Performance Metrics Experts and for IANA personnel
administering the new IANA Performance Metric Registry, it defines a
set of acceptance criteria against which these proposed Registered
Performance Metrics should be evaluated. In addition, this document
may be useful for other organization who are defining a Performance
Metric registry of its own, who can rely on the Performance Metric
registry defined in this document.
This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics
issued from Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
form of Performance Metric. This registry is designed to encompass
Performance Metrics developed throughout the IETF and especially for
the technologies specified in the following working groups: IPPM,
XRBLOCK, IPFIX, and BMWG. This document analyzes an prior attempt to
set up a Performance Metric Registry, and the reasons why this design
was inadequate [RFC6248]. Finally, this document gives a set of
guidelines for requesters and expert reviewers of candidate
Registered Performance Metrics.
This document makes no attempt to populate the Performance Metrics
Registry with initial entries. It does provides a few examples that
are merely illustrations and should not be included in the registry
at this point in time.
Based on [RFC5226] Section 4.3, this document is processed as Best
Current Practice (BCP) [RFC2026].
4. Motivation for a Performance Metrics Registry
In this section, we detail several motivations for the Performance
Metric Registry.
4.1. Interoperability
As any IETF registry, the primary use for a registry is to manage a
namespace for its use within one or more protocols. In the
particular case of the Performance Metric Registry, there are two
types of protocols that will use the Performance Metrics in the
Performance Metrics Registry during their operation (by referring to
the Index values):
o Control protocol: this type of protocols is used to allow one
entity to request another entity to perform a measurement using a
specific metric defined by the Performance Metrics Registry. One
particular example is the LMAP framework [RFC7594]. Using the
LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is used in the
LMAP Control protocol to allow a Controller to request a
measurement task to one or more Measurement Agents. In order to
enable this use case, the entries of the Performance Metric
Registry must be well enough defined to allow a Measurement Agent
implementation to trigger a specific measurement task upon the
reception of a control protocol message. This requirement heavily
constrains the type of entries that are acceptable for the
Performance Metric Registry.
o Report protocol: This type of protocols is used to allow an entity
to report measurement results to another entity. By referencing
to a specific Performance Metric Registry, it is possible to
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
properly characterize the measurement result data being reported.
Using the LMAP terminology, the Performance Metrics Registry is
used in the Report protocol to allow a Measurement Agent to report
measurement results to a Collector.
It should be noted that the LMAP framework explicitly allows for
using not only the IANA-maintained Performance Metrics Registry but
also other registries containing Performance Metrics, either defined
by other organizations or private ones. However, others who are
creating Registries to be used in the context of an LMAP framework
are encouraged to use the Registry format defined in this document,
because this makes it easier for developers of LMAP Measurement
Agents (MAs) to programmatically use information found in those other
Registries' entries.
4.2. Single point of reference for Performance Metrics
A Performance Metrics Registry serves as a single point of reference
for Performance Metrics defined in different working groups in the
IETF. As we mentioned earlier, there are several WGs that define
Performance Metrics in the IETF and it is hard to keep track of all
them. This results in multiple definitions of similar Performance
Metrics that attempt to measure the same phenomena but in slightly
different (and incompatible) ways. Having a registry would allow
both the IETF community and external people to have a single list of
relevant Performance Metrics defined by the IETF (and others, where
appropriate). The single list is also an essential aspect of
communication about Performance Metrics, where different entities
that request measurements, execute measurements, and report the
results can benefit from a common understanding of the referenced
Performance Metric.
4.3. Side benefits
There are a couple of side benefits of having such a registry.
First, the Performance Metrics Registry could serve as an inventory
of useful and used Performance Metrics, that are normally supported
by different implementations of measurement agents. Second, the
results of measurements using the Performance Metrics would be
comparable even if they are performed by different implementations
and in different networks, as the Performance Metric is properly
defined. BCP 176 [RFC6576] examines whether the results produced by
independent implementations are equivalent in the context of
evaluating the completeness and clarity of metric specifications.
This BCP defines the standards track advancement testing for (active)
IPPM metrics, and the same process will likely suffice to determine
whether Registered Performance Metrics are sufficiently well
specified to result in comparable (or equivalent) results.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
Registered Performance Metrics which have undergone such testing
SHOULD be noted, with a reference to the test results.
5. Criteria for Performance Metrics Registration
It is neither possible nor desirable to populate the Performance
Metrics Registry with all combinations of Parameters of all
Performance Metrics. The Registered Performance Metrics should be:
1. interpretable by the user.
2. implementable by the software designer,
3. deployable by network operators,
4. accurate, for interoperability and deployment across vendors,
5. Operationally useful, so that it has significant industry
interest and/or has seen deployment,
6. Sufficiently tightly defined, so that different values for the
Run-time Parameters does not change the fundamental nature of the
measurement, nor change the practicality of its implementation.
In essence, there needs to be evidence that a candidate Registered
Performance Metric has significant industry interest, or has seen
deployment, and there is agreement that the candidate Registered
Performance Metric serves its intended purpose.
6. Performance Metric Registry: Prior attempt
There was a previous attempt to define a metric registry RFC 4148
[RFC4148]. However, it was obsoleted by RFC 6248 [RFC6248] because
it was "found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM
metrics... [there was too much] variability possible when
characterizing a metric exactly" which led to the RFC4148 registry
having "very few users, if any".
A couple of interesting additional quotes from RFC 6248 might help
understand the issues related to that registry.
1. "It is not believed to be feasible or even useful to register
every possible combination of Type P, metric parameters, and
Stream parameters using the current structure of the IPPM Metrics
Registry."
2. "The registry structure has been found to be insufficiently
detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics."
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
3. "Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users,
no one responded to the call for interest in the RFC 4148
registry during the second half of 2010."
The current approach learns from this by tightly defining each
Registered Performance Metric with only a few variable (Run-time)
Parameters to be specified by the measurement designer, if any. The
idea is that entries in the Performance Metrics Registry stem from
different measurement methods which require input (Run-time)
parameters to set factors like source and destination addresses
(which do not change the fundamental nature of the measurement). The
downside of this approach is that it could result in a large number
of entries in the Performance Metrics Registry. There is agreement
that less is more in this context - it is better to have a reduced
set of useful metrics rather than a large set of metrics, some with
with questionable usefulness.
6.1. Why this Attempt Will Succeed
As mentioned in the previous section, one of the main issues with the
previous registry was that the metrics contained in the registry were
too generic to be useful. This document specifies stricter criteria
for performance metric registration (see section 6), and imposes a
group of Performance Metrics Experts that will provide guidelines to
assess if a Performance Metric is properly specified.
Another key difference between this attempt and the previous one is
that in this case there is at least one clear user for the
Performance Metrics Registry: the LMAP framework and protocol.
Because the LMAP protocol will use the Performance Metrics Registry
values in its operation, this actually helps to determine if a metric
is properly defined. In particular, since we expect that the LMAP
control protocol will enable a controller to request a measurement
agent to perform a measurement using a given metric by embedding the
Performance Metric Registry value in the protocol, a metric is
properly specified if it is defined well-enough so that it is
possible (and practical) to implement the metric in the measurement
agent. This was the failure of the previous attempt: a registry
entry with an undefined Type-P (section 13 of RFC 2330 [RFC2330])
allows implementation to be ambiguous.
7. Definition of the Performance Metric Registry
This Performance Metric Registry is applicable to Performance Metrics
used for Active Measurement, Passive Measurement, and any other form
of Performance Metric. Each category of measurement has unique
properties, so some of the columns defined below are not applicable
for a given metric category. In this case, the column(s) SHOULD be
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
populated with the "NA" value (Non Applicable). However, the "NA"
value MUST NOT be used by any metric in the following columns:
Identifier, Name, URI, Status, Requester, Revision, Revision Date,
Description. In the future, a new category of metrics could require
additional columns, and adding new columns is a recognized form of
registry extension. The specification defining the new column(s)
MUST give guidelines to populate the new column(s) for existing
entries (in general).
The columns of the Performance Metric Registry are defined below.
The columns are grouped into "Categories" to facilitate the use of
the registry. Categories are described at the 7.x heading level, and
columns are at the 7.x.y heading level. The Figure below illustrates
this organization. An entry (row) therefore gives a complete
description of a Registered Performance Metric.
Each column serves as a check-list item and helps to avoid omissions
during registration and expert review.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
Registry Categories and Columns, shown as
Category
------------------
Column | Column |
Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identifier | Name | URIs | Desc. | Reference | Change Controller | Ver |
Metric Definition
-----------------------------------------
Reference Definition | Fixed Parameters |
Method of Measurement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference | Packet | Traffic | Sampling | Run-time | Role |
Method | Stream | Filter | Distribution | Parameters | |
| Generation |
Output
-----------------------------------------
Type | Reference | Units | Calibration |
| Definition | | |
Administrative Information
----------------------------------
Status |Request | Rev | Rev.Date |
Comments and Remarks
--------------------
7.1. Summary Category
7.1.1. Identifier
A numeric identifier for the Registered Performance Metric. This
identifier MUST be unique within the Performance Metric Registry.
The Registered Performance Metric unique identifier is a 16-bit
integer (range 0 to 65535).
The Identifier 0 should be Reserved. The Identifier values from
64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use.
When adding newly Registered Performance Metrics to the Performance
Metric Registry, IANA should assign the lowest available identifier
to the next Registered Performance Metric.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
7.1.2. Name
As the name of a Registered Performance Metric is the first thing a
potential human implementor will use when determining whether it is
suitable for their measurement study, it is important to be as
precise and descriptive as possible. In future, users will review
the names to determine if the metric they want to measure has already
been registered, or if a similar entry is available as a basis for
creating a new entry.
Names are composed of the following elements, separated by an
underscore character "_":
MetricType_Method_SubTypeMethod_... Spec_Units_Output
o MetricType: a combination of the directional properties and the
metric measured, such as:
RTDelay (Round Trip Delay)
RTDNS (Response Time Domain Name Service)
RLDNS (Response Loss Domain Name Service)
OWDelay (One Way Delay)
RTLoss (Round Trip Loss)
OWLoss (One Way Loss)
OWPDV (One Way Packet Delay Variation)
OWIPDV (One Way Inter-Packet Delay Variation)
OWReorder (One Way Packet Reordering)
OWDuplic (One Way Packet Duplication)
OWBTC (One Way Bulk Transport Capacity)
OWMBM (One Way Model Based Metric)
SPMonitor (Single Point Monitor)
MPMonitor (Multi-Point Monitor)
o Method: One of the methods defined in [RFC7799], such as:
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
Active (depends on a dedicated measurement packet stream and
observations of the stream)
Passive (depends *solely* on observation of one or more
existing packet streams)
HybridType1 (obervations on one stream that combine both active
and passive methods)
HybridType2 (obervations on two or more streams that combine
both active and passive methods)
Spatial (Spatial Metric of RFC5644)
o SubTypeMethod: One or more sub-types to further describe the
features of the entry, such as:
ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol)
IP (Internet Protocol)
DSCPxx (where xx is replaced by a Diffserv code point)
UDP (User Datagram Protocol)
TCP (Transport Control Protocol)
QUIC (QUIC transport protocol)
HS (Hand-Shake, such as TCP's 3-way HS)
Poisson (Packet generation using Poisson distribution)
Periodic (Periodic packet generation)
SendOnRcv (Sender keeps one packet in-transit by sending when
previous packet arrives)
PayloadxxxxB (where xxxx is replaced by an integer, the number
of octets in the Payload))
SustainedBurst (Capacity test, worst case)
StandingQueue (test of bottleneck queue behavior)
@@@@<add others from MBM draft?>
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
SubTypeMethod values are separated by a hyphen "-" character,
which indicates that they belong to this element, and that their
order is unimportant when considering name uniqueness.
o Spec: RFC that specifies this entry in the form RFCXXXXsecY, such
as RFC7799sec3. Note: this is not the Primary Reference
specification for the metric definition; it will contain the
placeholder "RFCXXXXsecY" until the RFC number is assigned to the
specifying document, and would remain blank in private registry
entries without a corresponding RFC.
o Units: The units of measurement for the output, such as:
Seconds
Ratio (unitless)
Percent (value multiplied by 100)
Logical (1 or 0)
Packets
BPS (Bits per Second)
PPS (Packets per Second)
EventTotal (for unit-less counts)
Multiple (more than one type of unit)
Enumerated (a list of outcomes)
Unitless
o Output: The type of output resulting from measurement, such as:
Singleton
Raw (multiple Singletons)
Count
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
Mean
95Percentile (95th Percentile)
99Percentile (99th Percentile)
StdDev (Standard Deviation)
Variance
PFI (Pass, Fail, Inconclusive)
FlowRecords (descriptions of flows observed)
LossRatio (lost packets to total packets, <=1)
An example is:
RTDelay_Active_IP-UDP-Periodic_RFCXXXXsecY_Seconds_95Percentile
as described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry].
Note that private registries following the format described here
SHOULD use the prefix "Priv_" on any name to avoid unintended
conflicts (further considerations are described in section 10).
Private registry entries usually have no specifying RFC, thus the
Spec: element has no clear interpretation.
7.1.3. URIs
The URIs column MUST contain a URI [RFC3986] that uniquely identifies
the metric. This URI is a URN [RFC2141]. The URI is automatically
generated by prepending the prefix
urn:ietf:metrics:perf:
to the metric name. The resulting URI is globally unique.
The URIs column MUST contain a second URI which is a URL [RFC3986]
and uniquely identifies and locates the metric entry so it is
accessible through the Internet. The URL points to a file containing
the human-readable information of exactly one registry entry.
Ideally, the file will be HTML-formated and contain URLs to
referenced sections of HTML-ized RFCs. The separate files for
different entries can be more easily edited and re-used when
preparing new entries. The exact composition of each metric URL will
be determined by IANA and reside on "iana.org", but there will be
some overlap with the URN described above. The major sections of
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
[I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] provide an example in HTML form
(sections 4 and higher).
7.1.4. Description
A Registered Performance Metric description is a written
representation of a particular Performance Metrics Registry entry.
It supplements the Registered Performance Metric name to help
Performance Metrics Registry users select relevant Registered
Performance Metrics.
7.1.5. Reference
This entry gives the specification containing the candidate registry
entry which was reviewed and agreed, if such an RFC or other
specification exists.
7.1.6. Change Controller
This entry names the entity responsible for approving revsions to the
regsitry entry, and provides contact information.
7.1.7. Version (of Registry Format)
This entry gives the version number for the registry format used.
Formats complying with this memo MUST use 1.0.
7.2. Metric Definition Category
This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details
related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and
values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open
in the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance
metric.
7.2.1. Reference Definition
This entry provides a reference (or references) to the relevant
section(s) of the document(s) that define the metric, as well as any
supplemental information needed to ensure an unambiguous definition
for implementations. The reference needs to be an immutable
document, such as an RFC; for other standards bodies, it is likely to
be necessary to reference a specific, dated version of a
specification.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
7.2.2. Fixed Parameters
Fixed Parameters are Parameters whose value must be specified in the
Performance Metrics Registry. The measurement system uses these
values.
Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated
as Fixed Parameters. As an example for active metrics, Fixed
Parameters determine most or all of the IPPM Framework convention
"packets of Type-P" as described in [RFC2330], such as transport
protocol, payload length, TTL, etc. An example for passive metrics
is for RTP packet loss calculation that relies on the validation of a
packet as RTP which is a multi-packet validation controlled by
MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550]. Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL
values can alter the loss report and this value could be set as a
Fixed Parameter.
Parameters MUST have well-defined names. For human readers, the
hanging indent style is preferred, and any Parameter names and
definitions that do not appear in the Reference Method Specification
MUST appear in this column (or Run-time Parameters column).
Parameters MUST have a well-specified data format.
A Parameter which is a Fixed Parameter for one Performance Metrics
Registry entry may be designated as a Run-time Parameter for another
Performance Metrics Registry entry.
7.3. Method of Measurement Category
This category includes columns for references to relevant sections of
the RFC(s) and any supplemental information needed to ensure an
unambiguous method for implementations.
7.3.1. Reference Method
This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s)
describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental
information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for
implementations referring to the RFC text.
Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or
actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
7.3.2. Packet Stream Generation
This column applies to Performance Metrics that generate traffic for
a part of their Measurement Method purposes including but not
necessarily limited to Active metrics. The generated traffic is
referred as stream and this columns describe its characteristics.
Each entry for this column contains the following information:
o Value: The name of the packet stream scheduling discipline
o Reference: the specification where the stream is defined
The packet generation stream may require parameters such as the the
average packet rate and distribution truncation value for streams
with Poisson-distributed inter-packet sending times. In case such
parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed
parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on
wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric.
The simplest example of stream specification is Singleton scheduling
(see [RFC2330]), where a single atomic measurement is conducted.
Each atomic measurement could consist of sending a single packet
(such as a DNS request) or sending several packets (for example, to
request a webpage). Other streams support a series of atomic
measurements in a "sample", with a schedule defining the timing
between each transmitted packet and subsequent measurement.
Principally, two different streams are used in IPPM metrics, Poisson
distributed as described in [RFC2330] and Periodic as described in
[RFC3432]. Both Poisson and Periodic have their own unique
parameters, and the relevant set of parameters names and values
should be included either in the Fixed Parameters column or in the
Run-time parameter column.
7.3.3. Traffic Filter
This column applies to Performance Metrics that observe packets
flowing through (the device with) the measurement agent i.e. that is
not necessarily addressed to the measurement agent. This includes
but is not limited to Passive Metrics. The filter specifies the
traffic that is measured. This includes protocol field values/
ranges, such as address ranges, and flow or session identifiers.
The traffic filter itself depends on needs of the metric itself and a
balance of operators measurement needs and user's need for privacy.
Mechanics for conveying the filter criteria might be the BPF (Berkley
Packet Filter) or PSAMP [RFC5475] Property Match Filtering which
reuses IPFIX [RFC7012]. An example BPF string for matching TCP/80
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
traffic to remote destination net 192.0.2.0/24 would be "dst net
192.0.2.0/24 and tcp dst port 80". More complex filter engines might
be supported by the implementation that might allow for matching
using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology.
The traffic filter includes the following information:
Type: the type of traffic filter used, e.g. BPF, PSAMP, OpenFlow
rule, etc. as defined by a normative reference
Value: the actual set of rules expressed
7.3.4. Sampling Distribution
The sampling distribution defines out of all the packets that match
the traffic filter, which one of those are actually used for the
measurement. One possibility is "all" which implies that all packets
matching the Traffic filter are considered, but there may be other
sampling strategies. It includes the following information:
Value: the name of the sampling distribution
Reference definition: pointer to the specification where the
sampling distribution is properly defined.
The sampling distribution may require parameters. In case such
parameters are needed, they should be included either in the Fixed
parameter column or in the run time parameter column, depending on
wether they will be fixed or will be an input for the metric.
Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection are
documented in the PSAMP (Packet Sampling) [RFC5475], while the
Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting, [RFC5474] provides more
background information. The sampling distribution parameters might
be expressed in terms of the Information Model for Packet Sampling
Exports, [RFC5477], and the Flow Selection Techniques, [RFC7014].
7.3.5. Run-time Parameters
Run-Time Parameters are Parameters that must be determined,
configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results
for the context to be complete. However, the values of these
parameters is not specified in the Performance Metrics Registry (like
the Fixed Parameters), rather these parameters are listed as an aid
to the measurement system implementer or user (they must be left as
variables, and supplied on execution).
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated
as Run-Time Parameters.
Parameters MUST have well defined names. For human readers, the
hanging indent style is preferred, and the names and definitions that
do not appear in the Reference Method Specification MUST appear in
this column.
A Data Format for each Run-time Parameter MUST be specified in this
column, to simplify the control and implementation of measurement
devices. For example, parameters that include an IPv4 address can be
encoded as a 32 bit integer (i.e. binary base64 encoded value) or ip-
address as defined in [RFC6991]. The actual encoding(s) used must be
explicitly defined for each Run-time parameter. IPv6 addresses and
options MUST be accomodated, allowing Registered Metrics to be used
in either address family.
Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement
point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and
other information essential to the method of measurement.
7.3.6. Role
In some method of measurements, there may be several roles defined
e.g. on a one-way packet delay active measurement, there is one
measurement agent that generates the packets and the other one that
receives the packets. This column contains the name of the role for
this particular entry. In the previous example, there should be two
entries in the registry, one for each role, so that when a
measurement agent is instructed to perform the one way delay source
metric know that it is supposed to generate packets. The values for
this field are defined in the reference method of measurement.
7.4. Output Category
For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a
statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to
a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is
output, this will be specified here.
Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric
definition, while others allow several output types or statistics.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
7.4.1. Type
This column contains the name of the output type. The output type
defines a single type of result that the metric produces. It can be
the raw results (packet send times and singleton metrics), or it can
be a summary statistic. The specification of the output type MUST
define the format of the output. In some systems, format
specifications will simplify both measurement implementation and
collection/storage tasks. Note that if two different statistics are
required from a single measurement (for example, both "Xth percentile
mean" and "Raw"), then a new output type must be defined ("Xth
percentile mean AND Raw"). See the Naming section above for a list
of Output Types.
7.4.2. Reference Definition
This column contains a pointer to the specification(s) where the
output type and format are defined.
7.4.3. Metric Units
The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension
or units of measure. This column provides the units.
When a sample of singletons (see Section 11 of[RFC2330] for
definitions of these terms) is collected, this entry will specify the
units for each measured value.
7.4.4. Calibration
Some specifications for Methods of Measurement include the
possibility to perform an error calibration. Section 3.7.3 of
[RFC7679] is one example. In the registry entry, this field will
identify a method of calibration for the metric, and when available,
the measurement system SHOULD perform the calibration when requested
and produce the output with an indication that it is the restult of a
calbration method. In-situ calibration could be enabled with an
internal loopback that includes as much of the measurement system as
possible, performs address manipulation as needed, and provides some
form of isolation (e.g., deterministic delay) to avoid send-receive
interface contention. Some portion of the random and systematic
error can be characterized this way.
For one-way delay measurements, the error calibration must include an
assessment of the internal clock synchronization with its external
reference (this internal clock is supplying timestamps for
measurement). In practice, the time offsets of clocks at both the
source and destination are needed to estimate the systematic error
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
due to imperfect clock synchronization (the time offsets are
smoothed, thus the random variation is not usually represented in the
results).
Both internal loopback calibration and clock synchronization can be
used to estimate the *available accuracy* of the Output Metric Units.
For example, repeated loopback delay measurements will reveal the
portion of the Output result resolution which is the result of system
noise, and thus inaccurate.
7.5. Administrative information
7.5.1. Status
The status of the specification of this Registered Performance
Metric. Allowed values are 'current' and 'deprecated'. All newly
defined Information Elements have 'current' status.
7.5.2. Requester
The requester for the Registered Performance Metric. The requester
MAY be a document, such as RFC, or person.
7.5.3. Revision
The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric, starting at 0
for Registered Performance Metrics at time of definition and
incremented by one for each revision.
7.5.4. Revision Date
The date of acceptance or the most recent revision for the Registered
Performance Metric.
7.6. Comments and Remarks
Besides providing additional details which do not appear in other
categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen
issues to be addressed by simply updating this informational entry.
8. The Life-Cycle of Registered Performance Metrics
Once a Performance Metric or set of Performance Metrics has been
identified for a given application, candidate Performance Metrics
Registry entry specifications in accordance with Section 7 are
submitted to IANA to follow the process for review by the Performance
Metric Experts, as defined below. This process is also used for
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
other changes to the Performance Metric Registry, such as deprecation
or revision, as described later in this section.
It is also desirable that the author(s) of a candidate Performance
Metrics Registry entry seek review in the relevant IETF working
group, or offer the opportunity for review on the WG mailing list.
8.1. Adding new Performance Metrics to the Performance Metrics Registry
Requests to change Registered Performance Metrics in the Performance
Metric Registry are submitted to IANA, which forwards the request to
a designated group of experts (Performance Metric Experts) appointed
by the IESG; these are the reviewers called for by the Expert Review
RFC5226 policy defined for the Performance Metric Registry. The
Performance Metric Experts review the request for such things as
compliance with this document, compliance with other applicable
Performance Metric-related RFCs, and consistency with the currently
defined set of Registered Performance Metrics.
Authors are expected to review compliance with the specifications in
this document to check their submissions before sending them to IANA.
The Performance Metric Experts should endeavor to complete referred
reviews in a timely manner. If the request is acceptable, the
Performance Metric Experts signify their approval to IANA, which
updates the Performance Metric Registry. If the request is not
acceptable, the Performance Metric Experts can coordinate with the
requester to change the request to be compliant. The Performance
Metric Experts may also choose in exceptional circumstances to reject
clearly frivolous or inappropriate change requests outright.
This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the
Performance Metric Experts to overrule IETF consensus. Specifically,
any Registered Performance Metrics that were added with IETF
consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation.
Decisions by the Performance Metric Experts may be appealed as in
Section 7 of RFC5226.
8.2. Revising Registered Performance Metrics
A request for Revision is only permissible when the changes maintain
backward-compatibility with implementations of the prior Performance
Metrics Registry entry describing a Registered Performance Metric
(entries with lower revision numbers, but the same Identifier and
Name).
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
The purpose of the Status field in the Performance Metric Registry is
to indicate whether the entry for a Registered Performance Metric is
'current' or 'deprecated'.
In addition, no policy is defined for revising the Performance Metric
entries in the IANA Regsirty or addressing errors therein. To be
certain, changes and deprecations within the Performance Metric
Registry are not encouraged, and should be avoided to the extent
possible. However, in recognition that change is inevitable, the
provisions of this section address the need for revisions.
Revisions are initiated by sending a candidate Registered Performance
Metric definition to IANA, as in Section 8, identifying the existing
Performance Metrics Registry entry.
The primary requirement in the definition of a policy for managing
changes to existing Registered Performance Metrics is avoidance of
interoperability problems; Performance Metric Experts must work to
maintain interoperability above all else. Changes to Registered
Performance Metrics may only be done in an inter-operable way;
necessary changes that cannot be done in a way to allow
interoperability with unchanged implementations must result in the
creation of a new Registered Performance Metric and possibly the
deprecation of the earlier metric.
A change to a Registered Performance Metric is held to be backward-
compatible only when:
1. "it involves the correction of an error that is obviously only
editorial; or"
2. "it corrects an ambiguity in the Registered Performance Metric's
definition, which itself leads to issues severe enough to prevent
the Registered Performance Metric's usage as originally defined;
or"
3. "it corrects missing information in the metric definition without
changing its meaning (e.g., the explicit definition of 'quantity'
semantics for numeric fields without a Data Type Semantics
value); or"
4. "it harmonizes with an external reference that was itself
corrected."
If an Performance Metric revision is deemed permissible by the
Performance Metric Experts, according to the rules in this document,
IANA makes the change in the Performance Metric Registry. The
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
requester of the change is appended to the requester in the
Performance Metrics Registry.
Each Registered Performance Metric in the Performance Metrics
Registry has a revision number, starting at zero. Each change to a
Registered Performance Metric following this process increments the
revision number by one.
When a revised Registered Performance Metric is accepted into the
Performance Metric Registry, the date of acceptance of the most
recent revision is placed into the revision Date column of the
registry for that Registered Performance Metric.
Where applicable, additions to Registered Performance Metrics in the
form of text Comments or Remarks should include the date, but such
additions may not constitute a revision according to this process.
Older version(s) of the updated metric entries are kept in the
registry for archival purposes. The older entries are kept with all
fields unmodified (version, revision date) except for the status
field that is changed to "Deprecated".
8.3. Deprecating Registered Performance Metrics
Changes that are not permissible by the above criteria for Registered
Performance Metric's revision may only be handled by deprecation. A
Registered Performance Metric MAY be deprecated and replaced when:
1. "the Registered Performance Metric definition has an error or
shortcoming that cannot be permissibly changed as in
Section Revising Registered Performance Metrics; or"
2. "the deprecation harmonizes with an external reference that was
itself deprecated through that reference's accepted deprecation
method; or"
A request for deprecation is sent to IANA, which passes it to the
Performance Metric Expert for review. When deprecating an
Performance Metric, the Performance Metric description in the
Performance Metric Registry must be updated to explain the
deprecation, as well as to refer to any new Performance Metrics
created to replace the deprecated Performance Metric.
The revision number of a Registered Performance Metric is incremented
upon deprecation, and the revision Date updated, as with any
revision.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
The use of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics should result in
a log entry or human-readable warning by the respective application.
Names and Metric ID of deprecated Registered Performance Metrics must
not be reused.
The deprecated entries are kept with all fields unmodified, except
the version, revision date, and the status field (changed to
"Deprecated").
9. Security considerations
This draft doesn't introduce any new security considerations for the
Internet. However, the definition of Performance Metrics may
introduce some security concerns, and should be reviewed with
security in mind.
10. IANA Considerations
This document requests the following IANA Actions.
10.1. New Namespace Assignments
This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix
urn:ietf:metrics for the purpose of generating URIs for metrics in
general. The registration procedure for the new "metrics" URN sub-
namespace is IETF Review.
This document requests the allocation of the URI prefix
urn:ietf:metrics:perf for the purpose of generating URIs for
Registered Performance Metrics. The registration procedures for the
new "perf" URN sub-namespace are Expert Review or IETF Standards
Action, and coordinated with the entries added to the New Performance
Metrics Registry (see below).
10.2. Performance Metric Name Elements
This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics Name
Element Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new set of
registries for Performance Metric Name Elements called "IETF URN Sub-
namespace for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements"
(urn:ietf:metrics:perf). Each Registry, whose names are listed
below:
MetricType:
Method:
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
SubTypeMethod:
Spec:
Units:
Output:
will contain the current set of possibilities for Performance Metric
Registry Entry Names.
To populate the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Performance
Metric Name Elements at creation, the IANA is asked to use the lists
of values for each name element listed in Section 7.1.2. The Name
Elements in each registry are case-sensitive.
When preparing a Metric entry for Registration, the developer SHOULD
choose Name elements from among the registered elements. However, if
the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, it may be
necessary to propose a new Name element to properly describe the
metric, as described below.
A candidate Metric Entry RFC or document for Expert Review would
propose one or more new element values required to describe the
unique entry, and the new name element(s) would be reviewed along
with the metric entry. New assignments for IETF URN Sub-namespace
for Registered Performance Metric Name Elements will be administered
by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a
group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed
by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors.
10.3. New Performance Metrics Registry
This document specifies the procedure for Performance Metrics
Registry setup. IANA is requested to create a new registry for
Performance Metrics called "Registered Performance Metrics". This
Registry will contain the following Summary columns:
Identifier:
Name:
URIs:
Description:
Reference:
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
Change Controller:
Version:
Descriptions of these columns and additional information found in the
template for registry entries (categories and columns) are further
defined in section Section 7.
The "Identifier" 0 should be Reserved. "The Identifier" values from
64512 to 65536 are reserved for private use.
Names starting with the prefix Priv_ are reserved for private use,
and are not considered for registration. The "Name" column entries
are further defined in section Section 7.
The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each
registry entry, and the linked text may be the URN itself. The
template shall be HTML-ized to aid the reader, with links to
reference RFCs (similar to the way that Internet Drafts are HTML-
ized, the same tool can perform the function).
The "Reference" column will include an RFC, an approved specification
from another standards body, or the contact person.
New assignments for Performance Metric Registry will be administered
by IANA through Expert Review [RFC5226], i.e., review by one of a
group of experts, the Performance Metric Experts, who are appointed
by the IESG upon recommendation of the Transport Area Directors. The
experts can be initially drawn from the Working Group Chairs,
document editors, and members of the Performance Metrics Directorate,
among other sources of experts.
Extensions of the Performance Metric Registry require IETF Standards
Action. Only one form of registry extension is envisaged:
1. Adding columns, or both categories and columns, to accommodate
unanticipated aspects of new measurements and metric categories.
If the Performance Metrics Registry is extended in this way, the
Version number of future entries complying with the extension SHALL
be incremented (either in the unit or tenths digit, depending on the
degree of extension.
11. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Brian Trammell and Bill Cerveny, IPPM chairs, for leading
some brainstorming sessions on this topic. Thanks to Barbara Stark
and Juergen Schoenwaelder for the detailed feedback and suggestions.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
Thanks to Andrew McGregor for suggestions on metric naming. Thanks
to Michelle Cotton for her early IANA review, and to Amanda Barber
for answering questions related to the presentation of the registry
and accessibility of the complete template via URL.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, DOI 10.17487/RFC2141,
May 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2141>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, DOI 10.17487/RFC4148, August
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4148>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248>.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.
[RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,
"IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement
Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]
Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza,
"Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf-
ippm-initial-registry-05 (work in progress), October 2017.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
"RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
[RFC5474] Duffield, N., Ed., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A.,
Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for Packet
Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474, DOI 10.17487/RFC5474,
March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5474>.
[RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.
[RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
RFC 5477, DOI 10.17487/RFC5477, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5477>.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich,
"Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice
Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, DOI 10.17487/RFC6035,
November 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6035>.
[RFC6776] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information
Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an
RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6776, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6776>.
[RFC6792] Wu, Q., Ed., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use
of the RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6792, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6792>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7003] Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap
Discard Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, DOI 10.17487/RFC7003,
September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7003>.
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.
[RFC7014] D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow
Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014,
September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7014>.
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
[RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
Authors' Addresses
Marcelo Bagnulo
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
SPAIN
Phone: 34 91 6249500
Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es
Benoit Claise
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De Kleetlaan 6a b1
1831 Diegem
Belgium
Email: bclaise@cisco.com
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Registry for Performance Metrics March 2018
Philip Eardley
BT
Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath
Ipswich
ENGLAND
Email: philip.eardley@bt.com
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown, NJ
USA
Email: acmorton@att.com
Aamer Akhter
Consultant
118 Timber Hitch
Cary, NC
USA
Email: aakhter@gmail.com
Bagnulo, et al. Expires September 5, 2018 [Page 34]