Skip to main content

Spatial Composition of Metrics
RFC 6049

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
16 (System) Notify list changed from ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
16 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Stewart Bryant
2012-08-22
16 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2012-08-22
16 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ronald Bonica
2011-01-04
16 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-01-04
16 Cindy Morgan [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6049'
2011-01-04
16 (System) RFC published
2010-09-10
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2010-09-10
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2010-09-10
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-09-08
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-09-08
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-09-07
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-09-07
16 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2010-09-03
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-09-03
16 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-09-03
16 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-09-03
16 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-09-02
16 Lars Eggert State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert
2010-09-02
16 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot discuss]
The term

Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream[i]

is very confusing.

Similarly the term Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream metric is confusing.

I think that the authors are trying to use the …
[Ballot discuss]
The term

Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream[i]

is very confusing.

Similarly the term Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream metric is confusing.

I think that the authors are trying to use the same text to describe both metrics, but it is not clear that they are not presenting a math expression.

The term FiniteDelay is not defined in this doc and I could nor see it in RFC2679

Similarly I do not see definitions for MeanDelay or CompMeanDelay or MinDelay*

In each case they seem to be an intermediate variable, but I can't find text explaining why this is done.

* - there is a definition of MinDelay in a much later section, but it's not clear that this is a general definition, nor is there a forward reference to it.

========

I cannot parse the ASCII maths that is used to calculate

Type-P-Composite-One-way-pdv-refmin-quantile-a
2010-09-02
16 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Stewart Bryant
2010-09-02
16 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ron Bonica has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ron Bonica
2010-09-01
16 Amy Vezza State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by Amy Vezza
2010-08-26
16 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu
2010-08-18
16 Amanda Baber
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "IANA-IPPM-METRICS-REGISTRY-MIB" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaippmmetricsregistry-mib

ietfFiniteOneWayDelayStream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Stream"
REFERENCE …
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "IANA-IPPM-METRICS-REGISTRY-MIB" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaippmmetricsregistry-mib

ietfFiniteOneWayDelayStream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn


ietfFiniteOneWayDelayMean OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn



ietfCompositeOneWayDelayMean OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-Composite-One-way-Delay-Mean"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.2.5."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn



ietfFiniteOneWayDelayMinimum OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Minimum"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.3.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn



ietfCompositeOneWayDelayMinimum OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-Composite-One-way-Delay-Minimum"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn


ietfOneWayPktLossEmpiricProb OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.1.4"
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn


ietfCompositeOneWayPktLossEmpiricProb OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Composite-One-way-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn



ietfOneWayPdvRefminStream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn


ietfOneWayPdvRefminMean OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Mean"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.1.4."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn


ietfOneWayPdvRefminVariance OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Variance"
REFERENCE

"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.1.4."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn



ietfOneWayPdvRefminSkewness OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Skewness"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.1.4."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn



ietfCompositeOneWayPdvRefminQtil OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Composite-One-way-pdv-refmin-quantile-a"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.1.5.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn



ietfCompositeOneWayPdvRefminNPA OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-Composite-pdv-refmin-NPA"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.1.5.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
::= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
2010-08-17
16 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-08-17
16 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-08-17
16 Lars Eggert Needs a second last call to call out the downrefs.
2010-08-17
16 Lars Eggert Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert
2010-08-17
16 Lars Eggert State changed to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert
2010-08-14
16 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-08-14
16 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-16.txt
2010-08-13
16 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-08-12
2010-08-12
16 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-12
16 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-08-11
16 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
I almost made this a discuss, but thought better of it:

Should the must in the following be MUST?

Passive measurement must restrict …
[Ballot comment]
I almost made this a discuss, but thought better of it:

Should the must in the following be MUST?

Passive measurement must restrict attention to the headers of interest.

You later mention precautions MUST be taken to keep user information safe and confidential.  Seems like the above would fall in to the same kind of MUST?
2010-08-11
16 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-08-11
16 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-08-11
16 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-08-11
16 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-11
16 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Harrington
2010-08-10
16 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-08-09
16 Ron Bonica
[Ballot discuss]
Nits:


  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5644' is defined on line 1246, but no explicit
    reference was found in the …
[Ballot discuss]
Nits:


  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5644' is defined on line 1246, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5835
2010-08-09
16 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-08-09
16 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot comment]
I found this draft very difficult to read. In part this is the authors terse style and in part this is because of …
[Ballot comment]
I found this draft very difficult to read. In part this is the authors terse style and in part this is because of the constraints placed on the authors by the use of ASCII text to express mathematical concepts. In respect of the latter we may wish to encourage the authors to submit a a pdf version of this document using standard math notation.

============

Type-P-Finite--Composite-One-way-Delay-Minimum,

looks like a typo "--"

==========

The term "ground truth" is used, but I could not see a definition or a reference. Google seems to indicate that it is a technical term in sensing, thus a reference or definition would be useful to the reader.

========

A reference should be provided for the derivation of the measurement of

Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Skewness
2010-08-09
16 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot discuss]
The term

Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream[i]

is very confusing.

Similarly the term Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream metric is confusing.

I think that the authors are trying to use the …
[Ballot discuss]
The term

Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream[i]

is very confusing.

Similarly the term Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream metric is confusing.

I think that the authors are trying to use the same text to describe both metrics, but it is not clear that they are not presenting a math expression.

The term FiniteDelay is not defined in this doc and I could nor see it in RFC2679

Similarly I do not see definitions for MeanDelay or CompMeanDelay or MinDelay*

In each case they seem to be an intermediate variable, but I can't find text explaining why this is done.

* - there is a definition of MinDelay in a much later section, but it's not clear that this is a general definition, nor is there a forward reference to it.

========

I cannot parse the ASCII maths that is used to calculate

Type-P-Composite-One-way-pdv-refmin-quantile-a
2010-08-09
16 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant
2010-08-09
16 Dan Romascanu [Ballot comment]
The OPS-DIR review by Benoit Claise made a number of useful editorial comments which I suggest to be considered.
2010-08-09
16 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
id-nits complains about RFC 2330 and RFC 5835 being downrefs. The PROTO write-up mentions something about the framework document (actually they are two) …
[Ballot discuss]
id-nits complains about RFC 2330 and RFC 5835 being downrefs. The PROTO write-up mentions something about the framework document (actually they are two) being rather Normative References, and I am OK with this line, but the IETF Last Call did not explicitely call the downrefs.
2010-08-09
16 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
id-nits complains about RFC 2330 and RFC 5835 being downrefs. The PROTO write-up mentions something about the framework document (actually they are two) …
[Ballot discuss]
id-nits complains about RFC 2330 and RFC 5835 being downrefs. The PROTO write-up mentions something about the framework document (actually they are two) being rather Normative References, and I am OK with this line, but the IETF Last Call did not explicitely call the downrefs.
2010-08-09
16 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-08-04
16 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-07-30
16 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Steve Hanna.
2010-07-20
16 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2010-07-20
16 Lars Eggert Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert
2010-07-20
16 Lars Eggert Created "Approve" ballot
2010-07-20
16 Lars Eggert Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-08-12 by Lars Eggert
2010-07-20
16 Lars Eggert State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert
2010-07-20
16 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-07-14
16 Amanda Baber
IANA questions/comments:


- in Section 4.1 you specify the
Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream metric but you
do not register it anywhere. Should you register this metric?

- in …
IANA questions/comments:


- in Section 4.1 you specify the
Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream metric but you
do not register it anywhere. Should you register this metric?

- in Section 6.1 you specify the
Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Poisson/Periodic-Stream metric but you do
not register it anywhere. Should you register this metric?

The Following registrations do not match the document. Either the
document defines the metric in a different place, or the document does
not define the metric at all (except, sometimes, as a formula):

- you register the Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Stream metric and
specify section 5.1, but this metric is not defined in section 5.1.

- you register the Type-P-Finite-Composite-One-way-Delay-Mean metric
and specify section 5.2.5, but this metric is defined in section 4.2.

- you register the Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Minimum metric and
specify section 5.3.2, but this metric is not defined in section
5.3.2

- you register the Type-P-Finite-Composite-One-way-Delay-Minimum
metric and specify section 5.3.5, but this metric is defined in
section 4.3.

- you register the Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability
metric and specify section 6.1.4, but this metric is defined in
section 5.1.4.

- you register the
Type-P-Composite-One-way-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability metric
and specify section 6.1.5, but this metric is defined in section
5.1.

- you register the Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Stream metric and specify
section 7.1, but this metric is not defined in section 7.1.

- you register the Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Mean metric and specify
section 7.1.4, but this metric is not defined in section 7.1.4.

- you register the Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Variance metric and specify
section 7.1.4, but this metric is not defined in section 7.1.4.

- you register the Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Skewness metric and specify
section 7.1.4, but this metric is not defined in section 7.1.4.

- you register the Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-quantile-a metric and specify
section 7.1.5.1, but this metric is not defined in section 7.1.5.1.

- you register the Type-P-One-way-Composite-pdv-refmin-NPA metric and
specify section 7.1.5.2, but this metric is not defined in section
7.1.5.2.


Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments
in the "IANA-IPPM-METRICS-REGISTRY-MIB" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaippmmetricsregistry-mib

ietfFiniteOneWayDelayStream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 5.1."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }


ietfFiniteOneWayDelayMean OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 5.2."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }



ietfCompositeOneWayDelayMean OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-Composite-One-way-Delay-Mean"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 5.2.5."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }



ietfFiniteOneWayDelayMinimum OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Minimum"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 5.3.2."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }



ietfCompositeOneWayDelayMinimum OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Finite-Composite-One-way-Delay-Minimum"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 5.3.5."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }


ietfOneWayPktLossEmpiricProb OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 6.1.4."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }


ietfCompositeOneWayPktLossEmpiricProb OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Composite-One-way-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 6.1.5."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }



ietfOneWayPdvRefminStream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 7.1."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }


ietfOneWayPdvRefminMean OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Mean"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 7.1.4."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }


ietfOneWayPdvRefminVariance OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Variance"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 7.1.4."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }



ietfOneWayPdvRefminSkewness OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-pdv-refmin-Skewness"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 7.1.4."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }



ietfCompositeOneWayPdvRefminQtil OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Composite-One-way-pdv-refmin-quantile-a"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 7.1.5.1."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }



ietfCompositeOneWayPdvRefminNPA OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-way-Composite-pdv-refmin-NPA"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFC-ippm-spatial-composition-15, section 7.1.5.2."
::= { ianaIppmMetrics TBD }


We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.
2010-07-11
16 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2010-07-11
16 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2010-07-06
16 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-07-03
16 Lars Eggert Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert
2010-07-03
16 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-07-03
16 (System) Last call text was added
2010-07-03
16 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-07-03
16 Lars Eggert State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert
2010-07-02
15 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-15.txt
2010-07-01
14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-14.txt
2010-07-01
16 Lars Eggert State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert
2010-07-01
16 Lars Eggert The IPPM registry needs to be obsoleted before this can be progressed.
2010-06-30
16 Lars Eggert State Change Notice email list have been change to ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition@tools.ietf.org from ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org
2010-06-30
16 Lars Eggert State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert
2010-06-30
16 Lars Eggert [Note]: 'Henk Uijterwaal (henk@ripe.net) is the document shepherd.' added by Lars Eggert
2010-06-28
16 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Cindy Morgan
2010-06-28
16 Cindy Morgan
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he …
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Document sheperd is Henk Uijterwaal. The second question is too stupid
to answer.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members?

Yes, please see the list in section 1 and 10.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of?

There is one practical issues, see section 9.

The problem is that we defined a registry for our metrics but that it
has seen almost no use at all. This makes it hard to ask people to
continue to maintain it.

There are suggestions to improve the registry to something that is
useful, but these have to go through the entire WG process. I don't
think we should wait for that with this document, but rather just
publish it and fix things if/when there is consensus on a new
registry format. And if the group decides to abandon the regisitry,
then no time is wasted here either.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

A group of 10 people has reviewed the document.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

No

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits?

There is one nit remaining. A down-reference to a framework
document (published as informative). Framework docs are published
as informative, but if they don't define terms and concepts in this
document in a normative way, then what purpose do they serve?

The other nits found by the tool seem to be a problem of the tool.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state?

Yes, no

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?

Yes.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

N/A

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
This memo utilizes IP Performance Metrics that are applicable to both
complete paths and sub-paths, and defines relationships to compose a
complete path metric from the sub-path metrics with some accuracy
w.r.t. the actual metrics. This is called Spatial Composition in RFC
2330
. The memo refers to the Framework for Metric Composition, and
provides background and motivation for combining metrics to derive
others. The descriptions of several composed metrics and statistics
follow.

Working Group Summary
The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for
several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing
special worth noticing.

Document Quality
Good
2010-06-28
16 Cindy Morgan Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None
2010-06-28
16 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Henk Uijterwaal (henk@ripe.net) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-06-25
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-13.txt
2010-05-31
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-12.txt
2010-04-14
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-11.txt
2009-10-19
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-10.txt
2009-06-25
16 Cindy Morgan State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-23
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-09.txt
2009-03-07
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-08.txt
2009-01-14
16 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2009-01-14
16 (System) Document has expired
2008-07-13
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-07.txt
2008-02-25
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-06.txt
2007-11-05
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-05.txt
2007-07-08
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-04.txt
2007-03-20
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-03.txt
2006-10-24
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-02.txt
2006-06-28
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-01.txt
2006-06-12
16 Lars Eggert Draft Added by Lars Eggert in state AD is watching
2006-02-28
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-00.txt