RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <firstname.lastname@example.org>, RFC Editor <email@example.com>, ippm mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ippm chair <email@example.com> Subject: Document Action: 'RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete' to Informational RFC (draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-03.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'RFC 4148 and the IPPM Metrics Registry are Obsolete' (draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-03.txt) as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group. The IESG contact person is Lars Eggert. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete/
Technical Summary This memo recommends that RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry be reclassified as Historic, and the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry itself be withdrawn from use. The current registry structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics. Despite apparent efforts to find current or even future users, no one has responded to the third quarter of 2010 call for interest in the RFC 4148 registry. Working Group Summary This is a strange draft in a sense that it does not contain any technical content, it only asks IANA to stop updating a registry. Technically, it is therefore very simple and does not need lots of reviews. The issue itself, do we need a registry for IPPM metrics, has been under discussion for about 6 months. During those 6 months, the WG could not identify anybody actually using the registry or interested in upgrading it to something more useful. Further evidence that the registry is not used, is given in the document. It should also be noted that obsoleting this registry will not break anything. IANA practice is to keep the files related to an obsoleted registry at their current location, if somebody is actively using these files, they will still be there with their current content. An obvious questions is why the WG cares about an unused registry. The problem is that even though the registry is not used, it needs to be maintained. Maintaining it requires considerable effort from both document authors for new metrics (in particular when they are not familiar with the concept of a registry) and the IANA. We want to avoid that. Document Quality Good. Personnel Document shepherd is Henk Uijterwaal (firstname.lastname@example.org). Lars Eggert (email@example.com) reviewed the document for the IESG.