Test Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the Standards Track
RFC 6808

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     L. Ciavattone
Request for Comments: 6808                                     AT&T Labs
Category: Informational                                          R. Geib
ISSN: 2070-1721                                         Deutsche Telekom
                                                               A. Morton
                                                               AT&T Labs
                                                               M. Wieser
                                          Technical University Darmstadt
                                                           December 2012

            Test Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of
                    RFC 2679 on the Standards Track

Abstract

   This memo provides the supporting test plan and results to advance
   RFC 2679 on one-way delay metrics along the Standards Track,
   following the process in RFC 6576.  Observing that the metric
   definitions themselves should be the primary focus rather than the
   implementations of metrics, this memo describes the test procedures
   to evaluate specific metric requirement clauses to determine if the
   requirement has been interpreted and implemented as intended.  Two
   completely independent implementations have been tested against the
   key specifications of RFC 2679.  This memo also provides direct input
   for development of a revision of RFC 2679.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6808.

Ciavattone, et al.            Informational                     [Page 1]
RFC 6808             Standards Track Tests RFC 2679        December 2012

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Ciavattone, et al.            Informational                     [Page 2]
RFC 6808             Standards Track Tests RFC 2679        December 2012

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
      1.1. Requirements Language ......................................5
   2. A Definition-Centric Metric Advancement Process .................5
   3. Test Configuration ..............................................5
   4. Error Calibration, RFC 2679 .....................................9
      4.1. NetProbe Error and Type-P .................................10
      4.2. Perfas+ Error and Type-P ..................................12
   5. Predetermined Limits on Equivalence ............................12
   6. Tests to Evaluate RFC 2679 Specifications ......................13
      6.1. One-Way Delay, ADK Sample Comparison: Same- and Cross-
           Implementation ............................................13
           6.1.1. NetProbe Same-Implementation Results ...............15
           6.1.2. Perfas+ Same-Implementation Results ................16
           6.1.3. One-Way Delay, Cross-Implementation ADK
                  Comparison .........................................16
           6.1.4. Conclusions on the ADK Results for One-Way Delay ...17