Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track
RFC 7290
Document | Type | RFC - Informational (July 2014; No errata) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Len Ciavattone , Ruediger Geib , Al Morton , Matthias Wieser | ||
Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
Replaces | draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2680 | ||
Stream | Internent Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Brian Trammell | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2014-01-20) | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 7290 (Informational) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Spencer Dawkins | ||
Send notices to | (None) | ||
IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
IANA action state | No IANA Actions |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ciavattone Request for Comments: 7290 AT&T Labs Category: Informational R. Geib ISSN: 2070-1721 Deutsche Telekom A. Morton AT&T Labs M. Wieser Technical University Darmstadt July 2014 Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track Abstract This memo provides the supporting test plan and results to advance RFC 2680, a performance metric RFC defining one-way packet loss metrics, along the Standards Track. 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 2680. 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/rfc7290. Ciavattone, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 7290 Standards Track Tests for RFC 2680 July 2014 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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 7290 Standards Track Tests for RFC 2680 July 2014 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................3 1.1. Requirements Language ......................................4 1.2. RFC 2680 Coverage ..........................................5 2. A Definition-Centric Metric Advancement Process .................5 3. Test Configuration ..............................................5 4. Error Calibration and RFC 2680 ..................................9 4.1. Clock Synchronization Calibration ..........................9 4.2. Packet Loss Determination Error ...........................10 5. Predetermined Limits on Equivalence ............................10 6. Tests to Evaluate RFC 2680 Specifications ......................11 6.1. One-Way Loss: ADK Sample Comparison .......................11 6.1.1. 340B/Periodic Cross-Implementation Results .........12 6.1.2. 64B/Periodic Cross-Implementation Results ..........14 6.1.3. 64B/Poisson Cross-Implementation Results ...........15 6.1.4. Conclusions on the ADK Results for One-Way Packet Loss ........................................16 6.2. One-Way Loss: Delay Threshold .............................16Show full document text