A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
RFC 7679
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-02-04
|
05 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Errata tag, added Verified Errata tag) |
|
2016-01-29
|
05 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2016-01-20
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7679">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2015-10-20
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7679">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Bill Cerveny" <ietf@wjcerveny.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-08-24
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2015-08-23
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Al Morton. |
|
2015-08-23
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton |
|
2015-08-23
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton |
|
2015-08-23
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
|
2015-08-21
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my comments. |
|
2015-08-21
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2015-08-20
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for adding in additional security considerations on reconnaissance. |
|
2015-08-20
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot comment text updated for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2015-08-20
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2015-08-20
|
05 | Al Morton | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2015-08-20
|
05 | Al Morton | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-05.txt |
|
2015-08-20
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2015-08-20
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2015-08-20
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2015-08-19
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I support Alissa's discuss. Alissa's comment reads as being more focused on privacy considerations and this point should be expanded to consider operational … [Ballot comment] I support Alissa's discuss. Alissa's comment reads as being more focused on privacy considerations and this point should be expanded to consider operational security considerations that have been around for a long time, but were not in the original text of this RFC. Collecting measurement data or using measurement data for reconnaissance to later attack systems is quite common. Access to this data or the ability to use measurement techniques to do reconnaissance activity should be guarded agist or at least noted as a security consideration. When you look at text to address her comment, please expand it to include this operational security consideration as it is a very real and present threat. This is pretty much the same as my discuss on the other IPPM draft. Thank you. |
|
2015-08-19
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2015-08-19
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I support Alissa's DISCUSS. The newly added comment in 3.6 about transport layer encryption is egregious and should be deleted or else some … [Ballot comment] I support Alissa's DISCUSS. The newly added comment in 3.6 about transport layer encryption is egregious and should be deleted or else some justification should be offered. I would have hoped for a fuller exposition of the positive and negative impacts of encryption, or none. - the secdir review [1] notes some nits. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05920.html |
|
2015-08-19
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2015-08-19
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] (reviewing only the changes) -- 3.6: I concur with Alissas's DISCUSS about the added sentence about the impacts of transport encryption. -- 5.4: … [Ballot comment] (reviewing only the changes) -- 3.6: I concur with Alissas's DISCUSS about the added sentence about the impacts of transport encryption. -- 5.4: Why not just remove the deprecated statistic? Nits: -- section 1: If there's another update, I suggest moving this to an appendix and not leave it up to the RFC editor to decide. Also, do you expect the RFC editor to remove the opening note? If so, I recommend saying so explicitly. s/differencer/differences |
|
2015-08-19
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2015-08-19
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Nice to see us moving documents to Internet Standard when it's appropriate. |
|
2015-08-19
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2015-08-19
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2015-08-19
|
04 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2015-08-18
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2015-08-18
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot discuss] I am confused about the last sentence in this methodology step in Section 3.6: "+ At the Src host, select Src and Dst … [Ballot discuss] I am confused about the last sentence in this methodology step in Section 3.6: "+ At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and form a test packet of Type-P with these addresses. Any 'padding' portion of the packet needed only to make the test packet a given size should be filled with randomized bits to avoid a situation in which the measured delay is lower than it would otherwise be due to compression techniques along the path. Note that use of transport layer encryption will counteract the deployment of network-based analysis and may reduce the adoption of network-based payload optimizations like compression." I don't understand what is implied about the relationship between transport layer encryption and one-way delay measurements. I thought the metric defined in this document was generally used for end-to-end measurement of delay, so I don't understand what "network-based analysis" has to do with this methodology step. Is the implication that if the measurement packet is encrypted at the transport layer that delay will change? If that is true, isn't the metric itself agnostic to that consideration -- that is, couldn't that be precisely what the person doing the measurements wants to measure? I could quibble with the conclusions of the note itself (e.g., increased transport layer encryption may change but not necessarily reduce network-based "analysis" of various sorts), but mainly I do not understand how it relates to the specification of the metric. Unfortunately the rationale given in Section 1 ("Added text recognizing the impending deployment of transport layer encryption in section 3.6") does not clarify this either. What impending deployment is this referencing? |
|
2015-08-18
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] From Section 6: "The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active measurements described in this memo. Unlike passive measurements, … [Ballot comment] From Section 6: "The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active measurements described in this memo. Unlike passive measurements, there can be no release of existing user data." I realize this is text from RFC 2679, but I think it would be good to update it to reflect what has been learned since the publication of that document. The mere fact that a host is involved in conducting measurements could well be considered privacy-sensitive in some contexts. And a collection of measurements about a host, even active measurements, could leak information about the host's connectivity/availability/etc. if not appropriately safeguarded. I don't think this changes the protocol requirements for this document, but I do think the text above should note these aspects (perhaps similar to how it's done in <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lmap-framework-14#section-8.3>). It's not quite correct to say there can be no release of existing user data. |
|
2015-08-18
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2015-08-18
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2015-08-16
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
|
2015-08-14
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2015-08-14
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] No issues from my perspective given I only reviewed the changes (diff is a wonderful thing) between this draft and RFC 2679. |
|
2015-08-14
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
|
2015-08-14
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-08-20 |
|
2015-08-14
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2015-08-14
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot has been issued |
|
2015-08-14
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2015-08-14
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2015-08-14
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-08-14
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2015-08-13
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Warren Kumari. |
|
2015-08-12
|
04 | Al Morton | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2015-08-12
|
04 | Al Morton | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-04.txt |
|
2015-08-11
|
03 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
|
2015-08-11
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2015-08-09
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-08-09
|
03 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03, and its reviewer has the following comments: IANA has a question about this document's IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03, and its reviewer has the following comments: IANA has a question about this document's IANA Considerations section. IANA understands that the authors have indicated that this document is not requesting any IANA actions. However, RFC 2679, which is obsoleted by this document, is the reference for the A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM MIB. Please see: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaippmmetricsregistry-mib What do the authors intend to change so that the MIB's references to RFC2679 are changed to [ RFC-to-be ]? Or do the authors intend some other action? Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120. |
|
2015-08-05
|
03 | Bill Cerveny | Notification list changed to "Bill Cerveny" <ietf@wjcerveny.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis@ietf.org from "Bill Cerveny" <ietf@wjcerveny.com> |
|
2015-08-03
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mahalingam Mani |
|
2015-08-03
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mahalingam Mani |
|
2015-08-01
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
|
2015-07-30
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
|
2015-07-30
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
|
2015-07-30
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
|
2015-07-30
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
|
2015-07-28
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-07-28
|
03 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <ippm@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <ippm@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03.txt> (A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM) to Internet Standard The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM' <draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03.txt> as Internet Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-08-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This memo (RFC 2679 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of packets across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document. This memo makes RFC 2679 obsolete. Please note: This memo is replacing a very old Proposed Standard, making minimal changes. Please evaluate its suitability for There are two normative references to Informational RFCs: ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7312 The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2015-07-28
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2015-07-28
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2015-07-27
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call was requested |
|
2015-07-27
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2015-07-27
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call was requested |
|
2015-07-27
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2015-07-27
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-07-27
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2015-07-27
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2015-07-24
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2015-07-24
|
03 | Al Morton | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03.txt |
|
2015-07-13
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
|
2015-06-25
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2015-06-22
|
02 | Bill Cerveny | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Internet Standard. See section 1 of the draft for a detailed discussion. The document being replaced, RFC 2679, is a proposed standard. (2) 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 (RFC 2679 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of packets across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330. This document replaces (obsoletes) RFC 2679. Working Group Summary There was nothing unusual or controversial. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Surveyor Implementation Report for RFCs 2679-2680: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/60/slides/ippm-6.pdf https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-implement-02 Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? See slides and documents referenced in “Document Quality”. Personnel The document shepherd is Bill Cerveny. The responsible area director is Spencer Dawkins. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document was reviewed by the document shepherd for which changes were suggested and implemented in the draft. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No (9) 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? It has support across the working group in general and participants familiar with the topic support the document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Note downward refs documented by idnits in question #15. From idnits: -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC2679, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC2679 though, so this could be OK. The abstract states, “This memo makes RFC 2679 obsolete.” Other idnits issues have been reviewed and fixed where appropriate. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not Applicable (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. From idnits: ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7312 As discussed with Al Morton, editor: “In the past, Wes Eddy put in a standing exception for 2330, the original framework. We should ask for a similar exception for RFC 7312, which updates 2330, and has the same status. “In any case, Downrefs like these have to be on the exception list, or specifically noted in the IETF Last Call Notice.” (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 2679. RFC 2679 was a proposed standard; the new document will be an Internet standard. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). As stated in the draft, “This memo makes no requests of IANA.” There are no IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable. |
|
2015-06-22
|
02 | Bill Cerveny | Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
|
2015-06-22
|
02 | Bill Cerveny | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2015-06-22
|
02 | Bill Cerveny | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2015-06-22
|
02 | Bill Cerveny | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2015-06-22
|
02 | Bill Cerveny | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-06-22
|
02 | Al Morton | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-02.txt |
|
2015-03-26
|
01 | Bill Cerveny | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2015-01-26
|
01 | Al Morton | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-01.txt |
|
2015-01-06
|
00 | Bill Cerveny | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2014-10-24
|
00 | Bill Cerveny | Notification list changed to "Bill Cerveny" <ietf@wjcerveny.com> |
|
2014-10-24
|
00 | Bill Cerveny | Document shepherd changed to Bill Cerveny |
|
2014-10-24
|
00 | Bill Cerveny | Intended Status changed to Internet Standard from None |
|
2014-10-24
|
00 | Bill Cerveny | This document now replaces draft-morton-ippm-2679-bis instead of None |
|
2014-10-23
|
00 | Al Morton | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-00.txt |